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]

And all of those methods are not meant to be used in the same game so it is bizarre to compare them. In a rolled stat game pre-Tasha halflings have max starting strength of 18, half-orcs have 20. In a point buy game halflings have max starting strength of 15, half orcs 17. With both methods halflings have lower max starting strength, it's just that with random method the variance is greater thus the cap is also higher.

What you mean they aren't meant to be used in the same game? Can you point me anywhere in the rules where it says that an entire table is supposed to use the same stat generation method?

Roll, point buy or take standard array is presented as a players choice. Okay, I'll grant point buy is a DM allowed option, but it flat says "If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores," which is talking to the player about using the standard array instead of rolling.

You can pretend that the rules state everyone must use the same methods, but actually, they don't and the standard array is always an option the player can take instead of rolling. So, they are completely meant to be used in the same game, and are therefore comparable.

 

[Arial Black]

NPCs have the traits the DM wants them to. You can sit down and modify the NPC statblocks in the back of the book, or you can write up your own NPC statblock, and you can give them whatever ability you want them to. They don't have to have every trait that in the race's description, just the ones that you, as DM, feel the need to include.

For instance, halfling PCs are Brave; they have advantage on saves against being Frightened. If for story reasons you want your PCs to meet an incredibly cowardly halfling who is at really high risk of failing his saves against being frightened, then the easiest thing to do is to not include the Brave trait. If you want to create an NPC elf who has never touched a weapon in her life, don't give her Elf Weapon Training. If you want to create an NPC goliath that's suffering from a wasting condition, then don't include Powerful Build in its statblock. If you want to create a serious and boring satyr NPC, don't give it Performance or Persuasion.

Otherwise, as the DM, you can assume that every member of that race has every trait you want them to have.

It's a fallacy to say that just because something can be fixed that therefore it is not broken.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think this is the crux of the matter!

For me, and I believe those on my side of this debate, the game mechanics of 'Race' in D&D really do apply to every member of that race, and not just to that one halfling/orc/whatever that happens to be a PC in the metagame.

In this understanding, ALL of that race's game mechanics really do represent something about the concept of that race. Yes, even racial ability score modifiers.

They tell us if, compared to humans, they are stronger or wiser or more dextrous as a whole.

Even humans, with their floating bonuses, represent that the thing that sets humans apart is not their strength or their intelligence, but their adaptability.

Making all racial modifiers floating means that they do not describe the race at all. This means that floating bonuses being compulsory for every race are not fit for purpose.

But for you and your side of the debate, those race game mechanics don't apply to anyone except the six or so PCs in the whole world!

This does not compute.

Are PC elves the only elves in the world that can see in the dark?

Are PC halflings the only halflings in the world that are Lucky? Or Brave? Or have Halfling Nimbleness? Or are....Small?

Do you think that PC halflings are the only halflings in the world that are more dextrous on average than humans? Represented by +2 Dex?

If they are, then what are NPC halflings, orcs or dragonborn like? We have no idea, because those Race mechanics are ONLY for PCs, right?

But if those mechanics DO represent the race as a whole, then +2 Str is....wrong!

For us, a PC halfling with higher Strength than the average orc is fine, because it doesn't mess with how ALL orcs and ALL halflings are modelled in game mechanics.

That's why I'm okay with a houserule that says players can swap a racial +2 for a feat at character creation. It allows a 16 Str halfling (at 1st level using point buy) by choosing the right half feat, because it leaves the racial bonuses for the race as a whole, and therefore the concept of each race, intact!

Here is the problem with that approach though.

Lizardfolk in the MM have their strength score as their highest stat, even their commoners (statted in Ghosts of Saltmarsh) have a 15 strength. However, their write-up in volo's gives then Con and Wisdom.

Lizardfolk in Volo's have "Hungry Jaws" allowing them to gain temp hp on a special bite. Normal Lizardfolk don't have this.

Lizardfolk in Volo's can speak Common and Draconic. Lizardfolk in the MM only speak draconic.


And we can do this for other races.

Kobolds in the MM do not have Grovel, Cower, and Beg. Neither do their monster blocks in Volo's

Goblins in the MM have Expertise in Stealth, while Goblins in Volo's have Fury of the Small

Orcs in the MM and the Volo monster blocks don't have Powerful Build

A Yuan-Ti in the MM can cast Poison Spray and Suggestion 3/day. In Volo's they have Poison Spray as a Cantrip and Suggestion 1/day

It isn't everything, and it isn't always a lot, but the player options and the Monster Manual versions of those creatures are different. So, therefore, the PCs and NPCs are different. And it isn't just that Volos came after, because Ghosts of Saltmarsh came after Volos, and if you look at the Lizardfolk Commoner, Scaleshield, Subchief and Render none of them have Hungry Jaws. None of the Kobolds or hobgoblins in volo's either.

