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."

 

[Scott Christian]

Uh, not at all. Stop with the strawmen, please. D&D is based around randomness (to an extent). I never argued against removing randomness from the game, just having the firbolg rogue be just as effective of a rogue as a halfling.

Right, and in your own words, the way to make him be the best he can be is to get his dex as high as he can possibly get it. That is different than, I must have the same as a firebolg as a halfling or elf. And if you want it the same, just roll 4d6. The odds are in your favor. Heck, you might even start with an 18.
But again, him being better by starting at first level with a 16 instead of a 15, and then not receiving the other advantage one might accrue from a different stat, is "better" in your opinion. It is not a fact. It might be a fact for your table. It might be a fact if much of the game is combat and there are other rogues around you with a higher dex. But, a simple comparison between classes reveals that it is an opinion. A very fair one at that, but opinion nonetheless.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Until next edition, yes, unless there are new races, like we are going to see, which will not be covered in the way I would prefer.

I will not have exactly what I want, because going forward, it will all be floating, which I do not want.

So, you would like to complain now, about a design decision for this edition, because it might effect a future edition that hasn't been designed yet?

Maybe in 2024 if they release 6e, you will be right. But it could also be until 2040 or 2060. They want 5e to be evergreen, they may not release a 6e soon.

And if they do, they may give you quick builds for those races. Neither of us can tell that right now.

And yes, I basically gave floating ASI, cutting out Wis/Int because I prefer restrictions, to pure floating. In my mind, its due to the typical tropes of vampires. Stronger, faster, harder to kill, and with the 'charm' of Charisma.

And by doing that, you are cutting out a concept specifically included within the write up, telling me that the psychic vampire option specifically included in the options isn't supported.

You prefer restrictions, and you can have that preference, but you are also taking the most interesting concept for me and telling me "Nah, that isn't worth playing"

I then describe how you could just use floating, to cover any other creation myth you wish to embrace.

Which is exactly what they did in this. They presented a wide variety of potential versions, under a single name, and gave it floating ASIs.

So, they have done what you suggested.

Both systems can exist. Mine, will not. That is fully, and entirely my issue with this. I do not care if you prefer floating, you will have it. Official restrictions WILL go away at some point in the future, if this system is accepted and presented by Wizards as the only option. It is not complicated.

For the entire rest of the life of the Fifth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, your system exists.

If you want to take issue with the potential design of 6e, then that is an entirely different proposal. 6e isn't being designed right now. Sure, maybe this decision will inform their design of 6e. Maybe it will be so well received that when 6e is released, they won't give recommended archetype builds for elves and dwarves. Or maybe it won't. Maybe 6e will have both systems.

But, again, that is based off of no evidence. This is design for 5e, not 6e. If you want to protest the design of 6e, then go ahead and tell them they are designing it wrong, but that doesn't apply to this.

 

[Scribe]

So, you would like to complain now, about a design decision for this edition, because it might effect a future edition that hasn't been designed yet?

You call it complain, I call it raise a concern about what I see is a flaw.

And if they do, they may give you quick builds for those races. Neither of us can tell that right now.

They may, did they with this UA where they SPECIFICALLY call out that Tasha's will be the way going forward?

For the entire rest of the life of the Fifth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, your system exists.

For anything but new races.

You prefer restrictions, and you can have that preference, but you are also taking the most interesting concept for me and telling me "Nah, that isn't worth playing"

I absolutely did not.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Deception, intimidation, performance and persuasion are all under the Rogue feature skills. So he can have a bonus for four skills, one in his mind his character might use just as much. But, he obviously has no idea how to play.

Those are not "features" of the "base rogue". Those are skills that can be taken by a rogue character. There is no mechanical advantage to having those as a base rogue, those will more often than not just be used for roleplay.

I am not saying that they don't know how to play, anyone that is playing D&D and having fun (with the rest of their table) is playing the game "correctly". However, a rogue character with a +4 in Dexterity will be overall more effective at using their rogue features than one with a +3 in Dexterity and +1 on Strength (or any other ability score that doesn't outright benefit their class/subclass's mechanics). This is objective fact.

Look, for a side that argues vehemently that without floating ASIs they can't realize and fully flesh out their character, this seems to be an awfully limited view.

It seems like an awfully limited view to not be able to imagine a world where there's an orc that was born with a genetic condition that made them smart and nimble instead of strong and hardy.

But with random stat generation they probably aren't, were there static ASIs or no. One of them will just randomly be better. To me that is far worse than a discrepancy caused by intentionally choosing it. A pointless random imbalance that simulates nothing (except perhaps that life isn't fair.)

Right, and in your own words, the way to make him be the best he can be is to get his dex as high as he can possibly get it. That is different than, I must have the same as a firebolg as a halfling or elf. And if you want it the same, just roll 4d6. The odds are in your favor. Heck, you might even start with an 18.

