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."

 

[JEB]

What they're suggesting is that NPCs only have the traits the DM wants them to have. If the DM doesn't bother to give an NPC dragonborn a breathweapon, it doesn't have one.

Sure. I'm not arguing that DMs can't customize NPCs any way they want. But the only way they officially suggest adding racial traits is to refer to the traits in the PHB. And when they expanded on it in the DMG, they included ASIs consistent with the PHB versions of the race. (Except, apparently, the dwarf, but that's more likely an error than an indication that all the rest are wrong.)

They may have changed their mind now, but it's pretty clear that they originally had a different idea of what racial traits meant for PCs vs. NPCs.

Or, as another example, take a look at the entry for Lycanthropes. There's a sidebar which reads "The statistics presented in this section assume a base creature of human. However, you can also use the statistics to represent nonhuman lycanthropes, adding verisimilitude by allowing a nonhuman lycanthrope to retain one or more of its humanoid racial traits. For example, an elf werewolf might have the Fey Ancestry trait."

One or more. It doesn't say, "you must increase the lycanthrope's stats according to their ASIs," nor does it say "you must give them all of their racial traits." Instead, it says you can add verisimilitude--note the word--and that an elf werewolf might have Fey Ancestry. Which means that no, an elven werewolf might in fact not have Darkvision, and it might actually have to sleep.

Lycanthropes aren't the same as the generic NPCs, though; it's a magical transformation. Note also they use the word "verisimilitude", implying that it's more realistic for the nonhuman lycanthrope to retain some of their racial traits...

And again, are you now arguing that elves don't generally have Fey Ancestry or Darkvision?

 

[Faolyn]

They may have changed their mind now, but it's pretty clear that they originally had a different idea of what racial traits meant for PCs vs. NPCs.

Which is what us Floating ASI people have been saying all along.

And again, are you now arguing that elves don't generally have Fey Ancestry or Darkvision?

I'm arguing that if the DM doesn't want them to for whatever reason, then they don't have to. As an example, if I as a DM need to have an elven village fall under the effects of a magical sleep spell for plot reasons, I can have that happen. As long as I don't force a PC to fall asleep as well, it doesn't matter, and it lets the PCs know that whatever is happening is Big Plot Hook News because it made elves magically sleep.

 

[Faolyn]

I see a table of suggested attributes. Oddly, they aligned with the ASI in the PHB. Its not a leap.

It's almost like the DMG and the PH were put out roughly at the same time, long before they decided to bring in monster NPCs...

 

[Scribe]

It's almost like the DMG and the PH were put out roughly at the same time, long before they decided to bring in monster NPCs...

And?

The point was 'were the PHB lineages designed with the intent of having ASI as part of their biological makeup'.

The PHB and DMG point to 'yes'.

 

[JEB]

I'm arguing that if the DM doesn't want them to for whatever reason, then they don't have to. As an example, if I as a DM need to have an elven village fall under the effects of a magical sleep spell for plot reasons, I can have that happen. As long as I don't force a PC to fall asleep as well, it doesn't matter, and it lets the PCs know that whatever is happening is Big Plot Hook News because it made elves magically sleep.

Again, sure, as a DM you can do whatever you want. But that's different from what D&D 5E assumes by default, and what they supported as the default in the core rules.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, sure, as a DM you can do whatever you want.

Exactly! Which means that the DM can make all NPC halflings weaker than NPC goliaths and there can be a PC halfling that chooses to put a +2 bonus in Strength. You (generic you) can't say "but then I won't know what a standard halfling is like!" when you, the DM, can make the standard halfling anything you want. You can't say "but halflings shouldn't be strong!" when you, the DM, can make every single NPC halfling as non-strong as you want.

Or, as I've been saying all along, PCs are different than NPCs and the actions of one PC halfling has no effect on the entire NPC species.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

One attribute more similar is still similar. And when there are only six attributes, and those attributes are often refined by class, then they become even more similar. A barbarian most often puts the highest score in strength; halfling barbarian or half-orc brbarian now have the same starting strength - hence - more similar.

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.

So, I have to point this out because you can't have it both ways. You are not allowed to insist that a +1 isn't that big of a deal, then fight tooth and nail to say your halfling warrior must be able to start with the same amount of + in strength as a half-orc. So if that extra + is not all that huge, why the need for floating ASIs as opposed to racial ASIs? No matter how you spread your point buy, it will only create a mere +1 difference.

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.

I will explain it again because it must be getting lost in the text wall. I want there to be a difference between races. ASIs is one way to do that. You want that gone. Okay. That leaves racial feats. Show me racial feats that make them mechanically different. (Everyone understands they are different things - but they lead to the same objective - races feeling distinct from one another.)

And again, we're not talking about "the races." We're talking about extraordinary individuals.

Really? Do I have to use the word PC in front of the word race every time I say it for you to know that I am discussing player made characters? How about this - from here on out - all my examples are about player characters, not groups of races. I thought I made that abundantly clear in my prior post.

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

So you say this. But two paragraphs prior say this:

Well, we both know that attribute modifiers are important, since they are used to make up your hit points, skills, proficiencies, saves, etc.

The two are connected. You even say so right here. So when I say I want the PC races mechanically different from one another, do you see how they're interconnected. Turn one dial, another dial goes up or down.

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.

That's fine advice and I am happy that it works for your table. But it is not what we are discussing. I merely expressed how ASIs could be reconfigured to be more acceptable. To still have function. Because of they are floating, then just increase the point buy and skip the superfluous step.

 

[Scott Christian]

Given we now understand quite clearly what "race" is, why on earth would we want to preserve even a shred of that ideology?

Sir, we are discussing a game and game mechanics. If you do not want to discuss the game of D&D, you can simply never hit reply to me again.

 

[Scott Christian]

You mean this part right here, immediately before they tell you how to customize the statblocks in the MM

"This appendix contains statistics for various humanoid nonplayer characters (NPCs) that adventurers might encounter during a D&D campaign, including lowly commoners and mighty archmages. These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs."

It does after all, literally say that the statblocks can be used for nonhumans. It then tells you how to, optionally, homebrew them. But the default is clearly to just grab 'em

The ones in the MM are clearly meant to represent default NPC's of s SPECIFIC OCCUPATION. The acolyte, the bandit, the assassin, etc. It is in their title. And it specifically says you can add the racial attribute bonus. This is very clear.

 

[Faolyn]

One attribute more similar is still similar. And when there are only six attributes, and those attributes are often refined by class, then they become even more similar. A barbarian most often puts the highest score in strength; halfling barbarian or half-orc brbarian now have the same starting strength - hence - more similar.

Are you literally saying that just because two barbarians have one stat in common, then the fact that there's a good chance that all of their other five stats, their archetype, background, choice of weapon, Personality, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw, and personal history, are all entirely different... that's too similar for you? Even when it's extremely unlikely that there will be both a halfling barbarian and a half-orc barbarian in the same party? Even when there are plenty of other races that get a +2 Strength bonus? Even when there are plenty of parties that roll for stats?

I'm sorry, but that's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Seriously, would you disallow having two barbarians of the same race in a single party because they'd be too similar?