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."

 

[Don Durito]

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.

That's a better formulation of the issue yes. It's still not there though.

You obviously can play a particularly strong halfling - just as a particularly strong human doesn't have to be as strong as an elephant to be particularly strong.

The issue is you can't be as effective a barbarian.

 

[Faolyn]

Because, if the Goliath wasnt scholarly, and actually applied themselves physically, they would naturally be at a higher strength than the Halfing, every.single.time.

So what you're saying is, if a goliath chose to put a +2 in Intelligence, they would not naturally have a higher Strength than a halfling that did. But they might just end up being smarter and a better thinker than a gnome that didn't bother to study.

In other words, if a goliath applied themselves physically by either putting a higher score in their Strength or putting their floating +2 ASI in Strength, or both, they would be stronger than a halfling. But a goliath that didn't apply themselves physically and decided to be studious instead and put their higher scores and +2 bonus in Int or Wis, is instead physically weak.

Meaning, it's all about how what area of their life the goliath chose to work on rather than some inborn trait.

So basically, you're agreeing with me. Awesome!

Indeed, and this is the ultimate end. "Wait, that Half Orc has attributes which still make it better racially at killing, I still need to minmax away from my halfling, Wizards is still pushing some races towards specific classes! SOMEONE HELP!"

So what you're saying is, playing a straight-outta-the-PC half-orc martial is not minmaxing, but playing a halfling martial who put a floating ASI into Strength is minmaxing?

How does that make sense again?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Frankly, this is nonsense. Flight speed game trait is not a biological thing. Wings sure are, and so is half-orcs being hella bigger than halflings. These species have certain biological differences and in the game these are represented with certain rules. Sometimes with ASIs when that makes most sense, sometimes with some other rule. You're making an completely arbitrary distinction here.

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.

But they're just at the upper end of the curve of the half-orcs, unlike that halfling, that can be beyond that.

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.

Right. And that halfling could (even before the floating ASIs) to later enhance their strength or gain magic items that do so. Why was that not good enough, and if the halflings should be allowed to take half-orc's strength bonus at the first level, why shouldn't the dwarf be allowed to take aarakocra's flight speed? After all they might be an exceptional PC dwarf, and spent their whole life practicing flying!

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.

No you always could play those things. 15 is a good score. It is just because some players cannot handle anything other than being the best of the best that this whole discussion exists.

 

[Catulle]

Controlling-other-peoples-characters harder.

Like, why do you care if some other player is actually good at their job by +1 on everything if you're a team player? Does their aesthetic really matter that much to you? Why is it important to limit them?

 

[Scribe]

Well, so was BAB until it wasn't

Sure, but nothing is going away other than the world building aspect that ties a race to specific high level attributes.

Attributes still exist. Bonus' tied to those attributes still exist. You still get 2/1 at Character creation, when picking your race, so why is the method of that changing, when people had the OPTION already?

Why is the option being removed?

Because its socially expedient to say that no one lineage (as you say, we shouldnt say race, but its much easier to type) is better for a role than any other, because people conflate the construct as you save of 'race' with fictional beings which are actually biologically distinct.

To which, I say thats shallow, and flattens an aspect of the game, biodiversity, needlessly.

So basically, you're agreeing with me. Awesome!

Not in the least, but its clear you have no desire to see what I'm saying.

The Goliath should still get that +2 to Str, but as they continued to apply themselves on their journey, they could indeed achieve that 20 Int score. It would just take longer to get there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@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?

I didn’t say it was a problem, so...

What I do think, is that while I’d prefer most lineages to have a suggested ASI (these three don’t need them), I am not having my preference taken away from me, even if Tasha’s becomes somehow non-optional.

 

[Scribe]

I didn’t say it was a problem, so...

What I do think, is that while I’d prefer most lineages to have a suggested ASI (these three don’t need them), I am not having my preference taken away from me, even if Tasha’s becomes somehow non-optional.

K. <- my confused face.

 

[Catulle]

Sure, but nothing is going away other than the world building aspect that ties a race to specific high level attributes.

Attributes still exist. Bonus' tied to those attributes still exist. You still get 2/1 at Character creation, when picking your race, so why is the method of that changing, when people had the OPTION already?

Why is the option being removed?

It isn't.

Other people getting options that you would not, yourself, choose, IS IN NO WAY STEALING FROM YOU.

You can just keep on truckin' and they get to have fun in their own way.

Why are you so fixed against the majority of the table having more options and diversifying the game's aesthetics some?

 

[Chaosmancer]

View attachment 132275

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

Exactly my point.

You are taking a future potential, declaring exactly how it will work, and then taking offense to that prediction.

That is your issue. Not the rules issue. Because, as I said, they could very easily provide you with recommneded builds, which solves your entire issue with this entire UA.

 

[Catulle]

Sure, but nothing is going away other than the world building aspect that ties a race to specific high level attributes.

Attributes still exist. Bonus' tied to those attributes still exist. You still get 2/1 at Character creation, when picking your race, so why is the method of that changing, when people had the OPTION already?

Why is the option being removed?

Because its socially expedient to say that no one lineage (as you say, we shouldnt say race, but its much easier to type) is better for a role than any other, because people conflate the construct as you save of 'race' with fictional beings which are actually biologically distinct.

To which, I say thats shallow, and flattens an aspect of the game, biodiversity, needlessly.

You're going to have to explain a little more around how enabling a broader range of lineages in a broader range of roles somehow "flattens" the games (hah!) biodiversity.