I don't know about you two, but I use Point Buy/Standard Array. I don't like my characters to be determined by the Dice Gods. The campaign can be decided by the Dice Gods, just not who I (or who my players) play.

But again, him being better by starting at first level with a 16 instead of a 15, and then not receiving the other advantage one might accrue from a different stat, is "better" in your opinion. It is not a fact. It might be a fact for your table. It might be a fact if much of the game is combat and there are other rogues around you with a higher dex. But, a simple comparison between classes reveals that it is an opinion. A very fair one at that, but opinion nonetheless.

He can't be the best base rogue that they can be unless they get their DEX as high as they can. Pre-Tasha's, at level 1, Rock Gnomes were objectively worse at being rogues than halflings.

And I stress, this is not an opinion, it is objective fact. A rogue will Sneak Attack more often and with more damage the higher Dexterity score they have.

 

[Scribe]

You prefer restrictions, and you can have that preference, but you are also taking the most interesting concept for me and telling me "Nah, that isn't worth playing"

I'm just going to reiterate actually, as I read over my post, I didnt say this at all. You are just the latest in a long list of posts within this thread to very intentionally misstate my position which from my perspective has been exceedingly clear.

I already told Wizards that not having ASI defined by the races is a mistake. I see that most people on twitter are responding with the same idea.

Super over people quoting me, and then telling me what I'm saying when its not at all what I said, so, peace.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But with random stat generation they probably aren't, were there static ASIs or no. One of them will just randomly be better. To me that is far worse than a discrepancy caused by intentionally choosing it. A pointless random imbalance that simulates nothing (except perhaps that life isn't fair.)

The goal isn’t fairness; it’s to minimize optimized race/class choices.

 

[Arial Black]

I said "base rogue features". The Swashbuckler is a subclass, and therefore not the "base rogue".

You either misread my post or did a strawman argument.

You said that having Cha 16 doesn't help them use their rogue features (you changed it to 'base' rogue features later). But whether the rogue gets her features from her class or subclass is irrelevant to the rogue. For her, she has a bunch of features, she's a single class rogue, and she wouldn't get ANY of her class or subclass features if she wasn't a rogue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Those are not "features" of the "base rogue". Those are skills that can be taken by a rogue character. There is no mechanical advantage to having those as a base rogue, those will more often than not just be used for roleplay.

I am not saying that they don't know how to play, anyone that is playing D&D and having fun (with the rest of their table) is playing the game "correctly". However, a rogue character with a +4 in Dexterity will be overall more effective at using their rogue features than one with a +3 in Dexterity and +1 on Strength (or any other ability score that doesn't outright benefit their class/subclass's mechanics). This is objective fact.

So you just decided that skills are not an important facet of class that gets the most skills and and has a feature that enhances those skills? Ok, mate.

 

[Remathilis]

With that logic, then they should not allow dice rolling for attributes. I mean, if it is an "objective fact" that the extra +1 a player gets is better, then rolling will most likely produce an unfair advantage.

Yup. Welcome to the party. Dice rolls have no business in CharGen, except for when the PC is randomly determining an option they could have chosen freely (for example, personality traits on background). A PC's ability scores, hit points, starting gold for gear, or starting spells should never be random, and it goes double for any system where those random rolls can influence your class and race choice though ability score mins and maxes.

Which of why I ignore rolled ability scores when it comes to discussion of ASI; you've chosen to gamble with your PC by rolling, don't expect ASI to save you from bad rolls.

Alea iacta est

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So you just decided that skills are not an important facet of class that gets the most skills and and has a feature that enhances those skills? Ok, mate.

No. I'm saying that having proficiency in Charisma-based skills and having a higher Charisma score don't enhance your ability to use your main rogue feature (Sneak Attack), while having higher Dexterity does. Skills are important to the class, mostly for non-combat purposes, but the class is balanced around combat (all classes are). A rogue will more often than not be mechanically better off taking a higher Dexterity score than Charisma score.

You said that having Cha 16 doesn't help them use their rogue features (you changed it to 'base' rogue features later). But whether the rogue gets her features from her class or subclass is irrelevant to the rogue. For her, she has a bunch of features, she's a single class rogue, and she wouldn't get ANY of her class or subclass features if she wasn't a rogue.

I clarified "base rogue features". A swashbuckler benefits mechanically from having a high Charisma score, but Arcane Tricksters don't. I said "base rogue features" for the purpose of avoiding this route of the discussion. It doesn't matter. My point is "the majority of rogues benefit mechanically from having a higher Dexterity score than Charisma score" and then you came into the thread and quoted my yelling "wHaT aBoUt SwAsHbUcKlErS?!?!?"