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."

 

[Scott Christian]

So, if a player rolled stats and rolled... what was that array that guy rolled. Ah, there it is "9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 18"

This is a real array, rolled digitally on Roll20 that a fellow player posted... Dischord log says Saturday February 29th, 2020 at 3:27 pm.

Would you tell this player that if they wanted to play a halfling, they were forbidden from putting those 18's in strength and Con, because that goes against the spirit of the game? What about Wisdom, is that acceptable to the spirit of the Game?

No one here would forbid it. No one. That is because we specifically stated we were discussing point buy. If a table is willing to roll for stats, then that table will be willing to deal with quirks like this.

 

[JEB]

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.

This, in particular, is why official defaults are much more useful to a certain type of player than homebrew efforts. The designers at Wizards surely have a better idea of what defines a baseline lizardfolk than any homebrew creator, simply because the original designers would have kept such things in mind when designing NPC versions of that race. So when a player wants to have the "correct" adjustments, the stuff provided by Wizards is going to be the best authority on the matter. If Wizards declines to provide that, folks are left guessing. And while that's clearly fine for some people, others really like to have that guidance.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

The method that is the default of character generation in the game of Dungeons and Dragons, as I am constantly reminded.

And Common Sense is not a game rule.

So, again, they are by design of the game, supposed to be comparable. You may not like the default method, I don't like the default method, but not liking it is not the same as it not being relevant to the discussion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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"?

You misread my point. It would take five to seven years of new releases to even match what is currently available under the rules.

Also... dude, I hate to break your heart, but a +2/+1 static ASI does not need a professional game designer. It is not nearly that precise of a balance. I know people like to claim it is, but it really isn't. As proven by the fact that making it floating has not changed the power balance of the game at all. (Before getting on me about Mountain Dwarf Wizards, look up Githyanki. They could already do that. And V. Human and Half Elf are still top of the heap.)

And finally... maybe Wizards will include your sidebar. I've said they might. I've said that it would be fine. People just want to keep pounding away though "why won't they support both versions" well... only your fear and paranoia says they aren't. And even if they didn't, it is such a simple fix. I can literally do it for just about any concept someone wants to throw out at me. It won't capture the full essence of the race, because static ASIs never do, but it will be balanced within the assumptions of the game no matter what ASI's I give them.

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.

My man, "there are fans who want to keep the old way" is literally the most obvious fact about DnD ever written. Before there were dice, ability scores, dungeons, or magic there were fans who wanted to keep the game like it was before and not change it.

They knew there were fans who wanted to keep the old system.

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.

I learned about the other versions of the Kreen on the Dark Sun Wiki, so they wouldn't be doing it "just" because of floating ASIs, they would be doing it to create the full race for the setting.

Kender are halflings directly according to Mordenkainen's Tome, you use the halfling stats and maybe have a sidebar telling you to replace a feature, but really Lightfoot Halflings cover just about every aspect of Kender I can think of.

Draconians are Dragonborn. It literally says so in the PHB, and while it doesn't give details says that you can replace their breath weapon with their "unique magical abilities" which were traditionally "I do something terrible when I die, like turn to stone, become acid or explode". Likely won't be those things anymore, since playing a character who perma-dies like that would be rough in the new edition.

Modrons are trickier. They are a planar being so they may be like angels or devils and not be playable. If I was to make one, I could easily see taking the Warforged or the Reborn. Or, making a new lineage. They are tricky though, I will give you that one.

Bariaurs are centaurs. I don't even know if you need a sidebar for replacing an ability, or if you just go with reflavoring. A quick glance at what they could do, and nothing seems out of place with a PC version ust using Centaur stats.

Magic the Gathering Sentient Races, looking at this page Race

Azra are Tieflings
Kithkin are halflings
Kor are human (maybe something like Kalashtar, I couldn't figure out what made them different)
Metathran are created beings, so Reborn

Moonfolk fall under the idea of East Asian spiritfolk, which is something I think could be made, but since such beings tend to be different across multiple cultures, and multiple subtypes are very similiar in some respects, I could see it being a lineage

Naga are Yuan-Ti
Ouphe seem to be gnomes, if we want to make them playable
Viashino are Lizardfolk
And then a lot of things like Cat-folk (tabaxi), Dog Folk (shifters), Nantuko Insect folk (Kreen), Orochi snakefolk (Yuan-ti) Aven bird folk (Aarcrockra or Kenku, which also cover playable harpies with a sidebar)


So yeah. I'm not convinced we are actually going to get a lot of new, set races. There is pretty much nothing that we actually need, and I have to dig pretty far into the weeds to find anything at all. Modrons, East Asian Spiritfolk, The Kreen/Insect People, and that is it. We have every other playable race I can think of.

