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."

 

[Lord Twig]

See, but who cares what the NPC stats are?

Blacksmiths in my world's tend to have 16 strength if I bother giving them stats. Why? Because they need to be strong enough that the party is going to register "strong" when they do a thing. 12 isn't enough. Sure, it is stronger than average, but most of the party is going to have as good or better. So the blacksmith isn't strong at all.

Let us say that a Guard Captain is grilling the PCs and they need to lie to him. Decent sized town, I'd say they need to roll a 15 or better. If we reverse engineer that, that would give the Guard a 16 Wisdom to have their passive be a 15. And that is regardless of race. Dragonborn, Human, Dwarf, it doesn't matter, I'm not applying those racial modifiers to their statblock anyways.

You might not, but others would. I would give a mountain dwarf, half-orc or dragonborn smith an 18 strength. Or maybe not, because they are individuals, but I would take their race into consideration.

And this is really the crux of the matter. Way back when for that "City-State of the Invincible Overlord" some game designer took the time to roll 3d6 in order for every single NPC. And someone else used a bell curve to show what an average stat was, then decided that a +2 to that stat would move the curve, therefore showing a slight increase in the average for a population. However, the truth is, very very very few people care, let only use that sort of method anymore.

And I don't care what exact ability scores ever single individual in a race has either, but I do care what they have in general. So I don't know what dex score all halflings have, but I know on average it will be 2 points higher than most other races, and that tells me something important about that race.

You say that the statement, "Bold and hardy, dwarves are know as skilled warriors, miners and workers of stone and metal." is not true without that +2 Con and then a +1 Wisdom or a +2 Strength for hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, but that makes quite literally no sense. First of all, +1 Wisdom doesn't apply to any of being skilled warriors, miners, stonemasons or metalsmiths. +2 Con barely applies. So, what, are Hill dwarves not skilled warriors, miners, stonesmiths and metalsmiths? Of course they are. We portray them as such, we make sure that these facets are reflected in their societies, and we have NPCs say "Hey, if you want the best forged weapons, go talk to the dwarves, master smiths all of them."

And then... make that true. Stats literally never come into it. Especially since, if I need a dwarven warrior to showcase how tough and strong a dwarven warrior is... I'm going to be assigning him stats anyways. I'm not going to roll 3d6 and hope that the slightly increased bell curve is going to give me what I want. I want him to be strong and use an axe, he has an axe and an 18 str.

So here I failed to emphasize that they are not just talking about removing default, static ASIs, Tasha's also removes default proficiencies for a race. So Dwarven Combat Training might now be training in cooking and playing the harp. Tool Proficiency might be calligraphy. In addition to removing their default +2 Con and +2 Str or +1 Wis.

That's fine for an individual, but culturally the dwarves should focus on their culture. Otherwise they don't have a culture at all.

Circling back up to your first paragraph though, your response was kind of "sure why not" which is a very strange response considering most people advocating for keeping these static ASIs as the default act like these things should have been blatantly obvious facts of the world. But, nothing about Lotusden Halflings tell us they are more perceptive except that +1.

The "sure why not" was a response to indicate that it is okay for one race to be better than another at some things. Not to indicate that it didn't matter at all what they were better at.

And you are making my point with the Lotusden Halflings. If you remove the +1 wisdom you lose the information that they, as a race, are slightly more wise than other races. Which would include being slightly more perceptive. At least on average. Individuals can of course vary greatly within a species.

You ask why a hobgoblin can't be smarter than a dwarf, because Illithids are smarter than dwarves. Well, reverse it. Why can't Dwarves be smarter than Hobgoblins, after all, Illithids are smarter than hobgoblins? When your example is equally valid in both directions, it becomes kind of obvious that it is mostly arbitrary.

Why is it okay for Minotaurs and Gnolls to be dumber but not orcs? Well, first that implies that they are being treated as dumber, which varies a lot. And second, if it is okay for Orcs to be dumber because Gnolls are dumber, then it should be okay for dwarves and halflings to be dumber because gnolls are dumber. Neither of those races get intelligence penalties either.

Yes, the example does work both ways. If you want to completely change what dwarves are you could swap who is the smarter species. The way it doesn't work is removing the racial bonus to intelligence altogether. It is hard to have a super genius evil species if the are just as smart as everyone else. If you swapped the dwarves and Illithids intelligence you could still at least make the dwarves the super genius evil species.

