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."

 

[Chaosmancer]

Here is the sequence of events:-

The 5e PHB gives the information required to play each playable race. That information includes, but is not limited to, racial modifiers to ability scores.

Later 5e products include new playable races, and the information required to play each race. Part of that information is the racial adjustment to ability scores.

Later, WotC publishes Tasha's, which gives DMs another option. That option is to allow DMs to turn those set racial ability score bonuses into floating ability score bonuses.

At this point, there is now a choice in the official published rules. Take the set bonuses, OR exchange them for floating bonuses.

Now they publish a note saying that from now on new races will not have set bonuses, only floating bonuses.

Now, for already published races, DMs have a choice: either use the set bonuses OR use the floating bonuses.

But, and here's the problem, they strongly imply that they will not provide the set bonuses for new races. Now, DMs do NOT have the choice to use the set bonuses for new races.

Choice removed.

Those on the other side of this debate on this thread have frequently posted that 'moar choice' is the reason (or a reason) why they like the floating bonuses. So why are they anti-choice now?

What's wrong with publishing future races with set ability score bonuses, while reminding DMs they have the option of turning them into floating bonuses? That would retain the choice for both sides.

So, why was the choice removed to have static ASIs for Humans, Half-Elves, Changelings, and Warforged before Tasha's was even printed?

This is the problem, you are declaring your future choices removed, when this design has been around. Heck, everyone is pointing to ASIs, but what about languages? A lot of races had "Common plus one language of your choice". Now that is the standard, but that doesn't mean that the choice was removed, because this was always a design decision they could (and did) utilize.

I mean, here, let me ask you this.

Name 5 races that you no longer have the choice to use static ASIs with. I can give you three of them, Dhampir, Hexblood, Reborn. You just need to give me two more.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

1 - Race isn't being dismantled. There are still numerous differences for every race/lineage that have nothing to do with an ability score adjustment. This is so obvious that ignoring it demonstrates something.
2 - It's also not about "freedom to choose." The primary reason, according to Wizards of the Coast and the individual designers, is that D&D is for everyone - not just white dudes. This is obviously stated and has been true for sometime. Misrepresenting this as "freedom to choose" ignores the game's legacy of racism and gender discrimination.

ASIs have literally nothing to do with D&D being for everyone. D&D has huge issues with problematic presentation, but ASIs have nothing to do with that. And if you believe otherwise, then any mechanics tied to race are equally problematic thus necessitating eliminating them as well.

Seriously, if there is one thing that gets my goat in this discussion, it is the min-maxers trying to present their desire to optimise their characters as some sort of social justice issue.

 

[Scribe]

Name 5 races that you no longer have the choice to use static ASIs with. I can give you three of them, Dhampir, Hexblood, Reborn. You just need to give me two more.

I'll get back to you on that. Could be a bit of wait, but we can circle back on this later.

I don't agree with this characterization at all, and I have said as much earlier in this thread. There are a variety of reasons why people may like or dislike a design choice, and people may have one or multiple reasons for said preference. Trying to characterize this as purely being about a "social/political stance the whole time" attempts to reduce a variety of complex individual preferences and viewpoints down to a monolithic argument. I don't think that's particularly respectful of the various arguments that have been presented thus far, regardless of which angle they may be coming from in this debate.

What argument? Seriously. In a world in which Tasha's is even presented as the DEFAULT, what argument can be made against maintaining the system 5e was sold under as an option going forward?

Its not a mechanical argument.
Its not something that they could not do, as they have for the life of the product.
Its not a lore argument AT ALL.
Its not an argument about forcing a choice at your table or mine.

What is the argument for denying an option, which has previously been seen as the default, or primary official option since release.

There isnt one. Its not a mechanical issue, its not a lore issue, its not a printed rules issue. So what is it?

Only one side in any discussion I've had here, has said 1 option has to be removed, and its not me.

So why?

 

[Mind of tempest]

ASIs have literally nothing to do with D&D being for everyone. D&D has huge issues with problematic presentation, but ASIs have nothing to do with that. And if you believe otherwise, then any mechanics tied to race are equally problematic thus decussating eliminating them as well.

