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]

what is it that feels so wrong about floating ASI to you anyway?

Dude, don't. We need to stop making this a referendum on Tasha's and Floating ASIs. That is the whole problem is people keep treating this UA like it is "Tasha's vs 'having both options' (putting in quotes because it covers both people who don't like Tasha's and people who don't care one way or the other)"

That's why people keep talking about Halflings and Goliaths, despite the fact that these rules have literally not a single thing to do with either race. Because somehow we keep getting dragged discussing whether or not a small race should have a +2 strength (and never discussing any other stat) instead of looking towards this UA's actual content.

The discussion of "why are floating ASIs bad for the game" has been had. Both before Tasha's, after Tasha's, and for the last 100 pages in this thread. We can stop. They don't like it. They want official rules telling them where to put their scores. Fine, whatever, that could very easily happen. Stop poking the horse and let it rest in pieces.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I still think the real problem is the removal of cultural traits altogether from the race/lineage portion of character creation. Obviously, the lineages they chose to showcase in the UA don't really need them, but they have said all lineages going forward will be formatted like this. This suggests to me we will get more traditional lineage options that lack mechanical weight for culture, and I think that's a problem. How would you represent skills, armor, weapons, tools and other abilities that you learn before you take your class?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I still think the real problem is the removal of cultural traits altogether from the race/lineage portion of character creation. Obviously, the lineages they chose to showcase in the UA don't really need them, but they have said all lineages going forward will be formatted like this. This suggests to me we will get more traditional lineage options that lack mechanical weight for culture, and I think that's a problem. How would you represent skills, armor, weapons, tools and other abilities that you learn before you take your class?

a proper culture system would need to be formulated.

 

[Dire Bare]

I still think the real problem is the removal of cultural traits altogether from the race/lineage portion of character creation. Obviously, the lineages they chose to showcase in the UA don't really need them, but they have said all lineages going forward will be formatted like this. This suggests to me we will get more traditional lineage options that lack mechanical weight for culture, and I think that's a problem. How would you represent skills, armor, weapons, tools and other abilities that you learn before you take your class?

This concerned me a little bit too . . . but I'm not going to worry about it until we get a new race option that should have some culture available . . .

It's a tricky bit of game design Wizards are wrestling with, how to depict race, ethnicity, and culture without furthering racist tropes and modes of thought, while offering mechanically and thematically interesting player choices. I think they've stumbled out of the gate with Tasha's and this UA, but they are moving in the right direction. Very interested to see the next iteration from WotC . . .

 

[Scribe]

If one was interested in a compromise, I would do it like this. (Edit x 2: And when I say I would, I mean I'm going to.)

Rule 1: No Attribute may be increased more than +2 at Character Creation.

Lineage: Aasimar.

You may apply +1 to Charisma (Base), Wisdom (Protector), Constitution (Scourge), or Strength (Fallen)

Class: Fighter

You may apply +1 to Strength, Dexterity, or Constituation.

Background: Athlete

You may apply +1 to Strength or Dexterity.

You still maintain a link to racial ASI, but you 'build' your Characters stats out through a combination of your selection of race/class/background.

Now to ME, thats the best solution, but it wont work for everyone.

@Mind of tempest if you wish to continue the discussion elsewhere, hit me up in a PM I have no desire to antagonize anyone by continuing the discussion about halflings...

EDIT: Credit to @AcererakTriple6 for the general concept.

 

[IndigoTraveler]

If one was interested in a compromise, I would do it like this. (Edit x 2: And when I say I would, I mean I'm going to.)

Rule 1: No Attribute may be increased more than +2 at Character Creation.

Lineage: Aasimar.

You may apply +1 to Charisma (Base), Wisdom (Protector), Constitution (Scourge), or Strength (Fallen)

Class: Fighter

You may apply +1 to Strength, Dexterity, or Constituation.

Background: Athlete

You may apply +1 to Strength or Dexterity.

You still maintain a link to racial ASI, but you 'build' your Characters stats out through a combination of your selection of race/class/background.

Now to ME, thats the best solution, but it wont work for everyone.

@Mind of tempest if you wish to continue the discussion elsewhere, hit me up in a PM I have no desire to antagonize anyone by continuing the discussion about halflings...

EDIT: Credit to @AcererakTriple6 for the general concept.

Pretty interesting.

 

[Azzy]

I still think the real problem is the removal of cultural traits altogether from the race/lineage portion of character creation. Obviously, the lineages they chose to showcase in the UA don't really need them, but they have said all lineages going forward will be formatted like this. This suggests to me we will get more traditional lineage options that lack mechanical weight for culture, and I think that's a problem. How would you represent skills, armor, weapons, tools and other abilities that you learn before you take your class?

Yes, this is an issue that stood out to me. My suggestion was to have "cultural packages" (high elf culture, mountain dwarf culture, etc.) that you can choose from or fully customize. This would be great just from a world building perspective.

 

[bulletmeat]

You still maintain a link to racial ASI, but you 'build' your Characters stats out through a combination of your selection of race/class/background.

When skills & powers came out for 2e the last game my high school group ran did something similar to this. An example was +1 STR if I chose a fighter, even if I was a halfling.

When Tasha's came out I was thinking +2 put to either of the main saving throw attributes or split between the two. And then a background would give +1 to either physical attributes (for say a soldier background) or a +1 to mental (for say an acolyte).
My personal game would have small characters like halflings and gnomes max out at 18 strength while maxing out at 22 dex (I use proficiency bonus for initiative vs dex so it even out in game ok). In contrast large characters, like a minotaur or ogre max out 18 dex & 22 str. Or 19 & 21.

I think part of the thinking here is that when someone who likes the ASI tries to get a game going, that person may have trouble getting players who will not agree to that because they are not official or they don't like that option.

 

[Faolyn]

This concerned me a little bit too . . . but I'm not going to worry about it until we get a new race option that should have some culture available . . .

That's when you just figure out some generic cultures that would exist in a particular gameworld. I wrote up two very simplified ones earlier ITT: a fey forest dweller (with some magical options) and a more normal-forest dweller (with options for things like increased movement, proficiency in certain weapons or in things like Survival). Obvious cultures would be Villagers and Big City-Dweller. The Level Up playtest is going for generic cultures and has a bunch of interesting ones.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes, this is an issue that stood out to me. My suggestion was to have "cultural packages" (high elf culture, mountain dwarf culture, etc.) that you can choose from or fully customize. This would be great just from a world building perspective.

I agree that this might be the way to do it, and it's not a huge stretch from the existing paradigm. "Race" maps pretty well to "species" (or some more fantasy friendly term like "ancestry" or "lineage"), and "subrace" (horrible term) maps pretty well to culture or ethnicity.

Of course, that requires a shuffle of traits between species and culture . . . .

A few of the 3rd party options already take this approach, notably "Ancestry & Culture" from Arcanist Press.