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."

 

[Jack Daniel]

Here are a couple of problems/tensions I see going unmentioned in this debate:

• There is no mechanic that can ever resolve the tension between gaming groups who want D&D player characters to be mechanically "special" vs. groups who want D&D characters to be mechanically "ordinary" and only special because of what they do. This is a meta issue that depends almost entirely on how each group flavors what it means to be a player character or adventurer. "Anything goes because player characters are always outliers" is not a circle that can ever be squared with "elves have traits A, B, and C, while halflings have traits X, Y, and Z."

• There is an inherent tension between fantasy (or sci-fi) species having tendencies/inclinations (whether "inborn" or "cultural") and the game-design objective of opening up the game so that all races are equally good at all classes. This goes far beyond ability score adjustments: if races have any special traits at all, some of them will inevitably synergize with some classes. You cannot have a game where elves are both "especially good at being wizards" and "equally good at all classes." It may very well be for some groups that killing off the former notion (stereotypical elf wizards) is desirable; but that won't hold true for every group. Archetypes in any genre are difficult things to do away with. In games, they're useful.

• Does anybody else find it vaguely ridiculous that there's so much digital ink being spilled over a +2 adjustment to an ability score, which is (when you get right down to it) nothing more than a 10% shift in the bell-curve? If we look back to the "commoner average" idea from 3e, the idea that all the scores are predicated on the fundamental, underlying definition that the average human has a 10–11 in all six scores (the top of the bell-curve on a 3–18 range), the whole point of adjustments is to shift that curve slightly for non-humans: a halfling's +2 Dex means nothing more than that the average halfling has a 12–13 Dex, on a 5–20 range. A human rogue with a Dex 18 is still heaps more nimble than the average halfling. A halfling with Str 16 is still loads stronger than the average human. If your problem is that a halfling warrior with Str 16 just isn't jacked and kickass enough… yeah, that might just be a problem with a game system that makes ability scores too important. If the temptation to min/max is that baked into the system (and in the case of 5e, I see no evidence to the contrary), that's not a problem that's going to be solved by making the ability adjustments "float."

 

[Don Durito]

Here are a couple of problems/tensions I see going unmentioned in this debate:

• There is no mechanic that can ever resolve the tension between gaming groups who want D&D player characters to be mechanically "special" vs. groups who want D&D characters to be mechanically "ordinary" and only special because of what they do. This is a meta issue that depends almost entirely on how each group flavors what it means to be a player character or adventurer. "Anything goes because player characters are always outliers" is not a circle that can ever be squared with "elves have traits A, B, and C, while halflings have traits X, Y, and Z."

I don't know. Something like Fate Aspects could do it I think. The problem is that D&D is inherently conservative mechanically.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I don't know. Something like Fate Aspects could do it I think. The problem is that D&D is inherently conservative mechanically.

That's fair. I suppose I was confining my assertion to D&D without actually specifying that.

 

[Scribe]

The "other templates" is something I've been thinking about.

So on my home PC instead of Work or Phone.

At a quick glance, Drider was done as a Template, in addition to all the 'Half-X', then the various undead (Zombie, Vampire, Ghost), various monsters (Lycanthrope), 'Shadow/Radiant' or Elemental, which is part of the 3.5 SRD with the various environmental creature types.

So really plenty could be done with this, without even adding any new 'I was born this way' Lineage types like Elves or whatever.

 

[bedir than]

See no fault in the pre-Tasha's system.

The pre-Tasha's system tells people who were so small that the doctor considered breaking their legs in order to make them tall enough to be normal that they couldn't be a strong hero.

That person went on to be competitive in 5k and 10k races, while completely the fitness and weapons standards of the Special Forces. That person is me.

 

[Scribe]

The pre-Tasha's system tells people who were so small that the doctor considered breaking their legs in order to make them tall enough to be normal that they couldn't be a strong hero.

That person went on to be competitive in 5k and 10k races, while completely the fitness and weapons standards of the Special Forces. That person is me.

That is you putting yourself into a rules system that is not meant to be applied to a real life person, culture, or group of people. The rules system has literally ZERO to do with this.

You are a human.

EDIT: And actually, it says the opposite. It says that even if you start at what would be perceived to be a disadvantage, you can still do great things. (Halfling with no +2, still can cap out.)

 

[bedir than]

You are a human.

Nah, dude. You aren't listening. Just as you haven't listened to the people who say that the language that describes Orcs is the language to minimize them, you didn't listen to someone who was suspected to top out at an inhuman height.

The fact of the matter is that the old system locks certain stories into language and mechanics in which certain stories are impossible to tell - despite the fact that the real world does allow them.

 

[Scribe]

Nah, dude. You aren't listening. Just as you haven't listened to the people who say that the language that describes Orcs is the language to minimize them, you didn't listen to someone who was suspected to top out at an inhuman height.

The fact of the matter is that the old system locks certain stories into language and mechanics in which certain stories are impossible to tell - despite the fact that the real world does allow them.