Gnolls do get an intelligence penalty. And again, if you want to make dwarves and halflings dumber than gnolls instead then you are changing what dwarves and halflings are. Just as removing default racial ASIs fundamentally changes what the races are. That's fine if you want to do something different for your game, but there should be a default, a baseline, that describes what a typical member of a species is, and racial ASIs are an important part of that description.

And again, this isn't about NPCs, all Illithids are part of a hive mind of hyper-intelligent psionic brains, being schemers and planners is part of their threat against the players. But, by that same token, so are Yuan-ti and Devils. And, high ranking leaders amongst fiends and Yuan-Ti also tend to have higher intelligence. Illithids more so, but, Illithids also use their intelligence stat in combat, so it needs to be higher for them to have the proper combat threat.

This is about NPCs. Maybe you are confusing me with a different poster. If a single player character of a race has wildly different stats than a "normal" member of their race, they can be the exception. If the entire race is that way they are no longer the exception, they are just like everyone else.

And I'm not sure why it matters that there are monsters with a high intelligence. I think I have made it pretty clear that I am okay with different species having different average levels of intelligence.

I mean, here is a fun little thing. Think about how smart you would play a Rakshasa. A cunning shapechanger and spellcaster who manipulates groups from the shadows, who is cr 13 and likely was the head of a criminal organization that the party has been tangling with for multiple levels as they slowly unravel decades of plotting. Think about how you would play that character.

Now go look at their intelligence. Did it match what you were thinking about this character doing?

Well I would imagine I would look at their stat block before I put them in a campaign and would see they have a 13 intelligence by default. I could then decide that this particular rakshasa was smarter than average and bump it up, or I could decide that he has a simpler plan, but makes up for it by having a keen insight into people motivations and inspires unwavering loyalty in his followers despite obvious evidence of his Evil because of his almost supernatural charisma.

Now take the other famous shapechanging fiend, the Succubus. The temptress who is CR 4, probably a minor side character for the real villain, or a low-level investigation threat. Do you think she is smarter than a CR 13 Rakshasa crime lord? Check.

She certainly could be. I think she would be perfect as the mastermind behind the throne trope.

NPC stats don't matter outside of combat. We will play them how we want, and change the stats if it comes to it.

Individually sure. As an indicator of general racial ability? It does matter. Changing individual stats as the need warrants has always been a thing.

 

[JEB]

Well, that actually depends. If I am picking Firbolg in part because I want Wisdom, then I also picked my ASI, and picking wisdom greatly lowered the options I could pick for a race. There are very very few wisom races after all. And weirdly almost all of them also give you Con.

And this gets into the difference between the types of decisions we are talking about.

If I am wanting to play a paladin, then I look at the races that would work well for a paladin.

Half orc can work, strength and con, and they get a good bonus to crits and the ability to stand back up
Half-Elf gives potentially con, cha and strength, and more skills
Dragonborn give str and cha and their breath weapon as an optional AOE for clearing small fry.
Changelings potentially give str, con and cha and their shapeshifting and extra skills are excellent for infiltration.

Now, to make this decision I need to compare not only the balance of the scores I want, but also the abilities. Is losing out on the savage attacks, orcish resilience, and Con worth the gain to my spellcasting DC and an AOE? I could get all three stats, but that focuses me as a skill monkey, is that what I want?

This is a complicated decision, and I know many people will say that this is the point of the game, and easy decisions spoil us and ruin the game, but think for a moment about splitting those decisions up.

Do you want Str, Con, or Cha? Some of them will give an extra +1 still, but now if you feel like the orcish abilities are more your liking you are not also sacrificing your spellcasting DC. You can decide how you want your paladin's stats seperate from what suite of abilities you want to focus on. It is two easier decisions, since you separated factors out to decide in a different manner.

So just to be clear, I perfectly understand that character creation can be pretty complex, if you're thinking ahead or looking for specific synergies and such.

But for some folks, it was never that complicated:

• Pick race.
• Pick class. Use quick build, which also chooses your background.

Now, it's:

• Pick race.
• Pick ASI. (With defaults, this will still be easy. Without them, this might trip up some folks who'd never bothered considering such before.)
• Pick class (same as before).

It may not be egregiously more complicated, but it is more complicated, especially if you hadn't ever worried about it before.

