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]

You can swap the flight for one of their racial features. And yes, no one is talking about doing that, but the logic you espouse supports that just as well.

No, it doesn't. It talks about a single thing: an ASI. Something that's separate from the rest of the racial traits.

If the game entirely got rid of racial ASIs, halflings, dwarfs, orcs, and goliaths would otherwise remain the same. If dwarfs became winged, then the race would become something entirely different.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I am not explaining your own beliefs. I am pointing out that were the extra +1 not there, this debate would not be happening. Very little ink would be spilled over floating or static ASIs.

You want your players to have a choice, which is why you want floating ASIs. That is awesome. I am happy for you that the choice is now the rule. That legitimately makes me happy. I want both rules static and floating ASIs supported because I want everyone to have a choice. That is the difference. I have never debated against floating ASIs.

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.

As for wisdom, it was an example - not a template. Nothing in my wording when I asked these questions implies wisdom is not important. Here is what I wrote:

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.

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.

I do not keep insisting this. I am stating it is a product of floating ASIs. Anyone can find a non-example. Anyone can use anecdotal evidence to back their claim. Those are all good things to help see the other side's point of view.

This is also how I come to the conclusion that this debate wouldn't be happening were it not for that extra +1 in the primary stat. And until someone shows me statistics that counter the point that players, when given a chance, do not increase their primary stat to 16, then I will sit here and believe I am correct in my assumptions. It really is all about the extra +1, not player choice. Because if it were about player choice, then both Tasha's would still just be an optional rule and not the rule going forward.

 

[Scribe]

You can swap the flight for one of their racial features. And yes, no one is talking about doing that, but the logic you espouse supports that just as well.

Some of us believe ASI is part of the lineage, part of what defines it. Others, do not. That's really all this boils down to.

 

[Scott Christian]

No, it doesn't. It talks about a single thing: an ASI. Something that's separate from the rest of the racial traits.

If the game entirely got rid of racial ASIs, halflings, dwarfs, orcs, and goliaths would otherwise remain the same. If dwarfs became winged, then the race would become something entirely different.

ASIs are under traits, the same as all racial traits, be it darkvision, toughness, fey, magic, and speed. I believe that is how it is being viewed. It is under the same list in the PHB as ASIs. So I think that is where Crimson's logic is coming from.

 

[Don Durito]

So why are basic humans as wise as Wood elves and as intelligent as High Elves? While at the same time being as tough as Half-orcs and as charming as halflings? As strong as Firbolgs and as Dexterous as Bugbears?

In fact, why are Goblins as Tough as Goliaths?
Why are Lizardfolk as Wise as Kenku?
Why are Tabaxi as Charming as Drow?

This is all physiological and make perfect sense? As much sense as a Wolf being stronger than a fox?

So you are arguing that ASI bonus/penalties aren't restrictive enough?

 

[Scribe]

So you are arguing that ASI bonus/penalties aren't restrictive enough?

#ASIPenalties6e

 

[Chaosmancer]

Except they did, in fact, have rogue modrons as a playable race in 2E. If they could make it work in 2E, surely they can make it work in 5E.

Sure, it is possible, it is just really hard. And that difficulty, the limited scope, and the other problems make it a low possibility. That is all I am saying.

They also reprinted subclasses in Xanathar's, and again in Tasha's. Do you therefore think they aren't likely to add any more subclasses to the game? Reprints don't really mean much.

No, that isn't what I am saying.

What I am saying is that when confronted with a race of people that were prone to violent mood swings and raw impulse, the type of people who will furiously smash a machine that isn't working into scrap in a fit of rage and a race of highly disciplined warriors who are devoted body and soul to bettering their society through cooperation, the fact that both of them were called "goblin" was enough to give them the same stats.

Trust me, the Ravnica Goblins and the Heirs of Dhaakan from Eberron could not be more different, but the stats were simply reprinted. The Talenta Halflings are barbaric dinosaur riders, and they have the exact same stats as the worry free agrarian pastoral dream that are Faerun Halflings. So, if confronted with the Kithkin who are a race of small community minded folk... are they going to create a whole new race? They didn't for the Talenta Halfling, the Ravnica Goblin, the Dhakaan Goblin, ect. They could, but they also very easily could not.

Because changes in lore don't always translate into changes in mechanics.

This reinforces my point. They could have made leonin a variant tabaxi. But they didn't. Why? Because they figured fans of the Theros setting (or folks generally) might want to play a leonin, and not a variant tabaxi. Why would they do any differently for kender or draconians?

