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."

 

[Minigiant]

All this talk and no one asked what class Victor Frankenstein is yet?

 

[Faolyn]

If you're suggesting it would be better for players to reverse engineer halfling stats from halfling NPC statblocks, I don't really see how; that seems like a lot of extra work. Better for Wizards to just provide a quick build.

Gods no! I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that "typical halfling" is just the standard statblocks in the back of the MM.

I'm not arguing whether ASIs are good or bad, or whether they're evocative enough compared to racial traits, or any such matter. I'm arguing that some folks like having them, and find them useful for character creation, whether that's to embrace tropes or to rebel against them. And that's plenty reason for Wizards to continue supporting them, just as much as they should folks who want complete creative freedom.

And I just don't get it. I really don't understand how having racial ASIs can be useful for chargen when they're very limiting, whether you're going for the trope or against them. You're either going for the typical member of the race or the member who's rebelling against it, but neither of them encourage people who want to do something that is neither typical or rebellious. Dex-halflings support the idea of rogues and monks, and fly in the face of Strength-based warriors. Which means that someone who looks at the stats things of those things and is likely to ignore the wide possibility of spellcasters.

You're right, you never said there was anything wrong with it, but I was just curious about the motives of your DM. Still seems heavy-handed to me, but I assume it worked out...

Our table tends to get very deep into our comfort zones, and we like to (gently, and with love) tease each other about it. It also means that I need to come up with either a barbarian or monk idea for a backup character, since I've never played one of them before.

 

[Faolyn]

DMs right. Player insist on playing their way DM has the cya later card.

Player doesn't have that option. Their's is limited to do I want to play or not.

There's more players than DMs. They can pick and choose who plays.

I'm not using the Tasha's ability score rules yet.

None of that makes any sense to me.

DM: I, as the DM, am demanding you put your racial stat bonus in any stat you want.

Players: Gasp! You fiend! We won't play with you!

Seriously, do you think that "any stat you want" means "any stat but the one that your race normally gets their bonus in?" Because in reality, it means you have six options instead one one.

 

[Faolyn]

All this talk and no one asked what class Victor Frankenstein is yet?

Artificer. Alchemist, most likely, or possibly some heretofore unwritten Biomancer archetype.

 

[Zardnaar]

None of that makes any sense to me.

DM: I, as the DM, am demanding you put your racial stat bonus in any stat you want.

Players: Gasp! You fiend! We won't play with you!

Seriously, do you think that "any stat you want" means "any stat but the one that your race normally gets their bonus in?" Because in reality, it means you have six options instead one one.

I use the default stats. Don't like it pick a different race. Don't like that pick a different DM.

 

[Scott Christian]

So has mine: that my preference for the floating ASI has been so players have a choice. Hasn't stopped you from insisting that what I really want is a high stat at 1st level.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. I stated that is the unavoidable outcome (a product) from your insistence of having floating ASIs as the rule. And, in truth, I do not believe for a bit the rule would ever be in question were it not for getting that extra +1. And I have always insisted that they should have both. Yours should be the optional rule exactly as it was written in Tasha's.

Do you see the difference. I want both rules because I think both sides should be supported. But that doesn't stop me from believing this wouldn't be a question is that extra +1 didn't happen until you reached an 18. If it was from 14-17=+2 very few people on here would be debating their character needs to be allowed to put the +2 in whatever they want. So it does all boil down to the +1. It is a product of what you and many players want.

You can say all you want that you are for players putting a +2 in an off trait. But that is not realistic. Here we can look at the stats - how many druids built inside D&D Beyond chose something other than wisdom for their highest attribute? How many made it their third highest attribute? Very very few.

But sure, go ahead, insist you are arguing on behalf of those players that want to do that, and not because starting out with a 16 at first level gives you an extra +1.

 

[Faolyn]

Sorry, but you are wrong on this.

I'm wrong when I state that I want players to have a choice, that that is my reason for wanting floating ASIs? Is... is this mansplaining? Are you seriously mansplaining my own beliefs to me now? Wow.

Also, of my current four D&D characters--we rotate DMs--three of them have pretty high Wisdom scores, which I chose even though none of have classes that rely heavily on Wisdom (rogue, fighter, warlock). In fact, my rogue's Wisdom is probably too high, considering her penchant for touching things that she shouldn't; the DM has offered to let me switch my Wis and Int scores, but I like the fact that her Int is 10, even though Int is important for a rogue and she didn't bother to take Investigation which makes her terrible at finding traps--a fact that literally would have killed her once if it were not for her racial fire resistance. And of the fourth character that has a low Wis, he's a wizard, and Wis is considered important enough for them to warrant a saving throw proficiency.

And you're underestimating how important Wisdom is as a stat, since not only is Wisdom considered a strong save, but it governs Insight and Perception as well. In the games I'm in at least, Insight is majorly important, and as a DM who runs a lot of horror, I have a fondness for spells and effects that use Wis for saves. Do you really not have players who make Wisdom an important stat?