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.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the authoritative answer at the table is the DMs. Neither of us have to like it, but if the DM says that something is how it goes, then that is the authoritative answer at that table. Especially for something like this. And I have no idea why you want to say the DM is "uncertain" I certain wouldn't be uncertain if you demanded I come up with some static ASIs. I would make my decison, back it up, and unless the player wanted to argue that I was wrong, which they wouldn't because the whole point is they want to be told what it is so they don't need to think about it, then that would be that.

"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?

Again, they might. Why are you assuming they won't? Why must you assume that we are some secret cabal plotting to prevent the inclusion of this sidebar?

All I'm saying is that if they don't include it, which they might include it and I'd be fine if they did, but if they didn't.... it is a trivial thing to fix. This isn't a major lore loophole, a massive mechanical failure, an entire race left undescribed, it is figuring out your best +2/+1 based on the description of the race. It is practically not work to do it.

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.

And because I have to repeat myself three times in every post. Yes, including that sidebar would be easy, and they might do that, and we have no reason to claim that they won't do that.

But also, we have no reason to assume we are getting any more traditional races that would require those static ASIs. And if we don't get any more... then your concerns are baseless because they are concerns over not having an aspect of the design needed for something not being designed.

 

[JEB]

You misread my point. It would take five to seven years of new releases to even match what is currently available under the rules.

And the significance of that is...?

I'm not convinced we are actually going to get a lot of new, set races.

Yes, I see that. I disagree, for reasons already stated. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree!

Again, they might. Why are you assuming they won't? Why must you assume that we are some secret cabal plotting to prevent the inclusion of this sidebar?

Dude, all I've been doing is endorsing a stance I think Wizards should follow, because I think it's fair and inclusive for all players. If they're not currently planning to support both, then it makes sense to endorse that stance; if they are planning to do it, then all I'm doing is wasting my time, harmlessly. Either way, if you're fine with the sidebar, I'm not quite sure why you've insisted on trying to pick apart every argument I've raised in its defense.

I understand you don't think it's a big deal. I think that even if it's not a big deal, they should do it anyway, because it's nice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Three things that you are getting wrong here.

1) You are applying a standard from 45 years ago to a modern product. You can claim that the 5e version of DnD never replaced the 3d6 baseline, but you are wrong. We do not hold that the assumptions of the first edition of the game have carried over into the 5th edition of the game. I should not have to read a product over four decades old to understand how the modern version works, especially since so many things in that old version are now wrong.

2) We were not talking only about ability scores, but literal abilities. The Hungry Jaws ability for Lizardfolks given to every PC. Not a single Lizardfolk NPC or Monster Statblock has it. I even used 5e Tools to look up every named Lizardfolk NPC. Not a single one has that ability. To therefore claim that all NPCs must share all abilities with the PC versions of the races, is not supported by the game itself. And it isn't just Lizardfolk. No Goblin NPC has Fury of the Small. No Hobgoblin NPC has Saving Face. No Kobold NPC has Beg, Grovel and Cower.

3) You made a claim that clearly these Lizardfolk I am referencing are warriors and therefore they would have a higher strength. A common rebuttal, and one I already addressed. Because I didn't just give stats for the warriors, I gave a statblock called "Lizardfolk Commoner" from Ghosts of Saltmarsh. Copied here again in str/dex/con/int/wis/cha order

Lizardfolk Commoner -> 15/ 10/ 12/ 7/ 12/ 7
Lizardfolk -> 15/10/13/7/12/7

This is specifically called out to be a commoner, not a warrior. And yet, still has that 15 strength. In fact the only difference is a 13 con instead of a 12, a bump that actually would not change the modifier at all and has no impact.

