D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineages & New Race/Culture Distinction

The latest Unearthed Arcana contains the Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood races. The Dhampir is a half-vampire; the Hexblood is a character which has made a pact with a hag; and the Reborn is somebody brought back to life.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Perhaps the bigger news is this declaration on how race is to be handled in future D&D books as it joins other games by stating that:

"...the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage."

 

[JEB]

I very strongly hope that your preference on this matter is not met.

Things like the kensei should be more common, not less.

I think D&D can have archetypes LIKE the samurai and kensei just fine, but they work better for more campaigns if they're not tied so strongly (both mechanically and aesthetically) to a single real-world culture.

 

[Remathilis]

The paladin is detached from real world "paladins" enough to still exist in D&D. It's not offending anyone, and is one of the most popular 5e classes. Same with the bard.

Druid and Monk have issues in their own right, but they don't need complete dropping, just slight revisions. Monks are too stereotypical ninja/martial artist for my tastes, and could be opened up a bit to include WWE style wrestlers. Druids could also be opened up a bit to include the Shaman archetype, filling the role of someone that draws magic from nature from any real life cultures.

Paladin is literally the Arthurian "knight in shining armor" and the bard is highly influenced by the western idea of the traveling minstrel and skald. I'd be hard pressed to find a Chinese or Aztec or First Nation equivalent to these, and Azzy specifically stated "any real-world culture".

And this really goes back to what I said to @Faolyn a page or so back; borrowing from any real-world culture is going to, in effect, appropriate an element of it since that is what we know. Personally, I love that I can have samurai, monks, druids, paladins, witches, cavaliers, skalds, ninjas, and shamans all running around at the same time in the same place. I think it makes the game stronger to borrow (respectfully) from these cultures. However, if we intend to walk on eggshells about removing anything that has a clear ethnic origin on the fear or appropriation or offending people, then go the next step and disassociate ALL the classes from any real-world archetyping akin to what Arcana Unearthed/Evolved did. Turn classes into generic pools of related mechanics that players flavor the way they want. Nobody is going to be upset with Greenbonds, Magisters, Unfettereds, or Oathsworns.

 

[Umbran]

Counterpoint: none of them ever pumped a single iron and they have the sad baby arms to prove it.

When you analyze the muscle attachments, it looks to be that those "sad baby arms" could curl 430 lbs or more. Sure, a many-ton animal won't be doing any pull-ups with those arms, but shredding our puny primate bodies would be easy for them.

 

[Azzy]

Well, goodbye bard, druid, paladin and monk classes...

Fortunately, the bard, druid, and paladin can find themselves adapted to other cultures fairly easily—there's always lorekeepers and entertainers, shamans, and religious warriors in most cultures. It's lamentable that the names of said classes are are very Euro-specific, but they come from a time when D&D was decidedly more Eurocentric. The monk... Well, that's an interesting case. At least 5e is trying to bend it beyond Kwai Chang Caine and Remo Williams, if only barely.

I very strongly hope that your preference on this matter is not met.

Things like the kensei should be more common, not less.

To each their own. I just want D&D to be more adept in accomodating more than Psuedo-European cultures. I just don't think that making <insert specific culture here> classes or subclasses is the best way to achieve that, though. This is largely influenced by the track record of both Oriental Adventures, which... there's a lot to say about. 5e's Kensei isn't so bad (there's room for dedicated weapon masters in pretty much all cultures), but samurai just falls into the "why bother" pile since we have existing warrior classes and there is no one-size-fits-all samurai archetype (as evinced by the variety of samurai depictions just within Japanese media).

 

[Mind of tempest]

on the monk it would help if they even knew what it is they are trying to copy before they try to find ways to expand it's concepts as it does not even do what it is supposed to be well yet.

 

[Umbran]

The hint is in the name. Experience. People tend to get better at things by doing stuff. Not that I actually bother using XP.


