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."

 

[Catulle]

@doctorbadwolf can you tell me exactly what the harm is, in having both systems (Floating vs Fixed) 'official' and supported, yes even for new races, going forward?

What's the harm in providing THAC0 options as a sidebar?

 

[Scribe]

What's the harm in providing THAC0 options as a sidebar?

Far more complex than a one time deal on character creation dont you think?

 

[Catulle]

That has pretty high chance of coming across as problematic.

Well, it was the 90s, I think it came with the territory

 

[Don Durito]

I think it's a class effectiveness thing.

-2 STR makes you a bad barbarian
Disadvantage on shoves and lower carrying capacity doesn't make you suck at barbarianism.

Well yes. I said as much earlier. Arguments based on class access are much more reasonable.

It's not an issue of biological essentialism anymore than Aarockra's being able to fly is. (Unless it is felt that the mere existence of non-human races is problematic - but no one has made that argument).

So let's say it here - because the political argument is weak but keeps intruding. If it's morally wrong for some races to be stronger than others, than it's morally wrong to have those races at all. This is not equivalent to arguments about gender essentialism for Strength as was sugggested earlier in the thread. Gender essentialism is wrong, because it sends a single to female players that, if they want to play a character who is female, they will have to settle for being second best in the fictional game. Halfings being less strong than half-orcs would only be a similar issue if there were halfling real world players. Having 3ft tall species alongside 8ft tall ones in the same game is entirely our choice. We don't have to have them, no real world identity is being excluded if we do not include them.

Now this is on somewhat more shaky ground when we move from something like Strength based on size, to something like Intelligence. In part because it more likely to run into real world prejudices and the like, but also in part because while a +2 Intelligence doesn't really represent anything other than itself, a strength difference represents something which is baked right there into the very conception and appearance of certain races. But there's also the fact that races of different intelligences is just kind of a dumb idea anyway, for practical purposes.

 

[Catulle]

Far more complex than a one time deal on character creation dont you think?

Or infravision as an alt-darkvision?

Or any number of legacy rules?

 

[Faolyn]

And this is not problematic biological essentialism because..? Also why we have an ability score called 'strength' if it doesn't measure how strong the creature is?

Because wings, gills, flippers, horns, pointy teeth, etc., are actual biological things and attributes are not.

Yes there is. +2 ASI is best you can get at beginning, half-orcs already had that, so the PC one cannot be stronger than that. They cannot be similarly exceptionally stronger than the rest of their species than the halflings with floating ASIs can.

A half-orc PC can be exceptionally stronger than many half-orc NPCs. Depending on how they roll, they might have a Strength of 20.

Or, with a floating ASI, an Intelligence of 20, making them exceptionally smarter than any half-orc NPC. Or a Charisma of 20, making them exceptionally more personable, etc.

You again seem to be assuming that every PC is going to put that bonus in Strength, and every NPC is going to follow suit. This isn't true by any stretch of the means.

Of course, NPCs can have stats as high as 30, if the DM wants them to, and without epic boons or wishes or being a super high-level barbarian, no PC can ever have a stat higher than 20. So the entire complaint is moot.

Why can't there be a dwarf that is better flyer than an aarakocra?

Because "flight" isn't in the list of PC traits for dwarfs. If a dwarf were to obtain the ability to fly later on in the game, they might indeed end up learning how to be a better aerobatic than an aarakocra. In the same way that there are people in the real world who don't have legs but have gotten prosthetics and can run a heck of a lot better than I can ever hope to, because I apparently rolled 3d6 down the line and mostly rolled badly.

So instead of being stronger they will have traits to represent that they are stronger?

Wait is some races being stronger than others are bad thing or not?

Races already have traits that make them stronger. I pointed out several of them.

There is nothing wrong with some races being stronger than others. Practically every single goliath in any given world will be stronger than practically every single halfling in that same world.

The problem is denying the players the options to be something other than a stereotype. The problem is saying, no, you can't play a particularly Intelligent or Wise or Healthy or Personable or Strong Halfling; you're only allowed to play an Agile one, because there's a chance that you might end up being better than a gnome or firbolg or dwarf or tiefling or orc and heavens forbid that your character may have actually put some effort into being good at their chosen vocation.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

To be more tedious, and come back to Earthdawn (which does do "racial" ability mods, though in a more math-y fashion, as it Earthdawn's wont), the defining trait to me for playing an orc was gahad - a kind of emotional hangover that they got for not acting immediately on a few (player-defined) prompts. I've used it playing DnD/PF half orcs since as a guide, first instinct is to find an aggressive approach, then de-escalate from there. It was always way more helpful for creating game than a neg 2 to an ability. Or two, since systems really want to punish the poor half-orc...

What's the harm in providing THAC0 options as a sidebar?

Yeah, it's exactly this. The game is moving forward. We don't have optional rules for THAC0 anymore because it's outdated. The same thing is now being applied to fixed ASIs, even if they were to be printed as an optional/variant ruleset. (IMO, the same should be applied with rolling for Ability Scores, the name "race", and a bunch of other sacred cows.)

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, it's exactly this. The game is moving forward. We don't have optional rules for THAC0 anymore because it's outdated. The same thing is now being applied to fixed ASIs, even if they were to be printed as an optional/variant ruleset. (IMO, the same should be applied with rolling for Ability Scores, the name "race", and a bunch of other sacred cows.)

In what way is it outdated? It still exists, its just applied in a different manner.

 

[Catulle]

In what way is it outdated? It still exists, its just applied in a different manner.

Well, so was BAB until it wasn't

 

[Catulle]

"Race" can get right in the bin, though. It was ever a nonsense of social construction and ever useless as a means of differentiating different species (indeed, it's construction was an attempt to dehumanise real people into a scientifically acceptable "other"). Sooner we're shot of it, the better.