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."

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've played below-average and oddball characters, too. It can be fun.

I guess I don't understand the relevance. Are we back to, "My goliath absolutely needs a 17 strength at 1st level, but you...you should totally be content with something lower"...?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I've played below-average and oddball characters, too. It can be fun.

I guess I don't understand the relevance. Are we back to, "My goliath absolutely needs a 17 strength at 1st level, but you...you should totally be content with something lower"...?

Especially with @Scott Christian and @Crimson Longinus and others trying to justify it by saying "well, you still get a bonus to something else! No complaining allowed!"

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

The first setting I ever played in was Mystara, a setting whose is LITERALLY "Fantasy X Culture". From Wikipedia...

"The "Known World" covers the most notable nations of Mystara, the ones most commonly used in Mystara-based campaigns and featured in fiction. It includes the Thyatian Empire, which could be compared to Byzantine Empire; the Grand Duchy of Karameikos (which includes the town of Threshold, the default setting of many classic D&D adventures), comparable to medieval southeastern Europe; the Principalities of Glantri, which is similar to medieval western Europe, ruled by wizard-princes; the Ethengar Khanate, a Mongol-like society; the merchant-run Republic of Darokin, which is based somewhat loosely on the mercantile states of Medieval Italy; the Emirates of Ylaruam which have an Arabic flavor; the Heldannic Territories, ruled by an order of religious Knights devoted to the Immortal Vanya, similar to the Teutonic Knights; the Atruaghin Clans, which have an Amerindian feel; the nation of Sind, based on India during the rule of the Mughals; the Northern Reaches Kingdoms of Ostland, Vestland, the Soderfjord Jarldoms, based on Scandinavian kingdoms at various periods of history; the Dwarven nation of Rockhome; the elven Kingdom of Alfheim; the Halfling lands of the Five Shires; and the Alphatian Empire, ruled by wizards and other spellcasters."

And that doesn't include the Savage Coast (Spanish Conquistadors) and the Hollow World (even more of a hodge-podge of settings, from Pirates of the Caribbean to Ancient Egypt), nor Thunder Rift introducing rakasta (cat-men like Tabaxi) who were Japanese in culture.

There is no way such a setting could exist now; its very nature would be offensive. I'm mildly surprised WotC even acknowledges its existence and doesn't try to bury it along with Birthright in the "lets never speak of this again" bin of history. I'll be surprised if the "Old Empires" or Moonshae Isles" similarly survive considering how much they are literally "fantasy Greece/Egypt or Norse/Ireland" in design.

But I digress. I guess the good news is I no longer have to work on my Vryloka/vampiric race anymore....

I perfectly know mystara. I've played in it. Is based on tropes and that's ok. Never found it offensive. Maybe I'm unsensitive, don't know. I've loved Al-Qadim. It reproduces "one thousand and one night" atmospheres in excellent way. Never found it offensive against middle age arabians. Maybe I'm insensitive, don't know. I raise my arms. What seems to me is that all that can be related to real world is starting to be considered to be removed not for its offensivness but to prevent over-interpretation.

 

[Don Durito]

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?

What would it achieve? Everyone would still max out their main ability score in anticipation of eventually needing it, unless you were explicitly playing a one shot.

And if we're using proficiency score to determine things, why include the ability score at all?

 

[FireLance]

What would it achieve? Everyone would still max out their main ability score in anticipation of eventually needing it, unless you were explicitly playing a one shot.

And if we're using proficiency score to determine things, why include the ability score at all?

You only need to start with a 14 in the ability score important to you because you can always use your 4th, 8th, and 12th level ASIs to keep your ability score modifier in step with your proficiency modifier next level, if that is what you want.

Because it reduces the advantage of maxing out your ability score at 1st level, it makes a broader variety of characters more viable and hence, seen in play, even for hardcore min-maxers. If the net advantage of 16 Strength over 14 Strength at 1st level is +1 damage and higher carrying capacity, more players might be willing to go for 14 Strength (or maybe 15 Strength, to meet heavy armor requirements) instead if it means a higher Wisdom, granting an additional +1 bonus to Wisdom ability checks and saving throws.

The proficiency bonus only sets the cap. If your ability score modifier is +1, it's still only +1.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Never found it offensive against middle age arabians. Maybe I'm insensitive, don't know.

Did it occur to you that it might be because you aren't Arabian?

 

[TrickyDUK2]

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 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"



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.



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.

Just because I’m interested in how this may affect future D&D vs. current D&D, doesn’t this change miss the point if it doesn’t apply retrospectively.

At the moment Tasha’s is optional (if you have book) and UA is playtest. But this UA appears to make a statement that there is now an official change to rules design. So how does that apply retrospectively in a consistent way? Again, there is now two standards until we have 6e.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Did it occur to you that it might be because you aren't Arabian?

Maybe. But I've red One Thousand and One Night also and Al Qadim seems me in line with the depiction of OTON which is not an interpretation of somebody else culture. So my point of view is why OTON is ok and AQ no?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

For anything but new races.

You are claiming a flaw but a flaw in what?

They have stated that new lineages going forward will use this method. But I don't think it is even a stretch to say that they were talking solely about new lineages going forward in fifth edition. The 40 races already printed are printed under the system you want. It took them five and a half years to get to this point. That means that if they released these lineages at the same rate (which they likely won't because many of these races were released early on in the cycle) it would take them until 2027 to have a 50/50 split.

If we assume 6e comes out in 2024, then your system will still be the majority option by that time. And then we only have supposition that maybe they will go forward with an entirely new style of race for 6e. Based on a single early playtest of a concept for 5e. That is a massive jump man.

I absolutely did not.

But a dream eater style hungry ghost, defined by high intelligence and insight into people (+2/+1 Int/Wis) is a concept you cut completely out by saying that I must be one of strong, fast, tough or charming.

What I think you are missing is that each of these concepts was designed so broadly that they could have any combination of scores. Not only because they can be any race, but because their nature can be nearly anything as well.

Let us shift from the Damphir for a moment and look at the Hexblood. Fey magic could manifest as

The Hag, Korred, or Red Cap's unnatural strength -> STR
The Quickling or Sprites speed -> Dex
The powerful life of nature or treants -> Con
The connection to the wilds or discerning eye of sprites -> Wis
The intelligence of Hags or other powerful fey -> Int
Fey Charm -> Cha

Also, part of a Hexblood could have been seeking a boon, perhaps the drank a potion that a hag prepared that altered their body to give them increased X. OR they bathed in a magic spring. Or they ate fruit from the Fey Wild. Or they were blessed by three fairy godmothers.

How do you limit a concept that broad down to two scores? Why would you bother to do so? Their breadth is part of their appeal as a catch all idea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I want to reiterate too.

What races are you trying to define here? I did Hexblood, but look at Reborn.

1) A human who had his mind and organs replaced with clockwork machines

2) A elfen ceramic doll given life by her creator

3) Adam, son of Frankenstein

4) A Dwarf who was killed in a cave-in, but the God Dumathoin preserved him and sent him on a mission

5) A Gnome whose parents built them clockwork limbs to save their life after being mauled by an owlbear.

6) A Goliath who went on a spirit quest, and was possessed by a ghost seeking revenge.

I could go on and on. All of these can fit into the Reborn. Some are better fits than others, I'll grant, but all of them use the concept, and I made a human, gnome, goliath, elf and dwarf. Which covers five different races with five different ASI's, plus some of their changes wouldn't be the same either.

So, what race are we defining here that needs these ASI?