I'm thinking if you actually looked at the numbers, you'd find that D&D's dump stats are much more likely to be Strength and Intelligence, not Wisdom.

If you plan on assuming that all your players who want floating ASIs are minmaxers who want maxed out stats, that's on you, not me or them. Honestly, you sound like those people who were insisting that everyone would be playing yuan-ti or satyrs for their Magic Resistance. "Shockingly," those races aren't overly popular. As the Internets say: pics or it didn't happen.

 

[JEB]

I know this is likely to get me "Aha'd" as revealing that I truly am a heartless individual, but it really is quite simple. Gonna call your friend Bob just to save typing.

Bob has been on the rollercoaster over 30 times. There are, counting races and subraces, over a hundred options for Bob to choose from. And yet, at the idea that we might get something under our preference, that we might get a turn on the rollercoaster, we suddenly start getting "But what about Bob, what about his preferences? Shouldn't we make sure Bob can keep riding?"

And yeah, I'm a softie, I want Bob to keep having fun, but I also recognize that he has had fun. He has over a hundred options to pick from under his preferred system. Is it truly so cruel for us to want... 10? I mean, three lineages being playtested, with a note of "this is our future design direction" suddenly got you banging on our doors, demanding to know what we are going to do about poor Bob with his hundreds of options and 7 years of having things his way. And, I hope he gets his sidebar, I really do, but is it really so terrible for us to ask for a turn?

The problem with your whole premise there is that you're acting as if there's only one "rollercoaster", and if "Bob" keeps getting his "rollercoaster" you can't get a turn. But the floating ASI rules, and the fixed ASI rules, can and should both exist, so that both of you get what you want. What's the value in not supporting both?

To be honest, it almost sounds like you're suggesting it was wrong that "Bob" ever got things his way, and now it's time for some payback. I really hope you're not seeing things that way...

The only one that would be hard is the Modron. A "planar entity" lineage wouldn't really work, the various planar entities are too distinct. But also, Modrons are just really hard to play or make players. You can only really play the crazy ones, and "crazy construct" is covered by Reborn in some ways.

I'm not sure where it would get pushed, but considering that is the only race I can't see falling easily under this new design umbrella, and I think it would be a very difficult sell for player characters anyways... I think it is more likely that we aren't getting Modrons.

So just to be clear, because modrons don't fit your argument about how Wizards wouldn't need to create significantly different character races from this point forward, you're just dismissing them as unlikely to happen? That's rather convenient, don't you think?

As for the rest of your points, you may be of the opinion that Wizards doesn't need to create writeups when they could just create mild variants... but history has shown they will, up through the Wildemount and Theros books last year, and there's also a marketing incentive for them to create actual stats for races like kender and draconians. It seems inevitable that we will see more character races.

 

[JEB]

And I just don't get it. I really don't understand how having racial ASIs can be useful for chargen when they're very limiting, whether you're going for the trope or against them. You're either going for the typical member of the race or the member who's rebelling against it, but neither of them encourage people who want to do something that is neither typical or rebellious. Dex-halflings support the idea of rogues and monks, and fly in the face of Strength-based warriors. Which means that someone who looks at the stats things of those things and is likely to ignore the wide possibility of spellcasters.

I've explained it before, but I'll try again. Some people are happy with being a "typical" halfling or elf or orc, and don't want to have to think about it. Having default ASIs gives them what they want and saves them the trouble of pondering the matter, so they can get to gaming. Other folks want to be rebels, and having the default ASI therefore tells them what NOT to do. So it's helpful for them too.

Either way, what's the harm in having defaults, if you also have floating? Folks who want guidelines get them, folks who don't want or need them still have freedom to choose. It doesn't impact your table to have both options, but not having both will make things harder for some players.

Look at it another way. I assume the quick builds for classes in the PHB are fine, right? If you're OK with those, then surely there's no problem with quick builds for races, too? They serve the same function, making things just that bit easier for players who aren't that fussed about chargen.

 

[Older Beholder]

Why couldn’t a Goliath have Con +2 and Str +1?
There‘s a lot of reasons racial based ASI’s don’t make sense and are just arbitrary restrictions for their own sake.

As for the high Str halfling, what if in my back story the character fell into a barrel of strength potion brewing as a baby?

What if my Fire Genasi from Thay wasn’t cut out to be a wizard and thus found a calling and became an arcana cleric instead? Why is it so hard to imagine having an extra +1 in wisdom instead of intelligence?
That extra +1 gives an extra spell as well so that after some healing, offence and defence spells I just wanted to pick something for flavour?

Having an extra +1 in your primary stat at first level can go a long way to making a character seem viable for a number of reasons.
What if you multi-class level for level? It’ll be 7 levels before you get to choose a stat increase again and you’ve got two primary abilities?

What if you’d rather take a feat later to add flavour (in the case of my Fire Genasi I took elemental adept for example)

I actually thought we would have seen floating become the norm much sooner given it was already in the PHB with half elves. I don’t really see them adding the old racial based mods as a sidebar going forward in the same way they didn’t have a sidebar in 3E about how to use THACO.