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."

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know, why would it?

You seemed to think it should with your comment on it being interesting they didn't have the rules in a third core book.

I don't have a D&D Beyond subscription, but I am capable of searching the monster list. The only official, non-homebrew commoners I can find are the generic commoner, the lizardfolk commoner (which has issues, as both @Faolyn and I noted), and two others: a goblin commoner and a kobold commoner, both from Tales from the Yawning Portal. Since I have no subscription, I can't determine whether they conform to the DMG guidelines, or Volo's guidelines, or if they're just using the default commoner stat block.

That said, if they do use the generic commoner stat block, that simply means racial traits weren't applied. Also, D&D Beyond isn't infallible, either (though I would agree it's more reliable than 5etools) and has had unofficial stuff under its aegis (such as that racial feat supplement they released on DMs Guild years ago).

I posted the stats a while ago, the Kobolds are full generic commoner. The Goblins have 8 str and are commoners.

And, I think that this is strong evidence of my point. An official product of the official company decided that applying the racial traits was not necessary even as it made Kobold Commoners better in 5/6 stats than their "warrior" counterparts in the MM.

You can say that it is a mistake, but it is literally direct evidence that you can just use the block without the Racial traits as the official default, since the only time they used an official NPC statblock with a race, they didn't use the Racial Traits.

And as I pointed out, that may indeed suggest that "PCs are special" had begun to emerge as an idea sooner than 2020. Or it may just indicate that they had a rethink on their baseline ASIs. Either way, it doesn't have any bearing on how they treated ASIs in the core rules - as a trait that was part of the race's makeup.

So... now the DMG isn't part of the core rules, when it was before?

Or are you saying that since Volo's isn't Core, it gets overwritten despite being the official version of these races, for an optional rule on a table that isn't supported by their digital tool set?

Then I reiterate the question I asked @Faolyn - if you assume that a generic commoner is meant to represent a member of a nonhuman race as is, does that mean elf NPCs don't have darkvision? That dragonborn NPCs don't have breath weapons?

The only interpretation that makes sense here is that you can use the NPC statblocks as is if you don't want racial traits factored in, or you can reflect their race by applying the racial traits from the PHB or DMG.

That is actually not even the first question that needs to be asked. The first question is "does it matter".

Does it matter if the Elf NPC has darkvision when he is the court mage for the King and isn't in darkness? If he is never in a situation that utilizes Dark Vision, then it doesn't matter if I give him darkvision or not.

But then we get to the gotcha part of this question. If it does matter, and I agree that the elf gets darkvision, does that mean I have to give him longsword proficiency and +2 dex as well?

I mean, I definitely think it would be cool to see a Dragonborn forging a sword by using his breath weapon... which is supposed to be 1/ short rest and would be impossible to do following the rules. Or maybe a bartender using his ice breath to cool drinks... but again, 1/short rest, so by the rules, that would be a complete impossibility. But, what if I do it anyways? Am I then honorbound to give them other traits?

I don't think so. Just like I can give a character a wizard's spellbook and a cantrip, but I don't have to give them any actual spells. That doesn't fit the rules, no character can get a wizard's spellbook and be learning arcane magic enough to cast a cantrip, but not any spells.

Maybe Dragonbreath is hard to master, maybe it is actually a rare trait, maybe any number of things. I as the DM have full authority to decide if my dragonborn can use it and how often, so I don't see the point except to try and point out that it is a trait they are famous for, that by following the rules the commoners wouldn't get, then back-end that to force me to accept giving them all the same ASIs as well.

First of all, when did I say floating ASIs were "bad"? I already said I don't really have a position on fixed vs. floating. I just want continued support for fixed ASIs as well, so folks who liked having defaults for character races can still get them.

Second, humans don't count for this discussion, because only the variant human has floating ASI in the core rules. The default human gets +1 to all six stats. If you pick variant human, you're already not a casual player, you're looking to customize.

Third, it is true that two existing races have partial floating ASI - the changeling and the half-elf. However, those both still provide some partial guidance for folks who want it, which is better than zero guidance. (Also, now I wonder how popular the changeling and half-elf are with casual players.)

Fourth, sure, Wizards is perfectly capable of establishing a character race so adaptable and formless that it wouldn't have any typical ASIs. But so what? You're still making things more complicated for folks who liked having suggestions. (In fact, similar to changelings and half-elves, I wonder how popular such a character race would have been with casual players.) I don't see the harm in throwing some recommendations in with them.

Four existing races. Changeling, Half-Elf, Warforged and Simic.

As for how popular, looking around on the internet I found the chart people have been posting. Simic doesn't break top 20. Changeling is 0.54% Warforged is 0.66% and Half-elf is 3rd place overall with 9.53% (only beaten by Elf and Human. Human by the way gets 21.17% though it isn't possible to tell how much of that is floating. Elf is 13.66% )

Now, where this data is interesting is that the Half-Elf is the only one of these races in the PHB. The others are Eberron or Ravnica specific. And the gap is fairly significant.

