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]

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.

I will try it a different way. A +3 versus a +2 is better. That is an objective fact, if and only if - you exclude all other parts of the game.

Not sure if you read my other fifty posts, but that has been my argument all along. (Lots of knob talk.) If you take into account the other parts of the game, then suddenly it becomes an opinion.

So again, you are right, they are better off if we stare at a rogue under the microscope and can only see a single stat. But looking at the character as a whole, this +1 difference pans out to be important to some and not as important to others. Effective to some and not effective for others. Hence, opinion.

 

[JEB]

Have Wizards designers at some point suggested that dropping racial ASIs was primarily a design decision, and not driven by the criticisms about bioessentialism? Everything I've seen them talk about is how they're trying to do better with race and make the game more inclusive, not "we thought this was bad design so we're changing it". I suppose they could be saying it's about race and inclusivity, and secretly it's about design... but shouldn't we take them at their word?

Because I have an incessant need to be accurate, I dug up this io9 article from last year. While it still seems clear that criticisms about bioessentialism were a big factor in the change, and one that gets emphasized throughout (further reinforced by this earlier io9 article)... Crawford does also note that they were aware of complaints about folks feeling pigeonholed into certain classes by their race choices, and wanted folks to be able to play whatever they wanted. So it wasn't all about race and inclusivity concerns.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I will try it a different way. A +3 versus a +2 is better. That is an objective fact, if and only if - you exclude all other parts of the game.

Not sure if you read my other fifty posts, but that has been my argument all along. (Lots of knob talk.) If you take into account the other parts of the game, then suddenly it becomes an opinion.

That is true, if an only if you ignore all of the cases that I listed above that will benefit more from a +3 than they ever would with a +2 and +1 in a different ability score.

So again, you are right, they are better off if we stare at a rogue under the microscope and can only see a single stat. But looking at the character as a whole, this +1 difference pans out to be important to some and not as important to others. Effective to some and not effective for others. Hence, opinion.

So, you're against allowing floating ASIs, right? If you want your players to have that +1 to a different ability score, make sure that it matters in your campaign. However, don't tell me that I'm not allowed to officially do the opposite of that at my table. At my table, who your character's class tells you to be is what you should be good at, not relying on the DM to allow you to feel the benefit of having that +1 in a different score.

 

[Scott Christian]

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).

It is the primary version in the PHB. I don't know what to tell you. So whether you like it or not, it is the option. Your option, point buy is the alternative. (For the record, I have used rolling for 1 out of my last 6 characters. The rolled character far exceeded, I mean FAR exceeded anything I could get with point buy. And the game didn't even break nor were the other players upset. Amazing.) (Rolled a 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11. I know ridiculous. I even asked the DM if he wanted me to tone the numbers down, and everyone else yelled that I should keep them. And last for the record, he is a variant human rogue. I took Skilled as my feat and placed the 11 in con. )

 

[Remathilis]

It is the primary version in the PHB. I don't know what to tell you. So whether you like it or not, it is the option. Your option, point buy is the alternative. (For the record, I have used rolling for 1 out of my last 6 characters. The rolled character far exceeded, I mean FAR exceeded anything I could get with point buy. And the game didn't even break nor were the other players upset. Amazing.) (Rolled a 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11. I know ridiculous. I even asked the DM if he wanted me to tone the numbers down, and everyone else yelled that I should keep them. And last for the record, he is a variant human rogue. I took Skilled as my feat and placed the 11 in con. )

Yeah, it's a legacy artifact that has long outlived its usefulness. I haven't used it since the end of 3.5 and haven't missed it.

Everyone has stories about the character whose lowest score was a 12. You know what you never hear though? The story about the guy who rolled 12, 11, 11, 9, 7, 6. You know why? Because those scores got tossed into the trash so fast (with or without DM's knowledge or permission) that it would make your head spin. The same was true for the fighter who rolled a 1 on hit points. Those rolls never last, but the guys who have a bonus to all scores sure do.

Blech. The sooner D&D gets rid of lootbox chargen like every modern RPG on Earth, the better.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, you're against allowing floating ASIs, right?

I am not against them at all. In fact, I am fine with them being an optional rule. I personally don't think it matters. I have stated other ways it can be done, because the way it is done now is clunky. I have stated that those in favor of this rule should look at the effects it might have. I have also stated that the effects of a +1 are not as great as everyone makes them out to be. And lastly, I have stated whenever they change things, they do it to make things easier.
Every single one of these is an opinion. I can back all of these opinions up with examples and logic. But it doesn't make them fact. It makes them supported opinions.

