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."

 

[Faolyn]

D&D has always been a splat based game. You choose race and class. Now race is being dismantled in the name of freedom to choose. Why not do the same to classes? There are a lot of games that work like that.

(A) D&D isn't currently set up to be a point-based system, which is what's needed for the class to be made modular. Especially since you only get racial abilities once (start of game) but you get class abilities every level.

(B) They kind of tried that back in 2e with the Skills and Options, and I don't think anyone liked it

(C) They're actually sort of giving it a try now with the feats that mimic multiclassing.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

The desire for the company to change the product as they see fit for whatever reasons they deem appropriate, whether that's for purposes of errata, game preferences, company values, or what have you.

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?

You say it's not these things, but I read - much as I know you have - various people put forth such arguments in this thread. So your inability to find an appropriate answer may have to do with you rejecting any alternative answers, arguments, or explanations other than your own, of which you have already made up your mind on.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Is this Popper's theory of tolerance translated to D&D? "More choices means I have lost the ability to choose less choice"?

 

[bedir than]

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.

Yes, I will listen to the people pushing for the change and the designers when the describe the change.

Your disingenuous slander of considering me a min-maxer for agreeing with designers' intent is laughable.

Have honest conversations with people.

 

[Faolyn]

OK, to get to another part of this issue, I think at least some of the problem is with the way the game treats culture--they do so in a way that's often synonymous with race. Just the other, "learned" parts of the race statblock.

As an example, pulling from the Ancestries and Culture book from Arcanist Press, elf lineage includes age/lifespan, size, speed, Darkvision, Keen Senses, Fey Ancestries, and Trance. Cultures are then split into High, Wood, and Dark, and each of those includes the racial ASIs. This, I think, is part of the problem, because people get the idea that if you have a halfling raised by goliaths, there's no way that halfling is going to get +2 Str. And while I fully believe, as y'all have seen, that halflings should be able to put that +2 in Strength for any reason they want, I agree it's a bit silly that "raised by goliaths" should be the sole justification or reason.

In reality, though, culture shouldn't be presented as being the other part of race. It should be independent of it. So a culture should be along the line:

Fey Forest Dweller. You were raised in the dark and mysterious fey-filled forests. The sylvan magic has permeated your character, causing them to develop unusual abilities. Pick two of the following abilities: where possible abilities include forest gnome-style beast speech, eladrin-style fey step, firbolg-style turning invisible, cantrips and 1/rest 1st-level spell, etc.

versus

Open Woods Dweller. There are lawless woodlands between the kingdoms. Some people, like many elves and orcs, prefer to live there, disdaining human "civilization." Others, like bandits and exiles, have little choice where else to live. Pick two of the following abilities: where possible abilities include wood elf-style increased movement, wood elf-style ability to hide in lightly obscured abilities, specific weapon proficiencies, such as in bows and spears, and proficiency in Nature or Survival, ability to find food and materials in woodlands, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

The part that I don't get that I see here, youtube, reddit, and others places is how +2 to a nonprimary ability matters so much.


Does a +2 to strength for a Goliath rogue do that much?

No. Unless you think there shouldn't be goliath rogue and all goliaths should be strength PCs.

And if you do think that, then you are proving the pro-floater's side's point. That racial ability score adjustments hamper creativity.

 

[Scribe]

You say it's not these things, but I read - much as I know you have - various people put forth such arguments in this thread. So your inability to find an appropriate answer may have to do with you rejecting any alternative answers, arguments, or explanations other than your own, of which you have already made up your mind on.

No, I simply fail to see how their arguments have any validity at all.

If Tasha's exists as the default, but the pre-Tasha's system is presented as an option as well, and maintained and continued going forward (which they have said they wont do, hence the entire issue) then not a single argument presented makes sense. There's only one.

They, for reasons, wish to remove ASI from Race as a restriction, or part of the definition of what a Race is.

I get it, if that is the argument thats being forwarded then fine. I certainly hope to see Wizards openly declare that they do not believe races (sorry lineages) should be tied to ASI going forward, and I'd love to hear why.

 

[bedir than]

The part that I don't get that I see here, youtube, reddit, and others places is how +2 to a nonprimary ability matters so much.


Does a +2 to strength for a Goliath rogue do that much?

No. Unless you think there shouldn't be goliath rogue and all goliaths should be strength PCs.

And if you do think that, then you are proving the pro-floater's side's point. That racial ability score adjustments hamper creativity.

I love my Hill Dwarf bladesinger. I rolled, and put strength as his 4th attribute. Most combats he uses attack cantrips keying off of strength. Is he optimized? Nope. Does it ruin the fun for the party? Nope.

 

[Scribe]

I love my Hill Dwarf bladesinger. I rolled, and put strength as his 4th attribute. Most combats he uses attack cantrips keying off of strength. Is he optimized? Nope. Does it ruin the fun for the party? Nope.

Indeed, or any Charisma based class, with my old Tiefling with the -2 modifier.

Imagine, playing without optimization, what a sin.

 

[Faolyn]

They, for reasons, wish to remove ASI from Race as a restriction, or part of the definition of what a Race is.

ASIs aren't restrictions unless you believe that certain races shouldn't take certain classes, or be penalized for taking them. That there should be no goliath rogues or halfling fighters?

So can we assume that you actually want to bring back racial restrictions for classes? Because otherwise, I have no idea why you would consider a +2 stat bonus to be a restriction.