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."

 

[Faolyn]

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?

There's a huge difference between altering a major chunk of a class and reassigning a single stat.

Example: Upcoming character of mine is a wizard. Due to background issues (among other things, he's a woodworker), I asked the DM if I could substitute proficiency in the quarterstaff (in which wizards are proficient) for the handaxe (in which they are not). They do the same damage and none of the other weapons available for wizards made sense for him. Also, he's like two feet tall. The DM agreed. I have an axe. He can't use it well at all because he's neither strong nor particularly dexterous (as I didn't need him to be either of those things), but he has it.

What this means is that I switched around two things of equal value to better fit my character concept. It's basically identical to switching around a stat bonus to a different stat. What I did not do is ask for a large addition to my class, such as saying my character's a single-class wizard, so can he also know druid spells. If I really wanted to learn druidic magic, I'd talk to my DM about how long and how much money it would take to research a wizard equivalent of a druidic spell. I could create Magyar's chained lightning or Magyar's tree stride. That used to be a thing in 2e, at least (dunno about 3x and 4e), so it could be recreated for 5e.

Now, if you were one of my players and you had a really good idea for a rogue with a totem, or a druidic paladin or a martial sorcerer, and I thought the idea had merit and wasn't just you whining because you wanted something cool, I'd actually try to work on adjusting an archetype for you!

For instance, for a martial sorcerer, I might let you spend sorcery points and/or spell slots to create a weapon that lasted for a minute. A couple of points or a low-level slot means an ordinary weapon; a lot or points or a high-level slot might let you create a magical weapon. Or, for a more mundane answer, I might just let you have proficiency in a martial weapon, but take away proficiency in other weapons (between rapier fencing classes and honing your magical skills, you had no time to figure out the crossbow, staff, or dagger), and anyway, you also don't have proficiency in any armor and you have d6 hp so good luck in melee. Plus, multiclassing is always allowed. All you need is one, maybe two levels in fighter and you get a nice fighting style and all the weapon proficiencies you can eat. And Second Wind and Action Surge as well!

A paladin druid? Hmm, let me introduce you to the Oath of the Ancestors. Oh, and try being a human (or other race) but represent your oneness with nature by actually using eladrin stats instead--use eladrin rules, but not lore, to represent your character.

A totem rogue? Yeah, you stole a totem spirit. Now you have a spirit attached to you that will give a power of some sort but at the same time it eats some of your life energy (you weren't the one the spirit was supposed to bond with, but it's too late now!), meaning you have to spend hit points or Hit Dice to activate a power. Oh, and it'll be painful as well. I'm pretty sure my players would RP the hell out of that. Some of 'em are such angst-monkeys; they love this sort of stuff.

A wizard with lots of skills? Let's see... you can have extra skills, but your Arcane Recovery is going to be nerfed--you spent your time learning how to be insightful and persuasive, but you absolutely suck and gathering your magical energy. Or hey, I actually like those feats that they put out in a UA that gave you expertise in a skill plus an added effect. Feel free to take one next time you hit an ASI/feat level.

Those ideas took maybe 5-10 minutes to come up with. Obviously fine-tuning them will take longer, but it's not like it's hard to come up with cool ways to make a player's concept come to life by faffing around with their race and class but are still balanced and fair to the entire table.

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.

You can play a character with a low primary stat, of course. I do all the time, mostly because I roll badly for chargen. But that doesn't mean it's somehow wrong to be able to put your +2 in a stat that you've trained to improve in.

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.

No, there's six options: Put a +2 in Strength. Put it in Dex. Put it in Con. Put it in Intelligence. Put it in Wisdom. Or put it in Charisma. Actually, there may be a seventh option: break it into three +1s instead of +2/+1.

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?

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. What I put in my stats doesn't affect you or your character.

