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."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, I agree: halflings, as a people, are on average biologically more agile than humans, mysteriously as strong as humans, and not as strong as goliaths. But your halfling PC is not an average member of their species. By definition, PCs extraordinary people who are generally physically and mentally more capable of surviving the monster-filled world of D&Dland than anyone else and are among the few people in the world who can use magic or fight demons and survive.

But there are people who in fact claiming that no halfling (or human, or elf, or aasimar, or triton) should be extraordinary statwise because... somehow it's wrong. It doesn't make sense to them, and they can't seem to understand or don't care, no matter how many times I've said it, that I'm talking about PCs and not entire races.

It also appears that there are also some people who refuse to see someone with an ability score of 15 and a full standard array as extraordinary, no matter how amazing that is compared to the vast majority of the race's population.

And you should also know that I'm not just talking about Strength. I'm talking about all the stats: why can't a halfling be as wise as or wiser than a firbolg, or as healthy as or healthier than a dwarf, or as smart or smarter than a gnome?

I think that we're mostly using Strength partly because there is more of physical indicator, whereas a race's better reflexes aren't as outwardly visible. Mostly however, it is because it can be translated into an actual measurement, which other abilities can't. (Even Intelligence corresponding to IQ doesn't really work.)

I fail to understand how anything I've said even comes close to that.

People who want to keep ASIs as an option are saying that a halfling being able to lift 450lbs (10x body weight) is fine.
You said that they can't imagine a strong halfling.
Therefore either a: You don't consider someone able to lift 450lbs as "strong". (Whether they are the size of a 6-year-old child or not.)
b: You don't actually understand what those people are really asking for.
or c: You're lying.

My entire point with the artificer is that just because I don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of D&D.

So, maybe there should be a sidebar, or piece of advice for DMs that says they don't have to use it if they don't like it?

I disagree, in large part because I was never talking about optimizers. I was talking about making the characters you want and not being stuck with racial clichés.

Non-optimisers aren't going to pigeonhole halflings as weak: If they want to play a strong halfling character then they will.
Its only the optimisers who will pigeonhole a halfling as weak, because they must have that extra +1 to consider playing a character.

My argument is: just because someone is short doesn't mean they can't be strong. Especially in magical D&Dland.

And I'm pointing out that your argument is not actually in conflict with the people wanting racial ASIs to still be an option, because they are fine with short, strong people.
Conflict only arises if you start claiming that someone with a 15 strength isn't strong. Because then you are arguing against something that they would like to be an option. As well as with me, who is objecting to the real-life elitism inherent in the statement.

I have not watched GoT--I tried to read the books and gave up--but from what I've read, Peter Dinklage is a good actor. This suggests that, if he were a D&D character, that he put his +2 bonus in Charisma. Which he couldn't do if he were a D&D character.

You don't feel that someone could be a good actor by simply putting a high ability score into Charisma? (If they were a D&D character.)
Why not?

Yes, there are some people saying that it should be literally impossible for any halfling to be stronger than average, no matter what the circumstances or the weird magic in their background or anything else.

Can you point to three?
Just three people in the whole of this thread who have actually said that.

 

[Minigiant]

That is one of the suggestions for Reborn.

Reborn is too undeady for me.

 

[Scott Christian]

Then you haven't been paying attention. I haven't been arguing that a Barbarian should have a 16 Int, I've been arguing that a Barbarian or Paladin with 8 or 10 Int should not have to be played as 'dumb'. They should only be played as bad at the things they are mechancially bad at. Being ignorant of history, religion and arcana shouldn't mean the character is dumb any more than being ignorant of Quantum Physics or Chinese Dynastic history is an indicator of a moron in real life.

The characterisation of a character should be consistent with the mechanics. It should not be overdetermined by them*. Especially when you look at some of the character classes and see, given what they need for the basic elements of their class, how little real choice there is.

My bad. You mean roleplayed as dumb when they may have a 10 or 11 or 12 in intelligence? Or even wisdom for that matter (at least to me.)

I agree, the characterization should be consistent with the mechanics and ideals, personality, flaws, etc. I personally find myself describing my attributes (I use my high dex to sneak into the or with my most charismatic smile I lean in and wink). Then I find myself making decisions for my character based off the personality, flaws, and goals I have written down.

Well I do you use a different character generation system for my own games. I give an array of 15,15,14,13,12,9 (or 11,10) for players who don't want penalties, precisely to somewhat address this issue and allow more breadth (and slightly better save scaling). You really don't end up with noticeable more powerful characters but you do end up with characters with more breadth. But this isn't really the same issue anyway.

I like it. The breadth seems like it would work really well for a lot of different settings.