And you see the full range of approaches to character creation in my group. The folks who are happy with defaults and archetypes; the folks who carefully consider every step of character creation; the folks who always want anti-archetypes and rebels; the meticulously detailed build-planners; and every shade between. Which is why I'm hoping they all get what they want going forward.

Or you could not add those adjustments from the PHB and/or DMG and still have your NPC elf the exact same way.

Sure, you could do that. But it plainly wasn't the default expectation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You might not, but others would. I would give a mountain dwarf, half-orc or dragonborn smith an 18 strength. Or maybe not, because they are individuals, but I would take their race into consideration.

So, you would decide "I want this character to have a strength of 16" then write down 18 on the sheet? Because to be clear, I'm not imagining someone who says "I will give them a 16 because with the +2 that's an 18" because again, most people don't consider what stat then get the end result, they just write down the end result.

And I don't care what exact ability scores ever single individual in a race has either, but I do care what they have in general. So I don't know what dex score all halflings have, but I know on average it will be 2 points higher than most other races, and that tells me something important about that race.

And what it tells you is the same thing for Halflings, Elves, Goblins, Tabaxi, Aarcrockra and Kenku.

But what I've noticed is that people tend to take the same information (+2 dex) and interpret it differently for each race, and I'm always left wondering how they know that +2 dex means halflings have nimble fingers while +2 dex means that Elves are lithe and graceful and +2 dex means that Tabaxi are fast with cat-like reflexes. And it is never all three, it is always that each race has one of these attributes that their shared bonus "means".

So here I failed to emphasize that they are not just talking about removing default, static ASIs, Tasha's also removes default proficiencies for a race. So Dwarven Combat Training might now be training in cooking and playing the harp. Tool Proficiency might be calligraphy. In addition to removing their default +2 Con and +2 Str or +1 Wis.

That's fine for an individual, but culturally the dwarves should focus on their culture. Otherwise they don't have a culture at all.

1) It doesn't "remove" them, it allows them to be swapped for something of equal value.

2) You literally admitted the thing. It is fine for an individual. Because unsurprisingly not all people follow their culture, and heck it makes more sense in someways, allowing for dwarven warriors to be even more skilled craftsmen, because they are no longer "wasting" weapon profs. My dwarven fighter was already proficient in all four of those weapons, so that gave him more time to master even more tools, instead of just one. Or maybe he branched out and had other interests. This doesn't remove or destroy anything.

The "sure why not" was a response to indicate that it is okay for one race to be better than another at some things. Not to indicate that it didn't matter at all what they were better at.

And you are making my point with the Lotusden Halflings. If you remove the +1 wisdom you lose the information that they, as a race, are slightly more wise than other races. Which would include being slightly more perceptive. At least on average. Individuals can of course vary greatly within a species.

Which is information that is relatively useless, especially in your bell curve world. See, basic humans also have a +1 to wisdom (they get +1 to all stats). So Lotusden halflings are... just as perceptive as humans. Which makes them just average. Which makes them the same as everyone else... Unless we go that any race without a +1 wisdom is less perceptive.

And this is the thing that I think most people forget when they tout this "bell curve world" where the bonuses tell them what the race is good at. In 1e and other early versions of the game, humans didn't get any ASIs. Now, your basic non-V. Human gets a +1 to everything. So the entire bell curve is shifted one space for every stat, if you want to use humans as the baseline they have always been. Which drastically shifts the narrative of how this all used to work.

Yes, the example does work both ways. If you want to completely change what dwarves are you could swap who is the smarter species. The way it doesn't work is removing the racial bonus to intelligence altogether. It is hard to have a super genius evil species if the are just as smart as everyone else. If you swapped the dwarves and Illithids intelligence you could still at least make the dwarves the super genius evil species.

Gnolls do get an intelligence penalty. And again, if you want to make dwarves and halflings dumber than gnolls instead then you are changing what dwarves and halflings are. Just as removing default racial ASIs fundamentally changes what the races are. That's fine if you want to do something different for your game, but there should be a default, a baseline, that describes what a typical member of a species is, and racial ASIs are an important part of that description.

Gnolls don't have a racial write up as PC. So, I guess you are talking about the DMG information. Which, first of all, is deep in the customizing monsters section. It literally comes between "make your own monster" and "give monsters class levels"

It is also wildly out of date and full of inaccuracies. Just a few examples:

Dwarves on that chart get a +2 strength or a +2 Wisdom in addition to +2 Con. They also don't gain any hp buff from Hill Dwarf, or Mountain Dwarf Armor. Or the Dwarven Weapon Training.