 

[bedir than]

retracted

 

[JEB]

Folks, why are you continuing to beat this dead horse? One side wants fixed ASIs, one side doesn't want them. Nothing is wrong with either stance, they just represent different preferences in gaming. Let it be.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Folks, why are you continuing to beat this dead horse? One side wants fixed ASIs, one side doesn't want them. Nothing is wrong with either stance, they just represent different preferences in gaming. Let it be.

I believe the argument is less that itself and more that the writing is on the wall and we are likely only to get one going forward.

 

[Aldarc]

I am a fan of caps, and even negative modifiers.

But those don't exist in this edition.

They are however in the 3.5 SRD, I'll have to think about if it's worth pulling them forward.

I would also like to potentially plug PF2 or taking a gander at it on PF2 Nethys. A number of ancestries receive a set +2 Stat A, +2 Stat B, and -2 Stat C, but then the ancestry gets a +2 Floating Stat of their choice. A few receive +2 Stat A, +2 Floating Stat.

A character's Background also provides a stat choice: e.g., Entertainer (+2 Dex or +2 Cha); Guard (+2 Str or +2 Cha).

Then finally the choice in Class also provides an associated stat bonus or choice thereof.

So if you want to homebrew something for your games, you may also want to consider something along these lines.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's a huge difference between altering a major chunk of a class and reassigning a single stat.

Example: Upcoming character of mine is a wizard. Due to background issues (among other things, he's a woodworker), I asked the DM if I could substitute proficiency in the quarterstaff (in which wizards are proficient) for the handaxe (in which they are not). They do the same damage and none of the other weapons available for wizards made sense for him. Also, he's like two feet tall. The DM agreed. I have an axe. He can't use it well at all because he's neither strong nor particularly dexterous (as I didn't need him to be either of those things), but he has it.

What this means is that I switched around two things of equal value to better fit my character concept. It's basically identical to switching around a stat bonus to a different stat. What I did not do is ask for a large addition to my class, such as saying my character's a single-class wizard, so can he also know druid spells. If I really wanted to learn druidic magic, I'd talk to my DM about how long and how much money it would take to research a wizard equivalent of a druidic spell. I could create Magyar's chained lightning or Magyar's tree stride. That used to be a thing in 2e, at least (dunno about 3x and 4e), so it could be recreated for 5e.

Now, if you were one of my players and you had a really good idea for a rogue with a totem, or a druidic paladin or a martial sorcerer, and I thought the idea had merit and wasn't just you whining because you wanted something cool, I'd actually try to work on adjusting an archetype for you!

For instance, for a martial sorcerer, I might let you spend sorcery points and/or spell slots to create a weapon that lasted for a minute. A couple of points or a low-level slot means an ordinary weapon; a lot or points or a high-level slot might let you create a magical weapon. Or, for a more mundane answer, I might just let you have proficiency in a martial weapon, but take away proficiency in other weapons (between rapier fencing classes and honing your magical skills, you had no time to figure out the crossbow, staff, or dagger), and anyway, you also don't have proficiency in any armor and you have d6 hp so good luck in melee. Plus, multiclassing is always allowed. All you need is one, maybe two levels in fighter and you get a nice fighting style and all the weapon proficiencies you can eat. And Second Wind and Action Surge as well!

A paladin druid? Hmm, let me introduce you to the Oath of the Ancestors. Oh, and try being a human (or other race) but represent your oneness with nature by actually using eladrin stats instead--use eladrin rules, but not lore, to represent your character.

A totem rogue? Yeah, you stole a totem spirit. Now you have a spirit attached to you that will give a power of some sort but at the same time it eats some of your life energy (you weren't the one the spirit was supposed to bond with, but it's too late now!), meaning you have to spend hit points or Hit Dice to activate a power. Oh, and it'll be painful as well. I'm pretty sure my players would RP the hell out of that. Some of 'em are such angst-monkeys; they love this sort of stuff.

A wizard with lots of skills? Let's see... you can have extra skills, but your Arcane Recovery is going to be nerfed--you spent your time learning how to be insightful and persuasive, but you absolutely suck and gathering your magical energy. Or hey, I actually like those feats that they put out in a UA that gave you expertise in a skill plus an added effect. Feel free to take one next time you hit an ASI/feat level.