That is true, if an only if you ignore all of the cases that I listed above that will benefit more from a +3 than they ever would with a +2 and +1 in a different ability score.

What cases? A base rogue. If it is an objective fact then it will play out the same across all classes. It doesn't.

A person could argue (and probably be correct for many tables playing) that the player who uses their PC creatively produces more die variance than an extra +1. Should they nerf that too, whereas any player that says something about the scene gets advantage? It could be argued a wizard that uses their spells creatively supersedes an extra +1. Should they list exactly how the spells can and can't be used to make sure another player doesn't outshine the other?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because I have an incessant need to be accurate, I dug up this io9 article from last year. While it still seems clear that criticisms about bioessentialism were a big factor in the change, and one that gets emphasized throughout (further reinforced by this earlier io9 article)... Crawford does also note that they were aware of complaints about folks feeling pigeonholed into certain classes by their race choices, and wanted folks to be able to play whatever they wanted. So it wasn't all about race and inclusivity concerns.

Yup, you're right. Straight from the horses' mouth: the Tasha's changes were part of WotC's overall strategy of being more sensitive about "race".

 

[Scott Christian]

Everyone has stories about the character whose lowest score was a 12. You know what you never hear though? The story about the guy who rolled 12, 11, 11, 9, 7, 6. You know why? Because those scores got tossed into the trash so fast (with or without DM's knowledge or permission) that it would make your head spin. The same was true for the fighter who rolled a 1 on hit points. Those rolls never last, but the guys who have a bonus to all scores sure do.

To be fair, my favorite character of all time was rolled (2nd edition). His highest stat was a 13.

In the end it is a belief that I can perform as well or better than others that might have better stats in the primary attribute. It is also an acceptance that when that doesn't happen (for sometimes it doesn't) that I can still have fun.

I guess in the end, I find it difficult to believe that people truly can't play a game where they aren't exactly equal as the player next to them. In my personal belief, it seems a bit childish, to not be able to accept a small hinderance for a small gain elsewhere. And to complain about the "unfairness" just seems silly. But I know that is my opinion, and that opinion was formed a long time ago because the tables I have played at (and still do) come from a fun loving place where friends gather. If my experiences were different, I may be arguing from the other side.

 

[FireLance]

This and every other thread about racial ASIs has convinced me that ability scores are over-valued by the vast majority of gamers, to the point that I think the following should become the standard rule in 5e moving forward:

For the purpose of calculating your saving throw and other DCs and your modifiers to attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws, your ability score modifier is capped at your proficiency bonus.

That means at 1st level, a gnome fighter with Strength 14 has the same attack bonus as a half-orc fighter with Strength 16, and a gnome wizard with Intelligence 16 has the same saving throw DC for their spells as a half-orc wizard with Intelligence 14.

I think this would promote diversity in a way that floating ability score bonuses can never hope to do. Instead of every fighter starting out with 16 Strength and every wizard starting out with 16 Intelligence at 1st level, we might see more variation in ability scores now.

It even supports the principle that "it's not how much Strength you have, it's how you use it" - you need to learn more before you can use your 16 Strength to full effect.

Who's with me?

 

[Remathilis]

I guess in the end, I find it difficult to believe that people truly can't play a game where they aren't exactly equal as the player next to them. In my personal belief, it seems a bit childish, to not be able to accept a small hinderance for a small gain elsewhere. And to complain about the "unfairness" just seems silly.

If that is true, next session you play, roll a d12 instead of a d20 when called for and let me know how it went.

Like you, I started in 2e. And I remember wanting to play a paladin or a ranger and being forced to settle for a fighter. Or later in 3e when the wizard (who rolled godlike for his stats) was a better rogue than the actual rogue. As a DM, I was likewise amazed every PC (and I do mean every, in multiple groups who never met each other) somehow always had rolled better than 50% of thier potential max hp before Con mod, often times 75% or more. In the end, it didn't take long to figure out people were willing to cheat (again sometimes the DM allowing the reroll, sometimes the first roll was discarded quietly by the player before the DM knew). So in the end, removing the possibility of getting low scores was worth the cost of getting high ones. It cut down on the cheating and whining, and that was good enough for me.