In fact, using 5e Tools, I noticed something that I went to DnD Beyond to confirm. We have stats for a Bugbear Gardener, Goblin Commoners, and Kobold Commoners too, from Tales of the Yawning Portal, the Sunless Citadel. Tell me if you notice something.

Bugbear -> 15/14/13/8/11/9
Bugbear Gardener -> 15/14/13/8/11/9

Goblin -> 8/14/10/10/8/8
Goblin Commoner -> 8/10/10/10/10/10

Kobold -> 7/15/9/8/7/8
Kobold Commoner -> 10/10/10/10/10/10
Kobold from Icewind Dale -> 7/15/12/8/8/8

The Bugbear "warrior" and the Bugbear Gardener (who by the way, neither has long-limbed or powerful build, and the PC version doesn't have Brute) have the exact same stats. But, maybe that is a fluke, maybe the Gardener used to be warrior or something.

Interestingly though, the Goblin "warriors" while far more dexterous than their kin, are also less perceptive and less charismatic. Which is odd, isn't it? Being warriors and raiders, perception would be kind of a big deal. And except for that strength, they are all 10's

But then we get to the kobolds, and everything is thrown out. Kobold "warriors" are much more dexterous, by a lot, but they are also far weaker, frailer, less intelligent, less perceptive, and less charismatic. In fact, 10's across the board is what you would except from a commoner statblock.

And then, the Kobolds living in Icewind Dale are not only more perceptive, but noticeably tougher than either the commoners or the base kobolds. And these aren't a new race of kobolds, these are kobolds who live somewhere else, that is all.

And what all of this tells us is that, again, no, NPCs are not built with the PCs logic. They aren't even built to be consistent across regions. The commoners can be just as strong or stronger than their warrior counterparts. So this idea that all of a race gets all of their PC options applied to every NPC is just unsupported by the facts. Stat lines can change by having a different profession or living in a different region of the same world. Or they might not change at all.

But this universal standard is not in the game. It is an artifact from older editions, not a truth of 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No one here would forbid it. No one. That is because we specifically stated we were discussing point buy. If a table is willing to roll for stats, then that table will be willing to deal with quirks like this.

And yet the person I asked @LuisCarlos17f said, to quote, "Can you create a halfling with Str 17? yes, and also a wizard with Str17, but that is not the game spirit."

So, a halfling with a 17 strength, according to them, is not in the spirit of the game. So, if that is there belief, and they have no stated that they would not forbid a player who rolled an 18 from making an 18 strength halfling, can you really state with certainty that no one would forbid it?

I mean, I love the discussion of everyone telling me that of course rolling allows for these sorts of shenangins, but with rolling being the official default method, how are we to say that 17/18 strength halflings are against the spirit of the game, when they are quite explicitly allowed? And if the game allows for it with the default method of stat generation, how can it break anyone's suspension of disbelief? It is literally baked into the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This, in particular, is why official defaults are much more useful to a certain type of player than homebrew efforts. The designers at Wizards surely have a better idea of what defines a baseline lizardfolk than any homebrew creator, simply because the original designers would have kept such things in mind when designing NPC versions of that race. So when a player wants to have the "correct" adjustments, the stuff provided by Wizards is going to be the best authority on the matter. If Wizards declines to provide that, folks are left guessing. And while that's clearly fine for some people, others really like to have that guidance.

You are going to be really disappointed when you compare PC Lizardfolk to Lizardfolk in the MM to Lizardfolk Commoners in the Ghosts of Saltmarsh, because they basically kept in mind none of it, and just designed what each thing needed to have independently of the other.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And the significance of that is...?

For your friend to have even a 50/50 split between races they can use without a sidebar and races that would need a sidebar, they might need to have seven years of new releases. That is to say that the game, which many people claim will be over in 2024 would need to make it til 2028 for this to be a 50/50 split between the two rules versions. Assuming they release lineages at the exact same rate they released races, which they likely won't.

That is a long time before his preferred system isn't the majority of the game.

Yes, I see that. I disagree, for reasons already stated. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree!