Those ideas took maybe 5-10 minutes to come up with. Obviously fine-tuning them will take longer, but it's not like it's hard to come up with cool ways to make a player's concept come to life by faffing around with their race and class but are still balanced and fair to the entire table.


You can play a character with a low primary stat, of course. I do all the time, mostly because I roll badly for chargen. But that doesn't mean it's somehow wrong to be able to put your +2 in a stat that you've trained to improve in.

Why on earth you play a class based game in the first place? Seriously, there are plenty of games without rigid splats and you just get to choose the sort of capabilities you want. Ultimately it seems to me that a lot of players are dissatisfied with D&D being a splat based game but are unable to articulate it. And not liking splats is fine, they are not my favourite design principle; they however are on of those core pillars of 'D&Dness'.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. What I put in my stats doesn't affect you or your character.

But apparently the inverse is true? Me getting to put +2 on my half-orc's strength means your halfling has to be allowed to do it too.

Ultimately the stats only have meaning in relation with each other. If no one were able to start with 16, people wouldn't be thinking that 15 is bad.

 

[clearstream]

Ultimately the stats only have meaning in relation with each other. If no one were able to start with 16, people wouldn't be thinking that 15 is bad.

Well, the PVE is balanced with the stat range in mind. For example, you can tune the difficulty level of 5e using the lever of stats summing to 63 instead of >70. The ASIs serve a scaling purpose, and also a character shaping purpose, recollecting that the standard system in RAW for creating characters is 4d6k3 rather than points-buy or array. Setting aside random or stochastic methods of chargen, the bumps also typically lead to characters being better at things connected with their class, and worse at things connected with other classes.

 

[Bagpuss]

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."

It's a circle that can very easily be squared by having a base line set of rules and then modifications of them as a option. In fact I would say unless you have rules for D&D characters to be mechanically ordinary, you can't have special characters because there is no base for the special characters to be outliers of. If everyone is an outlier then no one is.

• 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.

True but you could keep MOST "elves are especially good at being wizards", and have as an option YOUR ELF "is equally good at all classes".

Tasha's rules being optional kind of allowed for that, this UA with we aren't going to publish X and Y information going forward, throws out the first part for very little reason.

• 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?

Yes, and only 5% when you come to roll that d20, since they got rid of penalties from the earlier editions. It use to be 10% on rolling if you decide to take a class that had a negative in it's primary stat, compared to a positive.

Of course if you played a halfling warrior in earlier editions you were special, because you were overcoming some mechanical disadvantage, and not a lot of people were willing to do that. Now anyone could be a halfling warrior without any trouble at all, how is that special?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course if you played a halfling warrior in earlier editions you were special, because you were overcoming some mechanical disadvantage, and not a lot of people were willing to do that. Now anyone could be a halfling warrior without any trouble at all, how is that special?

I don't think anyone who actually plays characters like Halfling Fighters cares about "overcoming disadvantages" or "being special" in the sense you're using it. That sounds like the sort of retro-fitted messageboard logic people apply when they can't actually understand why people pick certain combos.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't think anyone who actually plays characters like Halfling Fighters cares about "overcoming disadvantages" or "being special" in the sense you're using it. That sounds like the sort of retro-fitted messageboard logic people apply when they can't actually understand why people pick certain combos.

"retro-fitted messageboard logic" not sure what you mean by that phrase.

There certainly is a certain feeling of trying something different "being special" when you play a clearly sub-optimal choice. An Elf might not be the optimal choice for a melee fighter but it is workable, a halfling mind you... in 3rd Ed, when not only did you have a Strength modifier your weapons were smaller was a real interesting challenge. At least that's why I did it back then. There were so many character options in that system you could really have fun designing odd mechanical combinations.

I certainly know players that will only play what they think is optimal after having looked at recommend builds, strikes me if you are always doing that your character is likely to be the same a lots of other people, less special.