Drow aren't given their Drow Weapon Training. Also, it is hilarious to realize that if you applied the "drow" bonuses to just about anything in the NPC section, you'd never get the drow statblock.

Elves, again no weapon training, no subrace abilities. I guess this is all what that "refer back to the PHB" asterisks must be for, because this is getting a bit embarrassing how poorly these depict the race, let's try a non-PHB one.

Goblins, -2 strength, that has never been the case for an officially printed goblin PC option. Even when Volo's had negatives for Orc Intelligence and Kobold strength, goblins never had this.

Kobolds here have -4 strength, double what they ended up with

Hobgoblins have none. Nothing. No bonuses or penalties at all. So much for them being smarter than dwarves.

Lizardfolk -2 Intelligence and +2 strength, nothing like what was printed in Volos.

Kenku had an ability called Ambusher, that vanished when switching to Volos.


So, yeah, I could look at that chart and see that Gnolls have -2 Intelligence, but considering how different, incomplete, and just flat out wrong that information is by now, I don't see why I should. Pretty much nothing in it is accurate anymore.


But also, returning to dwarves, you seemed to have missed why I found your argument silly. Yes, Mind Flayers are super intelligent evil geniuses... that doesn't tell us anything about any other race. Mindflayers are smarter than just about anything else. So saying it makes perfect sense for Hobgoblins to be smarter than dwarves, because MindFlayers exist and are smart, makes no sense. I don't have to fundamentally change dwarves to make them as smart as humans, who get a +1 INT. Or as smart as Hobgoblins. Who originally had no bonus.

This is the thing that drives me nuts, you have taken a position that these bonuses are so important that their removal fundamentally changes the race, and yet the changes to lizardfolk and hobgoblins seem to not even have registered with a lot of people. You say removing the Intelligence bonus to hobgoblins would fundamentally alter them, and yet, it was added in the first place, mid-edition, to a resounding.... silence.

This is about NPCs. Maybe you are confusing me with a different poster. If a single player character of a race has wildly different stats than a "normal" member of their race, they can be the exception. If the entire race is that way they are no longer the exception, they are just like everyone else.

And I'm not sure why it matters that there are monsters with a high intelligence. I think I have made it pretty clear that I am okay with different species having different average levels of intelligence.

Well I would imagine I would look at their stat block before I put them in a campaign and would see they have a 13 intelligence by default. I could then decide that this particular rakshasa was smarter than average and bump it up, or I could decide that he has a simpler plan, but makes up for it by having a keen insight into people motivations and inspires unwavering loyalty in his followers despite obvious evidence of his Evil because of his almost supernatural charisma.

She certainly could be. I think she would be perfect as the mastermind behind the throne trope.

Individually sure. As an indicator of general racial ability? It does matter. Changing individual stats as the need warrants has always been a thing.

See, you skipped right past the point. Where I bolded, that is where you proved that this debate has nothing to do with NPCs.

"Oh, this Rakshasa's default intelligence is too low for what I want. Guess he's smarter, bump"

Or, most people would play him as smart as they want, and not change his stats. Because his intelligence doesn't get used at all. This is one of the reasons a Mindflayers intelligence is so high, because they actually use their intelligence in combat, via their intelligence based abilities. It is the same reason why there is no monster meant to be fighting in melee who has a terrible str and dex, unless they are CR 0 animals.

And so, if you want your dwarves to be tough... bump their con. It is literally that simple. You seem to think that if the Racial ASIs in the Player's Handbook are changed that the Dungeon Master suddenly must change their world to reflect the new reality of the entire race of Non-Player Characters. But that is simply not the case anymore. It may have been the case decades ago in previous editions, but it isn't how 5e is designed.

Floating ASIs apply to the players, but they do not need to reflect anything about the larger population, because the DM can always change that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, you could do that. But it plainly wasn't the default expectation.

Actually, plainly it was. Because both places where it is presented it is presented as Customizing the statblock. The DMG chart is between making custom monsters and adding class levels to Monsters. The MM option is flat out called customizing.

The default was just to play the statblock straight. You could even make an argument that none of those statblocks represent humans either. We all assume they do, but they very easily could not.