They are built differently. The racial write-ups for PCs are not universal in the design of the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What you mean they aren't meant to be used in the same game? Can you point me anywhere in the rules where it says that an entire table is supposed to use the same stat generation method?

Common sense. But sure, you can mix if you want, I just would never allow it. Or rolling at all, for that matter. In any case, once you allow random stat generation any balance discussion becomes moot, as you have intentionally chosen a method that produces characters that are not balanced against each other.

 

[JEB]

I point this out to people all the time, but if you actually read the Monster Manual section for thos NPC statblocks, they say that you can customize them by adding the racial modifiers and abilities. So, by RAW, if you take a commoner statblock with all 10's, that is a default RAW halfling commoner right there. To give is a +2 Dex is to customize and homebrew it.

Yes, I'm well aware of this, and in fact that's basically what I said. In any case, as you say, it's not so simple to reverse-engineer lizardfolk stats or the like into a PC version. Much easier to rely on adjustments provided by Wizards.

Right, so if he wants to play a Dhampir he is, to just quote you "probably going to rely on other expectations, like the quick builds for classes."

So what's the issue? That he is going to have more races like humans and Dhampir's in the future? I feel for him a little bit, but this would be like me complaining that they are going to release another +2 strength +1 Con race, or another race with natural weapons that are worthless. These things already exist, I already deal with them, and while yes it is "going forward" we would need another five to seven years of releases to break even between the old way and the new way. And by then, I'm sure people will have made dozens of posts and articles about how to play these races that he can look at to figure out how he wants to subvert expectations.

The issue is, Wizards of the Coast shouldn't stop supporting one approach to character race design, one that many people still like, when it's very easy for them to support both the old and new approaches.

Also, regarding homebrew... I feel like this is obvious, but official guidelines are generally better than any homebrew that can be found. It's nice to have something that was created by professional game designers, ones that also have an intimate familiarity with the ruleset and the game's lore. So "homebrew exists" is not a compelling argument against having Wizards provide default adjustments.

Furthermore, if "homebrew exists" is to be taken as a general argument against official rules, it could also be argued that we didn't need official rules for floating ASIs. But we got them, and I assume you consider that a good thing, right?

BTW, why does it even matter that folks who liked the old approach got "five to seven years of releases"?

To B, sure, but I guarantee you they know. They knew before they released the UA.

I'm not so sure about that. The voices that wanted Tasha's to be default rather than optional were much louder, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were mainly concerned with making that unhappy audience happy.

But on A, do you really find it so unlikely?

Yes, I find it very unlikely that Wizards will never again release a supplement with a non-template-style character race. Every 5E campaign setting book, for example, has had new character races or subraces. Thri-kreen are a good example, since they're an iconic Dark Sun race (and I find it pretty hard to believe that they'll do 11 varieties of kreen, just as an excuse for floating ASIs). Dragonlance has kender and draconians. Planescape has rogue modrons, bariaurs, and many more. And if we get any more Magic: The Gathering supplements, I think it's a given they'll include new races too.

So... the player wants official defaults put forth to force their decision, but if the DM forces their decision it is bad, it has to be WoTC forcing their decision?

That sounds like a personal problem more than one that is actually going to come up.

No, the player wants official defaults so they don't have to worry about it, they have an official standard to rely on. They can be confident that they've chosen an authoritative, objective answer, rather than their DM's opinion on the matter. Certainly better than an uncertain player getting a random choice from an uncertain DM.

Sure, but the amount of effort to give static ASIs is so low... like, it is literally just about 30 seconds of work to make up the ASIs. And, if the player is that desperate to be told where to put their ASIs, then the DM putting in 30 seconds of thought to define a race as "strong" "tough" "perceptive" "charming" doesn't seem like too much to ask of them. Far less than I ask of them through just basic character building.

"It's so easy" isn't a compelling argument against Wizards providing default recommendations either. It's also very "easy" to know where to place your best ability scores for a given class, and yet Wizards provides that advice with the classes in the PHB. Why not do the same for character races going forward?

If a player has never come to you demanding that you create static ASIs for humans, Changelings and Warforged... why would they do so for a Hexblood or a Reborn? What makes these guys so different except that they made it slightly more explicit that the ASIs are floating?

I'm not that concerned with the dhampir, hexblood, or reborn; although default suggestions would have been nice, they're not traditional character races, really just templates. I'm only concerned with their decision not to have fixed ASIs for any future character race in 5E, as that will make more traditional sorts of races harder to use for some players. And all they have to do to avert that is include default suggestions. It's easy and inclusive.

 

[Faolyn]

It's a fallacy to say that just because something can be fixed that therefore it is not broken.

I didn't say that. I said it wasn't actually broken to begin with. Especially because, as Chaosmancer mentioned, a lot of the monster statblocks don't have traits the PC races have.