* If you are rolling 3d6 in order to see what you end up with and then playing a character whose abilities scores have relatively little influence on how the character works out in play then that's different. But 5e isn't designed to work like that - and it especially doesn't work like that if you are using point buy.

Amen to this. Very true.

In the end, I think we all understand that attributes are imperfect. But, they do allow for quite a bit of flexibility and interpretation, which is exactly what you need for a ruleset like D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

Using the old rules, an average goliath is stronger than an average human, and an average halfling is more agile than an average human. However, the point I've been making isn't about average people of any race. I haven't been talking about the halfling species or the goliath species at all. I've been talking about, as you say, the outliers, the unusual ones, the freaks of nature, the people who've been blessed or cursed by the gods: the PCs.

If I can interject here, Faolyn has been consistent with this message. He and I just disagree on the height the outlier reaches. The outlier halfling, who is already more dexterous than the average dwarf, is an outlier with a 16 in both Faolyn and my book. But the outlier dwarf, who starts out as not as dexterous as the halfling, starts with a 16 in his book, a 15 in mine. That literally is the only difference in our opinions.

Yes, I agree: halflings, as a people, are on average biologically more agile than humans, mysteriously as strong as humans, and not as strong as goliaths. But your halfling PC is not an average member of their species.

Maybe we have been approaching this from the wrong angle? Maybe we should be adding a whole bunch of ASIs. +1 for average, +2 for above average and +3 for exceptional. And all six stats get a bonus. You could adjust the point buy or keep it the same.

 

[Scott Christian]

The idea of fitness is to simply encompass athleticism and health, which agility is part of, but yeah no model is gonna be perfect.

I definitely agree with this sentiment.

Even physical attributes are solely dependent on which athlete a person looks at. MMA vs marathoners, swimmers vs linemen, soccer midfielders vs sumo. I mean all of them are athletes, yet a myriad of attributes exists between each of them.

 

[Scott Christian]

It might help if you had a better understanding of the rules. Wood Elves don't get cantrips and extra languages, that is High Elves, unless you are talking about the Wood Elf Magic feat, but you don't mention any of the other benefits of that feat (which by the way, are fairly general in usage) so I don't believe that is the case. They also do not currently get a +2 strength unless you play with Tasha's.

Yeah, not sure if you saw it, but that is why I put the "or" between the wood elf feats and the high elf. I just, for some reason, forgot to type high elves. I understand they are different. No need to insult my rules knowledge. And post Tasha's is what I am referring to.

Also the "heal in four hours" is A) DM dependent, B) Useless if you have a party with non-elves C) Still something you can do only once per 24 hour period.

DM dependent, as in they won't let you or they interrupt the cycle. If they are interrupting the cycle every two hours, that is pretty harsh. If you are with a party of non-elves, so what. If the DM decides to have a couple of hours where there is a T-rex nearby constantly putting players on edge, they don't heal. You though, do. And yes, once per 24 hour period. Of course.

So, yes, an Elf can get an extra four hours in camp to do... something. I had an elf ranger who tried to take advantage of that. Unfortuanetly, my DM hated the idea of me crafting or doing anything at all during camp time, so I was relegated to a double watch and that was it.

And Mask of the Wild can be great.... if the DM actually ever uses it. Hiding in a bush is something anyone can do. And I've... yeah I've never once been in a DnD game where it was raining, snowing or foggy, let alone during a time I could have used stealth.

I try not to judge, but no offense, this does not sound like a DM I'd really like. The point of the game is to let your character shine. You do that by using your creativity and skills. And to have played and never had it raining, foggy or snowy seems absurd in my opinion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then why you play a rigid class based game in the first place? The whole bloody concept relies on choosing predetermined archetypical splats.

Because I want to be a wizard harry.

Why does my desire to play a Firbolg Wizard suddenly mean I want a classless system? I like clerics, play them quite a bit. I actually greatly enjoy exploring the different concepts of racial pantheons in DnD. Does that mean I should abandon DnD just because I want to play an Elven cleric?


You have jumped straight from "I want to build a character to match the story I want to tell" into demanding that I abandon DnD for something else, because DnD isn't about making a character for the story you want to tell? It is only for strict archetypes that can never be broken without guaranteeing you are less effective?

How does that make any sense?

 

[ART!]

Reborn is too undeady for me.

Yeah - advantage on death saves is way too powerful, IMHO.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It also appears that there are also some people who refuse to see someone with an ability score of 15 and a full standard array as extraordinary, no matter how amazing that is compared to the vast majority of the race's population.

Part of this is a disconnect between how things work and how things are presented. I feel like this is easiest to show with Charisma, so let's pull it up.

