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."

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem with that is that you're arguing about what may or may not come to pass. Those windmills might be giants... or they may just be windmills.

I always like to think they are giants. But your point is true.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem with that is that you're arguing about what may or may not come to pass. Those windmills might be giants... or they may just be windmills.

But what is important that going forward both will have identical stats. It would be unfair if giants were better at fighting than the windmills and if the windmills were better at grinding grain than the giants.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I always like to think they are giants. But your point is true.

if it so terrifying to you why not put plans into motion to make your own D&D it has been done before.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Now I remember the 3.5 dragonborn from "Races of Dragons" were the classic humanoids chosen by Bahamut, and reborn with a new body after a time within an egg.

* How would be a hagspawn from 3.5 Unnaproachable East with hexblood lineage? I guess for the player who wants an eldritch knight/duskblade.

* Are dragonmarked from Eberron a lineage?

* What is the gameplay difference between reborn and warforged? both are living constructs.

* A shadar-kai dhampire is possible? And dhampire bloodlines as subraces or clans (Cangrel, Brujah, Toreador, Tremere, Ventrue, Lamia, Strigori, Necrarca, dragon blood, Carstein)?

 

[Faolyn]

Ask any child if a dragon can fly? Most will say yes. Because that is what we are sold from the very beginning.
Ask any child who is stronger, the 4', 90 pound man or the 7', 350 pound man. Most will say the 7' guy. Because that is what we are sold from the very beginning.

Again, so? Children are taught lots of things that are wrong. Adults believe many things that are wrong. The fact that you are "sold on something from the very beginning" doesn't mean it always has to be that way, either in real life (again, look up people with dwarfism who are weightlifters). In fact, if it were always the same way, it'd be pretty boring.

Um... correct. I haven't said that? Sorry, I am not following your argument. My apologies.
What I can say is that some do not see an extra +1 as being all that earth shattering, and for others, they apparently can't even play the race/class combo because it ruins the game for them.

The argument is: halflings shouldn't get a Strength bonus because goliaths are supposed to be stronger.

My question is: And if there are no goliaths around, then what does it matter if halflings get a Strength bonus? Example: my current setting has lots of halflings, but no goliaths. They don't exist.

And yes, a person can still have a weaker halfling, but guess what? No one will. Not one player I have ever played with will voluntarily reduce their strength to 15 if they are a fighter. It will not happen. And what that does and means, is now some people won't learn how to focus on the other parts of their character.

Unless your entire character background is "my fighter was thrust into this world ex nihilo, now let's roll some dice," then your character has a background of some sort or another. Even the gamer who says nothing more in-depth than "my character got into lots of tavern fights, the end" or "my character served in the army, the end" or even who relies entirely on random tables for background generation is going to have something that caused their character to be a fighter. That, plus the actual terminology of your class and/or background (e.g., you're "trained in" weapons and armor) indicates that your character put in some effort in their lives to become a fighter.

That means that, if you decided to play a strength-based martial, your character is going to be strong. And that means your character's Strength score is likely to be fairly high. It may not be higher than everyone else's Strength, but it would almost certainly be higher than if you had decided to not be a strength-based martial.

What you are saying is "some people won't learn how to focus on the other parts of their character," therefore nobody should be able to put a bonus in Strength unless it was built into their race. That is lazy. It doesn't encourage people to look at other parts of their character. It encourages people to think only in cliché tropes of halfling rogues and half-orc barbarians* and elf rangers and firbolg druids.

===

* Interestingly, half-orcs were originally, back in 1e, supposed to be the assassin race, not the martial. In the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, halflings got an XP bonus for high Strength. See? Tropes change.

 

[Scott Christian]

if it so terrifying to you why not put plans into motion to make your own D&D it has been done before.

It isn't terrifying to me. Like I said earlier, I just find it clunky and arbitrary. Those two things do not equal terrifying. A bit annoying maybe, but not terrifying.

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, so? Children are taught lots of things that are wrong. Adults believe many things that are wrong. The fact that you are "sold on something from the very beginning" doesn't mean it always has to be that way, either in real life (again, look up people with dwarfism who are weightlifters). In fact, if it were always the same way, it'd be pretty boring.