Seriously, if there is one thing that gets my goat in this discussion, it is the min-maxers trying to present their desire to optimise their characters as some sort of social justice issue.

sir, I think you are miscategorizing the position of your opposition I suspect they generally are not mixmaxers trying to get more power they seem to just think this is a better idea than what was before.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

OR choosing the Wizard class at 1st level is what provides the +2 Intelligence rather than your lineage. Not saying that this is my particular preference, but this has been proposed by others as well in this thread.

For me, the only value ASIs have is for world building matters. If people want bigger numbers (in general) for starting characters, just use a more generous stat gen method. Personally, I'd be fine with losing the species based ASIs if it meant more unique stuff that extended over the life of the character. Floating initial ASIs (and level based ones for that matter) can die in a fire.

 

[Faolyn]

There it is. The dragon argument. It took awhile, but it has finally appeared.

Yes, because if you insist that halflings can't be as strong as goliaths because it doesn't make sense, then you can't be OK with other things that don't make sense.

If I can interject, it is not about the possibility of a halfling being stronger. It is the probability of the halfling being stronger.

So, a very low probability. And again, you've never said: should a halfling PC be penalized if there are no goliaths in the party?

I think we can all agree that character creation and development is integral to the game. Most posts on these boards revolve around it in one way or another. It is a step that must be done. Without, you cannot play the game. That being said, there is a group that wants the character creation/development to follow their own internal logic. That's it. D&D 5e advanced this internal logic. They wrote the rules regarding culture and ASIs, and said here is our game. Now, they want that to change without changing any other rulesets.

People have a right and a justification to say:

• This goes against what you sold me
• I don't like this change
• This breaks my internal logic

Yes, you have the right. What you don't have the right to do is say that this thing can't and shouldn't be done because you don't like it--especially when your internal logic seems to only care about an arbitrary bonus to a stat and not about the illogic behind dragons, which you dismissed as a D&D Godwinning.

And the first objection doesn't make sense. D&D is a game of faux-medieval magical hero-types who slay monsters, solve puzzles, save kingdoms, and the like, where they can play as warriors or spellcasters either human or not. It's not, nor has it ever been billed as, a game where certain races get bonuses or penalties to their stats.

And you're ignoring that you can still have weaker halflings and stronger goliaths because the rules no longer force that as the only option.

 

[Catulle]

Now, DMs do NOT have the choice to use the set bonuses for new races.

Choice removed.

What an asinine notion.

Of course DMs have the total freedom to set fixed bonus suites for any ancestries they please. If anything, by unshackling those bonuses from the defaults, they can adapt things to suit their own campaign worlds. More choice (assuming they can get their players to buy in, and I suspect where the crux of the debate truly rests - choice for the group as a whole, or the exertion of control by the one).

 

[Alzrius]

And both options do exist.

But you keep insisting that now they don't. That now, with no evidence that they won't do something like a recommended quick build, your option is gone.

You are insisting we have entered into a zero sum situation. We have not.

This sounds a lot like the Oberoni Fallacy, in that you're saying that not having a standardized set of racial ASIs alongside the floating ASI option isn't really a problem because DMs can generate them via fiat.

 

[Faolyn]

But, and here's the problem, they strongly imply that they will not provide the set bonuses for new races. Now, DMs do NOT have the choice to use the set bonuses for new races.

Choice removed.

The choice has not been removed! DMs always have the option of houseruling, using older rules, limiting races and classes, and anything else they want to do in their game. You haven't lost a single option or choice. You merely gained one more canon option.

 

[Faolyn]

Who has more choice, a person presented with 2 options, or a person provided with 1?

In this case, the latter, because the one option includes the original option.

You seem to be acting like the option is: Halflings must put +2 in Dex or Halflings can put +2 in any stat other than Dex, and really, you have to put it in Str because screw goliaths.

In reality, the option is: Halflings can put +2 in any stat they want. Including Dex.