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."

 

[Scribe]

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

Indeed, so bring back negative modifiers and caps, keep the level cap at 20, but remove the ASI cap where a lineage granting a bonus (+2 dex) allows a lineage to hit 22 as their Dex cap, but never going over 18 str (-2 Str Halfling/Goblin).

Perfection?!

(tongue in cheek, dont kill me!)

 

[Don Durito]

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.

Why does anyone have to justify it? Maybe it isn't justified? Maybe the objection is making a bad system worse? Or taking something that really doesn't work very well and replacing it with...nothing?

I don't think anyone has said that all the ASI are perfectly obvious and clear. Personally I think most of them are rubbish. Sounds like a strawman to me.

They would definitely work best if they were only used when there was a really clear reason for them and not because every race must have +2,+1 "quick think of a spurious justification for putting them somewhere".

The point a lot of us have been making is that sometimes there's a pretty clear and obvious reason for them. The whole point of the Goliath is 'bigger and stronger' just like the point of the Aarockra is 'can fly'.

 

[JEB]

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.

You're working off the assumption, the opinion, that Wizards will make a point of avoiding complete character race builds whenever it's possible for them to turn that race into a variant of something already available. When that's not been their design philosophy for the overwhelming majority of new character races in 5E. When there are commercial reasons for them to do complete character race builds, as with the leonin.

The only thing Wizards has indicated will be changing is that future character race options won't have default ASIs. So until Wizards starts actually releasing products that studiously avoid full builds in favor of variant after variant... you'll forgive me if I'm going to expect them to follow previous patterns.

(There's also one more reason they would continue to do complete races or subraces: to continue the PHB+1 approach for Adventurers League. Telling you "this new race is kind of like kobolds, but change this" is useless if you can't also reference that other sourcebook. In fact, this may be another reason the leonin wasn't a tabaxi variant.)

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.

Default ASIs only give you an "obvious decision" for the ASI for your character race. That's all. Not everyone is thinking about their race-class combo, or specific builds, or the like, when they make a character. Sometimes they pick their race, and then their class, and then their background, with only brief consideration, if any. They might choose their class because it's the archetype (elf wizard), they might choose it as an anti-archetype (elf melee fighter), or they might choose something because they just think it's neat (elf warlock). And quick builds are useful to folks like that, because they can just say, "I go with the default", and get to gaming. While that may not be the way you or others design characters, it works perfectly fine for some players.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Artificer.

Reanimator Specialization.

 

[Scott Christian]

@Faolyn - Thanks for reading. I am trying to make this as succinct as possible.
Who?
Floating ASIs will allow the halfling to be more similar to the half-orc which now can be more similar to the elf.
vs.
Racial ASIs do not want the halfling to be more similar to the half-orc which now can be more similar to the elf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How?
Floating ASIs view it through the window of race/class combinations. It will increase the number of halfling fighters, half-orc wizards and elven barbarians.
vs.
Racial ASIs view it through a race only window. They feel race and class are two separate components of the game.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
Floating ASIs will increase the diversity of the race/class combinations by decreasing the diversity between the races.
vs.
Racial ASIs will increase the diversity between the races by decreasing the race/class combinations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no right or wrong here. Both sides have a legitimate claim about increased diversity depending on what window one views it through. It should be recognized it is a game with knobs and dials. Turn up the bass, it affects the treble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
Why will the floating ASIs increase the diversity of race/class combinations?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

The campaign before last this was the make-up of our group:

• yuan-ti sorcerer/rogue
• drow paladin
• gnome artificer
• halfling monk
• elven druid
• variant human fighter
• elven ranger
• human cleric

All this, despite warnings from out GM that drow and yuan-ti are considered evil in the game. Yuan-ti are literally relegated to an island where they pirate people to use as slaves. Drow relegated to the underdark where they visit the surface only to steal or take slaves.

What happened? It was a big deal for the first session. Then was ignored because it was a pain to deal with that and the quest we were on. (And this is a GREAT DM.) Then it reprised at level seven or eight, but seemed random. Then it disappeared again forever.

Did it ruin the other players' game? No. We are there to have fun. Did it crash my immersion (and another player's)? Yes. My DM world-building sensibilities just couldn't get past it, even though the DM and player did a good job of playing the "there are grey areas of people's nature."

Perhaps you were not in the conversation in another thread. But I am not opposed to any race, even when they are deliberately being used to min/max. But I do like consistency in the DM's world, but also understand that if you have everything open, that consistency sometimes has to take a backseat to the overarching story.

 

[Aldarc]

#ASIPenalties6e

You will likely find yourself awfully disappointed. We are two editions deep without penalties, including one of the most popular editions of the past 20 years by a country mile.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why does anyone have to justify it? Maybe it isn't justified? Maybe the objection is making a bad system worse? Or taking something that really doesn't work very well and replacing it with...nothing?

I don't think anyone has said that all the ASI are perfectly obvious and clear. Personally I think most of them are rubbish. Sounds like a strawman to me.

They would definitely work best if they were only used when there was a really clear reason for them and not because every race must have +2,+1 "quick think of a spurious justification for putting them somewhere".

The point a lot of us have been making is that sometimes there's a pretty clear and obvious reason for them. The whole point of the Goliath is 'bigger and stronger' just like the point of the Aarockra is 'can fly'.

But here is the problem. If most of them are rubbish, then losing most of them isn't a big deal. And yet @Crimson Longinus has put forth that they are obvious biological facts of these races which must be preserved to keep the game functioning on a narrative level.

People have described losing the +2 difference between a big race like goliath, orc, dragonborn or minotaur and a small race like halfling, gnome or goblin as "farcical" the example of the elephant and the mouse was a real example put forth as undeniable proof of how ridiculous removing that distinction is. And yet, shift the conversation to the similarities between those races, a similarity that is a little harder to justify, and now the conversation shifts into "well we don't want to make a bad system worse" or "most of them are rubbish anyways, so why does it matter"

But, then you sneak back in that some of them have to be obvious. After all, a goliath being stronger than most other races is just like an Aarcrockra being born with wings, or a Dwarf being born knowing how to swing a battleaxe or a gnome being born knowing how to construct a music box or a tabaxi being born knowing how to hide and sneak.

 

[Mind of tempest]

But here is the problem. If most of them are rubbish, then losing most of them isn't a big deal. And yet @Crimson Longinus has put forth that they are obvious biological facts of these races which must be preserved to keep the game functioning on a narrative level.

People have described losing the +2 difference between a big race like goliath, orc, dragonborn or minotaur and a small race like halfling, gnome or goblin as "farcical" the example of the elephant and the mouse was a real example put forth as undeniable proof of how ridiculous removing that distinction is. And yet, shift the conversation to the similarities between those races, a similarity that is a little harder to justify, and now the conversation shifts into "well we don't want to make a bad system worse" or "most of them are rubbish anyways, so why does it matter"

But, then you sneak back in that some of them have to be obvious. After all, a goliath being stronger than most other races is just like an Aarcrockra being born with wings, or a Dwarf being born knowing how to swing a battleaxe or a gnome being born knowing how to construct a music box or a tabaxi being born knowing how to hide and sneak.

dwarf and gnome make no sense as that is not logically possible.

 

[Scribe]

You will likely find yourself awfully disappointed. We are two editions deep without penalties, including one of the most popular editions of the past 20 years by a country mile.

I know, just playing around. This threads on a loop at this point. I don't expect limits, restrictions, or caps to be a thing tied to lineage in an eventual 6e.