It is not exact simulation of course and there is a lot of abstraction. But that's not the same than the rules not representing anything.

So, if I stab things a lot (gaining XP), I get better at.. picking locks (because the proficiency bonus goes up)? Really? That's meaningful?

The narrative excuse for XP to cause a rise in power is "experience", but if you look at the details, saying that XP "mean" experience falls apart. But, it is terribly convenient and useful in the play of the game for us to not look that closely at it.

Now, the narrative excuse for the dwarf ASI was "Dwarves are hardy". But then we have to ask - what game purpose does this serve? Enforcing that background narrative on PCs is a significant restriction, and it needs to have a significant game play payoff to justify it.

And, I think you are seeing a realization that, overall, there isn't actually much of a payoff, as compared to just being able to play the character you want to play.

 

[Faolyn]

However, adapting drips and drabs can also be seen as cultural appropriation. Taking something from a culture and giving it to another creates it's own problems, esp if it divorces it from the original concept. You can't give katanas to Spartans no matter how you remix it...

It honestly depends on how you do it. I feel if you take the cultural elements and strip them down to their basics, you can avoid the appropriation. Take your two bits: One is a heavily militarized culture that had a highly stratified society. The other is a curved sword made by folding steel because the people of the area had low-quality iron, and only samurai could wield them (IIRC).

So, you can create a military culture that has managed to turn poor base materials into highly effective weapons. Remove the sexism, and you could remove pretty squicky possible pederasty by not having young people paired up with much older ones, but put young warriors together in semi-permanent squads (which reminds me of, say, the kids in the Horde of the new She-Ra). The base material for their weapons could be steel or bronze, or it could be wood, stone, obsidian, monster teeth, whatever; the weapon could be a sword, or a dagger, bow, or spear. One of the weapons they make is considered highly noble and only people of a particular social level or military rank can use them.

There: the seeds of a new culture that has only the barest similarities to the source cultures--bare enough that there's no appropriation.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It honestly depends on how you do it. I feel if you take the cultural elements and strip them down to their basics, you can avoid the appropriation. Take your two bits: One is a heavily militarized culture that had a highly stratified society. The other is a curved sword made by folding steel because the people of the area had low-quality iron, and only samurai could wield them (IIRC).

So, you can create a military culture that has managed to turn poor base materials into highly effective weapons. Remove the sexism, and you could remove pretty squicky possible pederasty by not having young people paired up with much older ones, but put young warriors together in semi-permanent squads (which reminds me of, say, the kids in the Horde of the new She-Ra). The base material for their weapons could be steel or bronze, or it could be wood, stone, obsidian, monster teeth, whatever; the weapon could be a sword, or a dagger, bow, or spear. One of the weapons they make is considered highly noble and only people of a particular social level or military rank can use them.

There: the seeds of a new culture that has only the barest similarities to the source cultures--bare enough that there's no appropriation.

ideally, add that to a 12 other properly refined unrelated concepts and few will notice nor care.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think D&D can have archetypes LIKE the samurai and kensei just fine, but they work better for more campaigns if they're not tied so strongly (both mechanically and aesthetically) to a single real-world culture.

I don’t think subclasses, feats, and other smaller specific choices, need to be nearly as broad as classes should be, and only some classes even need to be that broad.

Id rather end up with two mounted light cavalry subclasses, one that is inspired by and consulted on by Native Americans, and another by Mongolians, and a couple different mounted combat feats with different focuses, than a single example that is supposed to model “literally any light cavalry hero”.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don’t think subclasses, feats, and other smaller specific choices, need to be nearly as broad as classes should be, and only some classes even need to be that broad.

Id rather end up with two mounted light cavalry subclasses, one that is inspired by and consulted on by Native Americans, and another by Mongolians, and a couple different mounted combat feats with different focuses, than a single example that is supposed to model “literally any light cavalry hero”.

proper consultation groups would be nice plus mashing every light cavalry together would probably end up worse both mechanically and culturally.