I guess you won't address any of my responses to those reasons you already stated? I mean, for at least three of your objections (one of which was an entire genre of possible releases) I showed that they already exist, officially, in the rules. I'd think that would warrant at least some response before you just dismiss it as "agree to disagree"

Dude, all I've been doing is endorsing a stance I think Wizards should follow, because I think it's fair and inclusive for all players. If they're not currently planning to support both, then it makes sense to endorse that stance; if they are planning to do it, then all I'm doing is wasting my time, harmlessly. Either way, if you're fine with the sidebar, I'm not quite sure why you've insisted on trying to pick apart every argument I've raised in its defense.

I understand you don't think it's a big deal. I think that even if it's not a big deal, they should do it anyway, because it's nice.

And I've agreed that it would be kind of them to do so.

But then in a few posts you or someone else will take one of my points and point an accusing finger and ask why I have no sympathy for the player who wants their official limitation on races? Why am I against a simple sidebar that would solve all of these problems? Why is it so hard for me to just accept this simple sidebar so both sides can be supported?

And I respond, saying that, I am all for you getting that sidebar, but I don't see it as a big deal, because it not existing is at worst a tiny bit of effort for some DM.

And then a few posts later someone will respond with an accusing finger and ask why I am against including a sidebar which would allow both options? Why is it so hard for me to accept that some people want this sidebar so they can have official ASIs? Does it really harm me to have this sidebar to give them what they want?

And I respond saying that, you know, I'm perfectly fine with people having that side bar, but I don't see it as a big deal, because even if it doesn't exist, this is such a trivial thing for the DM to fix if they really want to.

And then a few posts later...

So yeah, I get it, you want the side bar. You think it will solve all the problems. You think it would be kind. You think it would be inclusive. I get it. I'm fine with it. I hope you get your sidebar. So, maybe stop accusing me of not wanting you to get it. Stop asking me why I'm being so noninclusive by not letting you have your sidebar, why I am so against the sidebar.

 

[JEB]

For your friend to have even a 50/50 split between races they can use without a sidebar and races that would need a sidebar, they might need to have seven years of new releases. That is to say that the game, which many people claim will be over in 2024 would need to make it til 2028 for this to be a 50/50 split between the two rules versions. Assuming they release lineages at the exact same rate they released races, which they likely won't.

That is a long time before his preferred system isn't the majority of the game.

And, again, what is the significance of this? That it's fine for my friend to not get stuff he can easily use going forward, because he previously got stuff he could easily use? How do you figure?

I guess you won't address any of my responses to those reasons you already stated? I mean, for at least three of your objections (one of which was an entire genre of possible releases) I showed that they already exist, officially, in the rules. I'd think that would warrant at least some response before you just dismiss it as "agree to disagree"

Fair enough, I suppose that was rude.

That Wizards already acknowledged draconians as a type of dragonborn, and kender as a type of halfling, doesn't mean they wouldn't get a writeup in a hypothetical Dragonlance book. Why wouldn't they? There are Dragonlance fans who would like to have them, and they'd be part of the market for a Dragonlance setting book. Note that along similar lines, they actually took a stab at grugachs in UA, even though the PHB said they were a type of wood elf.

As for all the others, "similar races exist and you can modify them" is not a reason for Wizards to pass on a writeup. You could make that argument about any of the new races that appeared after the PHB; orcs could just be modified half-orcs, for example. (See also my previous argument about how "homebrew exists" is not compelling.)

In any case, note we agreed that modrons and thri-kreen are distinct enough to merit their own writeup; you also raised spirit folk as another. Thri-kreen are practically guaranteed if we get a Dark Sun book, and modrons are likely if we get a planar/Planescape book (due to modrons getting attention in core 5E, and Nordom from Planescape: Torment, a game which the designers are clearly fond of).

So yeah, I get it, you want the side bar. You think it will solve all the problems. You think it would be kind. You think it would be inclusive. I get it. I'm fine with it. I hope you get your sidebar. So, maybe stop accusing me of not wanting you to get it. Stop asking me why I'm being so noninclusive by not letting you have your sidebar, why I am so against the sidebar.

If you stop coming up with reasons why we don't need official defaults, I'll be happy to stop defending the idea. But as someone who endorses the sidebar, I'm obliged to respond to criticisms. Nothing personal.