So just to be clear, I perfectly understand that character creation can be pretty complex, if you're thinking ahead or looking for specific synergies and such.

But for some folks, it was never that complicated:

• Pick race.
• Pick class. Use quick build, which also chooses your background.

Now, it's:

• Pick race.
• Pick ASI. (With defaults, this will still be easy. Without them, this might trip up some folks who'd never bothered considering such before.)
• Pick class (same as before).

It may not be egregiously more complicated, but it is more complicated, especially if you hadn't ever worried about it before.

And you see the full range of approaches to character creation in my group. The folks who are happy with defaults and archetypes; the folks who carefully consider every step of character creation; the folks who always want anti-archetypes and rebels; the meticulously detailed build-planners; and every shade between. Which is why I'm hoping they all get what they want going forward.

LEt me try this again. And maybe if I do it this way, it will make sense.

• Pick Race
• Pick Class
• Use Quick Build to Pick ASI

The class tells you to put your best in Intelligence followed by Con, there you go, +2 Intelligence, +1 Con. Want to go against the grain? Do something else.

This can't trip anyone up. No one is going to suddenly flounder because they have no idea what to do with their ASIs. Heck, did they flounder at level 4 when they got ASIs? Level 8? Level 12? Were they suddenly confused because they'd never had to think about where to increase their scores before?

This argument just makes no sense. I'm sorry, I feel for your friends who want their defaults, but this is not even a minor annoyance in the level of decision making it takes. And trying to present it as though they now have this unseen obstacle they are going to stumble over makes no sense.

 

[Arial Black]

Saying that Gauntlets of Ogre power prove anything is kind of hilarious. A wand of Fireballs cast fireballs. Elven Boots give you advantage on Stealth. Yes, items have bonuses that are specific to that item. That is a non-observation.

Feats too. You say that Heavy Armor Master gives you strength, because that makes sense. I'm curious, doesn't Con also make sense? It is physical conditioning after all. And, yeah, this doesn't apply to every feat, but just like magic items, feats have specific things they give you. War Caster involves a major focus on your ability to cast spells, but doesn't increase your spellcasting ability score in anyway. Magic Initiate can represent studying and learning an entire new style of magic, focused on a new score, and yet that doesn't increase your score with that ability.

And, lest we get too deep in the weeds, what does an ability score improvement at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19 represent? Are those meant for increasing your strength? You constitution? Your Wisdom? You seem to be pointing at that all ability score increases, feats, magic items, class abilities, racial ASIs are all very specific things that give very specific increases to very specific scores. But the biggest place for score increases for a PC is actually the true ASI's right? So, what specific thing do they represent.


And, about earning things through play. Did I have to earn having a demonic ancestor that granted me power through play? Did I have to earn gaining the title as the Faerie Queen's Knight through play? Did I have to earn my spellcasting ability through play? In fact, if I start as a martial, then at level three gain spellcasting, what did I have to do in play to gain that?

You can put your foot down and say that we have to "earn it" but a lot of the things players get that are truly defining for them, they don't earn at all. I didn't earn the ability to play a Tiefling. I didn't earn the ability to play a warlock. I didn't earn the ability to play a bard. I just did. Why should being a strong halfling need to be earned, but playing the Grandchild of the Duke of Acheron, blessed with infernal powers by my grandfather's sword so that I may seek him out and kill him not need to be earned?

At first level, you choose a race, a class, and a background. That 'earns' the abilities provided by those choices. If you choose, say, barbarian, then that 'earns' Rage and Unarmoured Defence. But choosing barbarian does NOT earn you Spellcasting, because choosing barbarian gets you barbarian-type stuff not wizard-type stuff.

Choosing your race 'earns' ALL that the choice gives you, including ASIs. And ALL those things are because you are that race! Including those ASIs, which are chosen to represent what that RACE is like, not what your individual PC is like.

If set racial bonuses go away and are replaced by floating +2 and +1, then those bonuses will not be gained because of your choice of race!

So why would they be earned as part of your choice of race, since everyone gets +2 and +1 no matter what race they are?

They would instead be part of the Determine Ability Scores section.

This is a change in the rules for how ALL characters are created in 5e. Opinions are divided on whether this is good or bad, but if implemented it means that the only thing about race that has changed is that race no longer gives ANY ASIs!

 

[Faolyn]

With floating ASIs the halfling paladin will be more similar to the half-orc paladin.