Yes it does, but that was before this change in direction. And looking at the Leonin, they could have easily gone the other way. And in most other cases where this shows up, they did go the other way. This is the one time I can find a race that could have been a variant based on an earlier write up, but wasnt'.

Dude, you found a single example of what you're proposing will be the norm, in a sea of examples that prove Wizards can and will continue to create full-fledged races and subraces even when they could do variants...

No, I am offering it as an example of what I'm talking about, because you seem to have a different understanding than I do.

If you looked at the Ravenites and said "that is a new racial write up for a new race, that is what I think wizards will do going forward" I'm looking at that same write up and saying "this is a variant of an existing race. Not a new write up, and this is what I think wizards will be doing going forward, if it needs to"

And I think what you are missing for your "sea of examples" is just how actually conservative Wizards has been.

We have five official settings? Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravnica, Wildemount, Theros, eh, I'll add Greyhawk as a 6th.

Elves exist in 5 of those six settings. And other than Eberron getting a sidebar in one book, and not the official book it was the PDF Wayfinders guide, the only one of those settings that got even a new subrace was Wildemount. Which wasn't designed by WoTC. And if they had added elves to Theros, I'd say the same thing would have likely happened.

We have elves, even when we get Athasian elves, we are going to very likely get nothing more than a sidebar of variant features and that is it. Now, we did get new elves, we got Eladrin, Shadar-Kai and Sea Elves. But, these were also in a book with a section all about elves. We likely aren't going to get that again. We likely aren't going to get that for Giantkin like Goliaths and Firbolgs and get subraces for them, because they don't have subraces.

And I've been talking with you and others, Modrons, Kreen, and Spiritfolk are about the only "full fledged races" that we can come up with. There just isn't a lot of ground here left to cover.

Then, for many players, you pick your class - possibly also using the quick build - and you're ready to play. Some folks just want to game.

Right, but the point that was trying to get across was that you wanted an "obvious decision" but the Racial ASI doesn't give you that. It gives you four options, minimum. So if you can just pick your class, then it raises questions about why you couldn't just pick any of the rest of it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is also how I come to the conclusion that this debate wouldn't be happening were it not for that extra +1 in the primary stat. And until someone shows me statistics that counter the point that players, when given a chance, do not increase their primary stat to 16, then I will sit here and believe I am correct in my assumptions. It really is all about the extra +1, not player choice. Because if it were about player choice, then both Tasha's would still just be an optional rule and not the rule going forward.

If you honestly believe that the design tema changed their entire future design to make sure that people could have a 16 in their prime stat... then doesn't that lead credence to the point that it is expected by the design team? I mean, the designers have stated a change to all future design, under this own goal, but since when do designers care about if players get a +1 or not?

Designers aren't always pressing their DMs for more power, or this or that. They are designing the game. So if this +1 is so important that the designers changed their entire direction, wouldn't that be worth considering?

 

[Chaosmancer]

ASIs are under traits, the same as all racial traits, be it darkvision, toughness, fey, magic, and speed. I believe that is how it is being viewed. It is under the same list in the PHB as ASIs. So I think that is where Crimson's logic is coming from.

That view is disputed by the new UA

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you are arguing that ASI bonus/penalties aren't restrictive enough?

No, I'm not.

But if you want to claim that a goliath being stronger than a halfling is as physiologically inevitable as a wolf being stronger than a fox, then how do we justify the 3'9" 45 lbs famously weak and easily killed goblin being just as tough as the 6'8" 260 lb famously hardy as stone Goliath?

In fact, Stout Halflings are just as tough as Goliaths too, as are Rock Gnomes.

So, a Goliath, an Orc and a half-orc are clearly and obviously much stronger than a goblin, a rock gnome and a stout halfling, but all six of them are just as clearly and obviously equally tough and hardy? To paraphrase an earlier contention on this thread, since when is a mouse as tough as an elephant?

I mean this is the debate being put forth, that ASIs are obvious and biological and perfectly clear. And yet, three of the biggest and toughest races are being matched in toughness by three of the smallest?

And Dragonborn, who are a +2 strength race, so just as strong, and just as huge at 6'2" 225 lbs are less tough than halflings, gnomes and goblins. Is it because of their lizard biology not allowing sweating? Oh, wait, nope, because the Lizardfolk 5'9" and 175 lbs don't have the strength of a dragonborn, but they beat all of these races for toughness with their +2 Con. So if it was because of lizard-like features, the Lizardfolk would also have a lower con, but they have a higher con. They are the toughest and hardiest race, alongside dwarves and Genasi.

Which leads us to a potential conclusion. Actually, these stats are not so obvious and biological as people want them to be.