 

[Krachek]

DnD allow a wide variety of assumption in world building.
One assumption can be that Npc follow closely Phb rules.
Another one can be the phb is only for the players.
and we could count also all the variant between these two extreme.

 

[Arial Black]

I didn't say that. I said it wasn't actually broken to begin with. Especially because, as Chaosmancer mentioned, a lot of the monster statblocks don't have traits the PC races have.

I was going to reply to Chaosmancer on this point, but two birds one stone.

Bit of D&D history: I remember reading the opening chapter of the AD&D 1e DMG back in the '70s. There was a section giving, IIRC, six different ways of generating ability scores for PCs. The two methods out of the six that I saw get used the most were '4d6 drop the lowest, six times, assign those six scores to the six abilities as you wish', and 'roll 3d6 12 times, assign the highest six to the abilities as you wish'.

But what was all this for? Because the game assumed that the average 'adventurer' was 'better' (had higher ability scores) than the average of the population, and these methods produced on average higher scores than the population as a whole.

But in order for this to be meaningful, we have to know what these 'better' scores are better than, right?

So how did your 'ordinary' person generate their ability scores? Just assume all abilities are 10?

No. The bell-shaped probability curve was the baseline. Specifically, assume every person rolls 3d6 for Strength and keeps whatever they roll, then roll 3d6 for the next ability, and so on. No assigning scores, no 4d6k3, just get what you're given. That's the baseline population, against which PCs are 'better' than in terms of probably having higher scores, and these six recommended ways are how to get those 'better' scores.

The Judges Guild produced one of the largest products for AD&D 1e: The City State of the Invincible Overlord. I had it. I read it. Every person in the city had six ability scores rolled in order on 3d6. They weren't assumed to be all 10s, nor were there five or six standardised stat blocks for Guard, Cultist, Thug or Bandit. Each was rolled, because that's how people's ability scores were generated in the metagame of the D&D worlds.

Since then, it was realised that this was far too much work! Why not just have a handful of statblocks for guards, bandits etc? Why not have a Commoner statblock for when we just can't be bothered to completely roll up some totally unimportant dude? And since the average of 3d6 is 10-11, why not just assume they are all 10s?

But these helpful DM shortcuts do not change that 3d6 baseline! Just because 10 is the average on 3d6, this doesn't mean that every single NPC actually has 10 exactly in every ability unless you actively change it!

And when the creatures in the monster manual were finally made the same way as PCs, with all six ability scores, the creature stat blocks for, say, Drow, didn't mean that every Drow had the exact same scores!

The creatures in the Monster Manual are just as much DM shortcuts as the all 10s Commoner. The DM has certain requirements for monsters in a scenario, and the MM gives useful statblocks to reflect this.

So ANY statblock in the MM is not a statement that ALL lizardmen (or whatever) have these exact ability scores. They are what they are to provide the challenge the DM requires.

The PCs aren't going to be fighting average lizardmen, they are going to be fighting warrior lizardmen, who have already put their high rolls is Str even though lizardmen do not get a racial bonus to Str. Or indeed, those who were the tribe's warriors are the one's born with (rolled) high Strength scores. Those warriors may also have something special about them (like a bite attack) that is non-standard for lizardmen, in a similar way that casting 1st level cleric spells is non-standard for humans.

This was illustrated in 3e, when occasionally a MM may give rules for creating a PC from a 'monster' race. It gave rules for Drow and Snirfneblin and so on, and the racial adjustments to ability scores didn't map directly to a 'monster' Drow statblock.

So, yeah, the rules for creating a PC race are applicable to NPCs of that race too. But other things may further modify those NPCs, just like further rules (like class and level) can modify PCs.

 

[Scott Christian]

You are obsessed with whether or not a 15 is good enough... but there will be players who want to turn at 11 or 12 into a 13 or 14--or the 8 into a 10. You are obsessed as to whether or not it should be good enough at 1st level... but a lot of games start at 3rd level these days.

And as I have said on multiple occasions, it's not whether or not a 15 or 16 or even a 20 is "good enough." It's that the player should have the option of putting the +2 in the stat of their choice, no matter what that stat is.

Do you finally understand my point? Because I've said it probably a dozen times so far and I'm tired of repeating it.

The only answer that actually matters is, do you believe that people should have the right to play their characters the way they want? Or do you believe that people should play their characters the way you want?

Thanks for answering the question.

 

[Scott Christian]

The only answer that actually matters is, do you believe that people should have the right to play their characters the way they want? Or do you believe that people should play their characters the way you want?

And I don't know if you remember what I have said, but my message has been consistent:

People should be able to play with floating ASIs.

The option of racial/culture ASIs should also exist.

I fail to see how me offering a choice equates to people playing the way I want.