No, it will have one attribute that's more similar, if the halfling paladin and half-orc paladin end up putting the same score and same ASI in the same attribute. You might as well say that it would be bad for the two to have the same alignment, or same Intelligence score, or choose the same spells because they'd be similar.

And also, what are the odds there are going to be two paladins in the same party? It might happen, but it's going to be very rare. And if there aren't two paladins in the same party, then it doesn't matter if the halfling paladin in my party has the same Strength as the half-orc paladin in your party.

I want races to have a difference between one another. ASIs are one way to do that. There are only so many mechanical factors one can adjust:

• HP
• Movement
• Proficiencies
• Language
• Vision/Hearing
• Skills
• Size (for carrying capacity)
• Quirks (like dragon's breath or lucky)
• and Attributes

That's it. So will you please look at this list and tell me which one has the greatest mechanical impact on gameplay?

Well, we both know that attribute modifiers are important, since they are used to make up your hit points, skills, proficiencies, saves, etc., so this is a trick question. But if you're talking about raw numbers--Strength 16 vs. Strength 17--I can honestly say that the last time those numbers were ever mechanically important in any game I played or ran would be the last time I played AD&D2e. So... over 20 years ago?

And quite frankly, while the modifiers are important, the difference that a +1 makes, even in a bounded accuracy system like 5e, is not all that huge.

Because feats can be determined by culture. Please note, I am not talking about culture, as in: "Those dwarves make the sourest of sourdoughs around." I am talking about the bread and butter of this conversation - mechanical impacts of race - ASIs.

There are very few racial feats, and it's unclear if WotC is going to produce anymore. And racial feats, again, are not the same thing as ASIs.

And then to take it a step further, if you make all feats available to all races, then you have almost zero mechanical difference between the races. (I'd still like to see a list of racial feats though.)

And again, we're not talking about "the races." We're talking about extraordinary individuals. One orc PC taking an elf feat doesn't mean that orcs, as a species, are now more like elves. It means that one orc PC has learned something previously known only to elves. Or has developed a trick that mimics an elfin ability. Maybe your orc was blessed by the Queen of Spring and it manifests as the Fey Teleportation feat.

Do people in your games take a lot of racial feats? I'm not sure anyone at my table ever has.

Those are awesome! I like them. You should definitely continue to develop them. They are worth fleshing out.

Thank you! However, my next setting has neither halflings nor orcs in it, so these will have to sit on the back burner for a while.

That said, I also like a baseline for PCs and for them to be mechanically different from their tree friends who live down the road. I guess from my logic, people are not travelling 30-40 miles to get to work. You live by the ocean, you learn to clean a fish because that is what you are eating five times a week. You live in the forest, you learn to climb trees.

Those are things covered by skills, proficiencies, racial traits, and even feats.

I have stated it before: I would be fine giving regions the ASI and cultural feat bonuses instead of race. I would not care one bit, as long as they are mechanically different and players get to choose. So the dragonborn that grows up next to the halfling in the city of Verlay, where every child dreams of becoming a knight, gets proficiency with shields and a bonus in strength. Of course the problem with this is someone will come along and say, "I want my desert human to have the shield proficiency and the bonus in strength. Why can't I be an outlier and be like those people from Verlay." And then the conversation starts all over again.

As one of my DMs put it, if you want something for a reason, that's fine. If you want it just because it's cool, then no. Have the player write a detailed backstory explaining how their dragonborn or desert human learned the skills of Verlay halfling. I allow for bullet points, if the player is uncomfortable writing prose.

 

[Chaosmancer]

At first level, you choose a race, a class, and a background. That 'earns' the abilities provided by those choices. If you choose, say, barbarian, then that 'earns' Rage and Unarmoured Defence. But choosing barbarian does NOT earn you Spellcasting, because choosing barbarian gets you barbarian-type stuff not wizard-type stuff.

Choosing your race 'earns' ALL that the choice gives you, including ASIs. And ALL those things are because you are that race! Including those ASIs, which are chosen to represent what that RACE is like, not what your individual PC is like.

If set racial bonuses go away and are replaced by floating +2 and +1, then those bonuses will not be gained because of your choice of race!

So why would they be earned as part of your choice of race, since everyone gets +2 and +1 no matter what race they are?

They would instead be part of the Determine Ability Scores section.