I disagree. You see something nefarious that is somehow telling people what they cannot be. I see a system that allows them to be anything eventually.

There is no CAP on a lineage. There is no hard limit 'you will never get above 16 Charisma', and they have removed negative modifiers as well.

There is no limit on ones potential as a character, outside of the system max of 20 (without specific class features).

You can be any lineage, any class, and sex is meaningless to your ultimate expression of performance and goal within the game.

 

[Scott Christian]

I disagree. You see something nefarious that is somehow telling people what they cannot be. I see a system that allows them to be anything eventually.

There is no CAP on a lineage. There is no hard limit 'you will never get above 16 Charisma', and they have removed negative modifiers as well.

There is no limit on ones potential as a character, outside of the system max of 20 (without specific class features).

You can be any lineage, any class, and sex is meaningless to your ultimate expression of performance and goal within the game.

This.

It is also the part I feel the other side does not understand. Your halfling can have a 20 strength. Your elf can have a 20 con. Your half-orc can have a 20 int. They sacrifice a +1 for 8 levels, and in return GAIN other benefits.

So the people who complain they are not min/maxing seem delusional to me. How can you argue so vehemently against having a +2 instead of a +3 (when you GAIN other things) unless your sole expression is to min/max? If you want to play a dwarf wizard, and can't because you only start with a 15 int instead of 16, then that is literally the definition of min/maxing. The fact that you can't take the dwarf's strengths, like higher con and extra hit points, and use that instead. The only focus is a single solitary number - +1. And all this in a ROLE-PLAYING game. A game where heroes are supposed to have trials and tribulations.

But here it comes. The argument: we want to role play the dwarf, it's just unfair they don't start with a 16 in intelligence. And then:

• the gods could have blessed him/her
• he could be a freak, an outlier, why can't you understand that?
• why should elves get a bonus and not dwarves?

All of those are good reasons. Which is why your dwarf starts with a 15, and not a 10, which is the average. What if the elves are smarter than dwarves, and then the gods bless the elf too?

And then the argument will come again. And it only boils to one thing:
- I want it now. Give me my extra +.

In the end, it is make it easier.

It is good that now you can do just that.

 

[Scott Christian]

No, it's not a big deal. Except for two things: one, this isn't a choice the player can make; it's an arbitrary rule that can be changed without actually affecting game balance, and two, it also prevents--as I keep saying--that halfling from being having a high Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as well.

Seriously, I think I must have asked this question at least a half a dozen times and nobody I have asked it of has answered it. You want to say there's no way a halfling can ever be as physically strong as a goliath? Fine. Then why can't they choose to put a +2 bonus into Con, Int, Wis, or Cha?

Give me one reason.

Do you really want a reason.? Will you actually consider the reason? Here are a few for you:

• Culture
• Genetics
• And the biggest one of all: Rules. The game runs on rules.

Here is a question for you: Why can't my rogue gain a totem spirit from the barbarian class? Why can't my wizard learn to have extra skills like the rogue or bard? Why can't my paladin learn all druid spells? Why can't my fighter learn to cast high level wizard spells? Why can't my sorcerer know how to use martial weapons?

All of these work to the same logic. Couldn't the gods have blessed my first level fighter to also be able to cast all first level wizard spells? Couldn't my rogue just be an outlier or have grown up around barbarians, that he automatically gets to use the totem features?

The answer is rules. They exist.

Having fixed ASIs means that the halflings' Hat is going to be rogue. It means that the goliaths' and orc's Hat is going to be smashy martials. It means that the gnomes' Hat is going to be wizardry. And as some people in this thread have said, the fixed ASIs actively restrict people from being anything else--only many of them think that's a good thing.

This is absolutely true - for min/maxers. Most of the players I play with have half-orc wizards. They have dragonborn rogues. They have gnome barbarians. The Hat is not only on your head, but in your head. It is a +1. If you really want to be a gnome barbarian, but can't make yourself do it because you only start with a 15 strength instead of 16, then that is a wall you built.

OK, one, that's what a session 0 is for; it's also knowing the people you've been playing with. I've gamed with the people at my table for anywhere from a couple of years to over twenty years.

Absolutely correct. It is what session zero is for. Except now, as has been said many times, there is only one option instead of two.

Two, see above: a realist player has the option of putting their ASI in whatever stat feels the most realistic to them.

Of course.

Three, as long as the other players didn't mysteriously roll all of their stats in the upper teens, then where they put their stats doesn't actually affect you in any way.

If this were true. If other players' numbers didn't effect you or the people you played with, then there would be no need to - MUST HAVE - a 16 starting in your primary stat. I mean, if it doesn't bother you or any of your players, then the goliath with 16 strength and the halfling with 15 strength doesn't matter. Right?

But it's a system that's always changing. It's why we don't require paladins to be lawful good humans anymore. It's why we allow dwarf wizards. It's why #NotAllDrow. It's why we don't lose XP for changing alignment. It's why I can play a female character who is as strong as any male character.

And as I have said many times, yes it does. And I like the changes. I do not prefer them in the middle of an edition, especially when they clunky.