A 14 Charisma is well above average. It is actually just as Charismatic as a Doppelganger, a shapeshifter whose entire purpose is to deceive others and convince them to do things. Therefore you should be amazing, 14 is an amazing score, higher than most of us would ever have in real life.

Let us say that this amazingly charismatic individual wanted to lie to someone, we can call that moderately difficult right? It isn't easy, but it isn't hard either. DC for Moderate is 15. With a 14 Charisma you only have a +2. Meaning that you need to roll a 13 or higher to actually lie to someone and them believe you. That is a 60% chance of failure.

In other words, more often than not, you fail at lying to people. Ah, but the solution is easy right? You get training in deception. You become a trained liar, a skill set that con men and grifters perfect that make you better than the average person at lying. So good in fact that they can pull schemes off on hundreds of people without fail.

That gets you a +4, meaning you need an 11 or better, meaning you have now brought it to a 50/50 chance that you, a professional liar who is literally trained in the art of deception and have immense charismatic abilities, have a coin flip chance in pulling off even the simplest con job.


And this is the problem. Sure, we can say that a 14 is far above the human average, it is massively impressive... in theory. In practice, with a 14 and proficiency, you are flipping a coin to accomplish even moderate tasks. Want to do something hard? Like sway a crowd? DC 20, total of +4, you would need a 16 or better, or in other words, you have a 75% chance of failing.

And then we translate that into AC for combat. With a 14/15 score and a prof of +2, you end up with that same +4, and against a basic AC of 16 (the AC of any 1st level fighter with scale and shield) you have a 60% chance of missing them. You will miss more often than you will hit.

So, granted, a person with 15 strength being able to lift above their head 450 lbs is impressively strong... And they will miss 60% of the time in combat against a foe with even starter level gear. Even Goblins have an AC of 15, meaning you have a 50/50 shot to hit them. So, great if you want to be a crane and lift heavy things, sucks if you want to engage in combat, or grapple someone, or try and bend bars, or try and tackle someone, or try and break down any but the weakest and flimsiest of doors.

Strong in the way least utilized by the game, weak in all of the others.

 

[Scribe]

Part of this is a disconnect between how things work and how things are presented. I feel like this is easiest to show with Charisma, so let's pull it up.

A 14 Charisma is well above average. It is actually just as Charismatic as a Doppelganger, a shapeshifter whose entire purpose is to deceive others and convince them to do things. Therefore you should be amazing, 14 is an amazing score, higher than most of us would ever have in real life.

Let us say that this amazingly charismatic individual wanted to lie to someone, we can call that moderately difficult right? It isn't easy, but it isn't hard either. DC for Moderate is 15. With a 14 Charisma you only have a +2. Meaning that you need to roll a 13 or higher to actually lie to someone and them believe you. That is a 60% chance of failure.

In other words, more often than not, you fail at lying to people. Ah, but the solution is easy right? You get training in deception. You become a trained liar, a skill set that con men and grifters perfect that make you better than the average person at lying. So good in fact that they can pull schemes off on hundreds of people without fail.

That gets you a +4, meaning you need an 11 or better, meaning you have now brought it to a 50/50 chance that you, a professional liar who is literally trained in the art of deception and have immense charismatic abilities, have a coin flip chance in pulling off even the simplest con job.


And this is the problem. Sure, we can say that a 14 is far above the human average, it is massively impressive... in theory. In practice, with a 14 and proficiency, you are flipping a coin to accomplish even moderate tasks. Want to do something hard? Like sway a crowd? DC 20, total of +4, you would need a 16 or better, or in other words, you have a 75% chance of failing.

And then we translate that into AC for combat. With a 14/15 score and a prof of +2, you end up with that same +4, and against a basic AC of 16 (the AC of any 1st level fighter with scale and shield) you have a 60% chance of missing them. You will miss more often than you will hit.

So, granted, a person with 15 strength being able to lift above their head 450 lbs is impressively strong... And they will miss 60% of the time in combat against a foe with even starter level gear. Even Goblins have an AC of 15, meaning you have a 50/50 shot to hit them. So, great if you want to be a crane and lift heavy things, sucks if you want to engage in combat, or grapple someone, or try and bend bars, or try and tackle someone, or try and break down any but the weakest and flimsiest of doors.

Strong in the way least utilized by the game, weak in all of the others.

So really, I just read this as 'the mechanical expression of ability modifiers is insufficient to express the perceived reality of the game.'

Your deception example is great. It just demonstrates that being above average isn't even good enough, that training on top of that isn't good enough, and that to be truly effective you must be both exceptional (immediately at level 1) AND trained.

That is a failure of the framework, or DM setting the DC, imo.