This is a change in the rules for how ALL characters are created in 5e. Opinions are divided on whether this is good or bad, but if implemented it means that the only thing about race that has changed is that race no longer gives ANY ASIs!

So again, I have to "earn" barbarian by picking barbarian. But I can't "earn" strength unless I pick a race that gives me strength? Because... then my strength isn't because of my race?

I mean, think about your choice of langauge here. "I'm sorry, I know your Loxodon Fighter is huge, and a fighter and solider who led a legion into a grand defense against a horde of demons, but you just haven't earned having a higher strength. Not like that Orc sage who has spent his entire life in a library. He earned his strength"

Yes, the rule has changed. Race no longer determines some static set of ASIs. But arguing against that rule change by saying that players need to "earn" their bonuses is just nonsensical. I didn't "earn" the right to play an orc. I didn't earn the right to play a barbarian. Heck, I could play a barbarian with spellcasting. Maybe I go human and grab a spellcasting feat. Maybe I play a race with spellcasting. Maybe the DM is one of those DMs who feels everyone should have a feat at first level and I get to pick a spellcasting feat that way.

And again, you can say I then "earned" the right to have those abilities, but I didn't "earn" anything. I just picked options that were available to me. Now Tasha's options are available to me, so if I don't need to "earn" the right to play a Human Barbarian with Fey Touched, who is going to go Wild Magic and lean into mixing barbarian with magic, then I shouldn't need to "earn" the right to play a Loxodon fighter who has a higher strength.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, it will have one attribute that's more similar, if the halfling paladin and half-orc paladin end up putting the same score and same ASI in the same attribute. You might as well say that it would be bad for the two to have the same alignment, or same Intelligence score, or choose the same spells because they'd be similar.

And also, what are the odds there are going to be two paladins in the same party? It might happen, but it's going to be very rare. And if there aren't two paladins in the same party, then it doesn't matter if the halfling paladin in my party has the same Strength as the half-orc paladin in your party.

Also, bouncing off this for a second. Even if you have a halfling paladin and a half-orc paladin, and both of those paladins end up with the same ability scores, like exactly. Same strength, same con, same int, all of it.

IF they pick different subclasses, different spells, heck, different fighting styles, they are still going to be very different.

I've been in games where we had multiple clerics, or multiple fighters, or multiple wizards. Heck, the wizards game had three wizard all sharing their spell lists, and they still all played very differently. Saying that both of these hypothetical paladins having a 16 str makes them too similar is just absurd to me. No matter what stats you have, a Devotion Paladin is going to play very different than a Conquest Paladin. Even if you both played the same race, let alone two different races.

 

[Arial Black]

So again, I have to "earn" barbarian by picking barbarian. But I can't "earn" strength unless I pick a race that gives me strength? Because... then my strength isn't because of my race?

At last!

You might not like the word 'earn'; fair enough.

Your choices get you what they give you, and what they give you is because that source is associated with that benefit.

Choosing wizard gets you spells not Rage because wizards are associated with casting spells and NOT associated with raging.

Choosing barbarian gets you Rage not spellcasting because barbarians are associated with raging and NOT associated with casting spells.

Choosing goliath gets you +2 Str not Dex because goliaths are associated with strength and NOT associated with dexterity.

Choosing halfling gets you +2 Dex not Str because halflings are associated with dexterity and NOT associated with strength!

And if halflings or loxodons (whatever they are!) want any ability score higher than their choices gained them, then they must earn those things through play, in the same way that D&D has worked for decades.

This proposed change is a much bigger change than it first appears. It is not changing how racial ability score bonuses are applied, it is removing racial ability score bonuses altogether, along with the concepts that go with them, in order to add elective bonuses to ability score generation.

This is, in my opinion, bad.

It means that many concepts tied to species either disappear (goliaths as a race are NOT conceptually stronger than other races on average) or no longer make sense (goliaths ARE conceptually stronger, but that is not reflected in their....Strength???).

 

[Faolyn]

Also, bouncing off this for a second. Even if you have a halfling paladin and a half-orc paladin, and both of those paladins end up with the same ability scores, like exactly. Same strength, same con, same int, all of it.

IF they pick different subclasses, different spells, heck, different fighting styles, they are still going to be very different.

Heck, even if they were exactly the same except for their race, they can still be RP'd very differently through different motivations, different goals, and different backgrounds.