I apologize again. I do not follow your line of thinking. Here is the conversation:

• A group doesn't like a halfling starting with the same strength as a goliath. It breaks their fantasy realism.
• The counterpoint declares: "Oh you can't handle a halfling being as strong as a goliath, but you are okay with flying dragons. How do flying dragons not break your fantasy realism."
• It is pointed out that we are taught from a young age to accept flying dragons. That is one of the reasons they don't break fantasy realism.

No one is arguing for simulation. What is being argued is to maintain a sense of realism, which varies per individual.

The argument is: halflings shouldn't get a Strength bonus because goliaths are supposed to be stronger.

My question is: And if there are no goliaths around, then what does it matter if halflings get a Strength bonus? Example: my current setting has lots of halflings, but no goliaths. They don't exist.

The argument is not that. The argument is halflings shouldn't get a strength bonus. Period. For some, it ruins their immersion. It breaks their sense of fantasy realism. It doesn't matter what you have on the other side: orcs, dwarves, goliaths or dragonborn.

What you are saying is "some people won't learn how to focus on the other parts of their character," therefore nobody should be able to put a bonus in Strength unless it was built into their race. That is lazy. It doesn't encourage people to look at other parts of their character. It encourages people to think only in cliché tropes of halfling rogues and half-orc barbarians* and elf rangers and firbolg druids.

This is incorrect. It might do that for you and your table. But for others, including some on this board, it has done exactly what I said it does: It encourages non-tropes. I have given many examples of this.

* Interestingly, half-orcs were originally, back in 1e, supposed to be the assassin race, not the martial. In the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, halflings got an XP bonus for high Strength. See? Tropes change.

Yes, they do change. It is a good thing. But, it also should be backed up with text. Go read the descriptions of halflings in the PHB. D&D's 5e version of halflings never even hints at them being strong. When 6e comes out, they can rewrite the halfling as having thick tendons and years of working on the farm gives them "farm strength." It's all good with me. But to suggest that the trope should change mid-life cycle of this edition's life, is clunky and arbitrary.

 

[Faolyn]

I apologize again. I do not follow your line of thinking. Here is the conversation:

• A group doesn't like halfling starting with the same strength as a goliath. It breaks their fantasy realism.
• The counterpoint declares: "Oh you can't handle a halfling being as strong as a goliath, but you are okay with flying dragons. How do flying dragons not break your fantasy realism."
• It is pointed out that we are taught from a young age to accept flying dragons. That is one of the reasons they don't break fantasy realism.

All of those are things up to the table to decide, not the game itself. The rules should be written to allow for the most inclusivity, not because some people can't handle the idea of a halfling that is unusually strong, or healthy, or smart, or wise, or personable.

Because while people here are focusing on the "horrors" of a halfling with a +2 bonus to Strength, what is actually happening is, because you want to deny that floating +2, you are also saying that halflings can't be anything but dexterous, and goliaths can't be anything but strong, and gnomes can't be anything but smart, and tieflings can't be anything but charismatic, and so on.

You are literally saying that all races need to remain in their little boxes and that all players need to limit themselves because some players are incapable of imagining that there's a strong halfling or a smart orc or a wise goliath.

And quite frankly, I don't care about those players. They need to expand their horizons a bit. Or, y'know, put their floating ASI in the stat that makes them feel safe and happy.

Here, I'll give you another example. My preference for medieval fantasy to be kind of low tech, or at the least, to have realistic levels of technology.

The Artificer completely flies in the face of that. It bugs the hell out of me that Artificers are able to make complex machinery in six seconds while in the middle of a tense situation like a combat. Even "fantasy realism" insists that wondrous devices should require at least days worth of work in a workshop somewhere, and more likely months, and should be limited to things like a weirdly complex and working clockwork device or maybe an ornithopter that really flies and simple distilled elixirs.

And yet, the artificer is a thing, and is capable of creating an equivalent of the Iron Man suit of armor in an hour--and not only in an hour, but while resting. Fighting for a minute or casting a spell or two ruins your ability to get the benefits of a rest, but creating gauntlets, by hand, without using magic to do so, that can shoot lightning bolts is easy-peasy! It would take a wizard months to do the same thing!

This completely destroys any logical sense of fantasy realism, it makes wizards look incompetent, and it destroys my sense of immersion. And yet, it exists. It's an official class with official archetypes. So, to keep fantasy realism alive, we have two options:

1: Completely remove it from the game. it's completely illogical, it doesn't even mesh with a Medieval-style setting, I don't like it. Get angry with WotC if they even think about publishing anything for the artificer in a further book. Don't allow it to be in 5.5 or 6e because it's so against fantasy realism.

2: Don't allow it in my personal game. It doesn't exist in my setting. That way, everyone else can enjoy, or not enjoy, the artificer as they see fit. If I have a player who wants to play an artificer in my setting, too bad for them, and possibly too bad for me. I have to deal with the consequences of that player's desire myself, but that's on me. Not on you or anyone else who likes the artificer.

This is what you guys need to do with those floating ASIs. You don't like 'em, then don't use them. You know what the ASIs are for about a hundred races and subraces. If any new races come out, you can easily guess what their ASIs are based on description and picture, take them from the list of mini-templates in the DMG, or adapt them from an earlier edition. That's maybe a couple of minutes of work for you.

That way, you get your precious racial limitations and everyone else gets what they want.

Yes, they do change. It is a good thing. But, it also should be backed up with text. Go read the descriptions of halfling in the PHB. D&D's 5e version of halflings never even hints at them being strong.

It doesn't hint at them being dexterous either. In fact, it describes halflings as stout, which is pretty much the opposite of agile and supports the idea of them maybe having a sturdy, solid build; that is, the possibility of strength. It doesn't even say halflings have "clever fingers." And even if you prefer to see stout mean fat, well, that itself goes against the Stout halfling's Constitution bonus. The PH does describe halflings as curious and personable, which would support a bonus to Intelligence or Charisma. But only one halfling gets a Cha bonus (two, if you count Dragonmarked halflings) and that's only a +1, and none get an Int bonus. Strangely, some get a Wisdom bonus, even though they're not described as having the kind of philosophical outlook on life that would support that.

So what were you saying about descriptions again?

 

[Faolyn]

* What is the gameplay difference between reborn and warforged? both are living constructs.

Technically, warforged aren't constructs. But I bet that would be errata'd in at some point.

The gameplay difference would be, warforged were basically mass-produced for a purpose (war, of course), but a reborn is likely an individual creation of a specific person. In Ravenloft (2e, at least), which is what this UA is quite likely for, anyone can make a golem of any type, as long as they have a burning obsession. And the materials. It doesn't matter if you're a mad scientist with a bunch of machinery that have big switches, a wizard in a spooky laboratory, or a grief-distressed mother trying to recreate her dead child out of ragged old clothes and ashes.

* A shadar-kai dhampire is possible? And dhampire bloodlines as subraces or clans (Cangrel, Brujah, Toreador, Tremere, Ventrue, Lamia, Strigori, Necrarca, dragon blood, Carstein)?

Those would be some interesting possibilities. I'd go for a simple additional trait rather than a full workup for each one, though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Bingo. The people arguing are thinking of what is to come. You may not be. You may only be arguing about a damphir. Because they are not arguing about your damphir does not invalidate their argument.

True, arguing something I'm not arguing doesn't invalidate their argument.

Arguing something with essentially zero evidence to support them is pretty much just making drama though. There is no evidence that this UA is a sign of 6e design. There is no evidence that they won't include a quick build or recommended build side bar, which @Scribe has said repeatedly would solve all their issues.

Instead though, you and others are arguing about how it is so inappropriate for halflings to be as strong a Goliaths, arguing that you should still have the option to have goliaths be stronger, with their +2 strength. Well... you have that. Nothing about Goliaths or Halflings will change. This UA changes nothing that has been printed before. So, you are arguing to get what you already have. What is the point of that?