4th place Tiefling -> 7%
5th place Dwarf -> 6.22%
6th Place Dragonborn -> 6.03%

I also enjoy how Variant Human, a core rule race option and the most popular human option as far as we're able to tell, doesn't count. But the DMG optional chart buried in the book that no one really looks out except for dungeon masters customizing monsters does count.

And look, it would be nice if players who want static default ASIs got tossed a bone. But I'm just saying that they already have races that don't do that for them. There are no recommendations for Humans, Changelings, Warforged or Simics, why should we now start demanding recommendations for every race no matter its default? It was okay not to have them before.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I see those stat arrays on 5etools, which as I noted, is not official. What do they look like on D&D Beyond? The official versions, mind, not homebrew.

I also don't see those statblocks in the actual Tales from the Yawning Portal book, which suggests they may have been assembled by D&D Beyond themselves rather than Wizards of the Coast. So D&D Beyond might have simply messed up.

I'd also point out that the goblin commoner there does in fact have an ASI adjustment from the standard commoner. So even if those are official stats, clearly that means the default commoner does not reflect goblin stats.

Actually, looks like DnDBeyond gave the Goblins straight 10's. So, 5e tools gave them the 8, not DnD beyond

And again, you can claim it was a mess up on DnDBeyond's part, but it is literally the only official examples we have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of course you dont have to. You dont have to use any system as provided. You could have used Tasha's as Optional, nothing is set in stone.

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

Really? Hill dwarves get +2 Wisdom?

Deep Gnomes get +1 Str, +2 Con? Meaning Gnomes don't get +2 Int?

It seems to me that a lot of those suggestions are wrong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Read that part I bolded and underlined. Actually, don't bother, I'll repost it.

These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs

These statblocks, as written, can be used to represent a human, an elf, a dragonborn, a flumph, ect. That is explicitly stated, it is 100% clear.

Yes, then you can customize and homebrew the statblock to add racial traits and racial attributes (which by the way, why don't you like talking about racial traits? It seems to be ASIs or Racial feats or nothing. Racial Traits are still a thing) but that is not the default. It is not required. It is not the intent.

 

[Minigiant]

There's one thing in the PC and NPC discussion of D&D that is never outright said

The Adventurer Death and Retirement Funnel.

Technically, there are PC adventurers with normal state and look like normal members of their race.
The issue is that they are killed, maimed, or retired before they live Tier 1 play. Many don't make it to to Tier 1 play and leave in Tier 0. Most normies don't cut the mustard.

PCs have higher and stranger stat arrays because they are special and this lets them survive and continue.

What 3e, 4e, and 5e, did is just said make the weird special PC at the start instead of having 2-5 dead or retired normal PC come before them.

 

[Scribe]

Really? Hill dwarves get +2 Wisdom?

Deep Gnomes get +1 Str, +2 Con? Meaning Gnomes don't get +2 Int?

It seems to me that a lot of those suggestions are wrong.

Lineage: PHB : DMG
Half-Orc: 2 Str, 1 Con: 2 Str, 1 Con
Dwarf: 2 Con, 2 Str or 1 Wisdom: 2 Str/Wis, 2 Con
Elf: 2 Dex, 1 Int/Wis: 2 Dex, 1 Int/Wis
Halfling: 2 Dex, 1 Con/Cha: 2 Dex, 1 Con/Cha
Dragonborn: 2 Str, 1 Cha: 2 Str, 1 Cha
Gnome: 2 Int, 1 Dex/Con: 2 Int, 2 (!!) Dex/Con
Half-Elf: 2 Cha, 1 Float: 2 Cha, 1 Int/Dex (remind you of any other lineage?)
Tiefling: 2 Cha, 1 Int: 2 Cha, 1 Int

Now you look over that, and you want to tell me there isnt an obvious link? Like say...oh...ASI being tied to the lineage?

Its beyond belief to think otherwise.

Did things get adjusted for some of the other lineages based on later works? Well yes. But Looking at oh I dont know maybe the root example over this whole thread?

Halfings? Dex, and Con/Cha.
Half-Orc? Str, and Con.

Why is this even questioned? Its obvious that there was an absolutely intentional, explicit, tie between ASI at the lineage level. Without question.

 

[JEB]

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.

Yes, the DM can do whatever they want with character races. Was there a point at which I argued otherwise? (Once again, I think you're mixing me up with other folks.)

I'm only speaking to how PC vs. NPC ASIs were treated by default under the core rules of 5E at the beginning, and how it doesn't match what they say about PC and NPC ASIs now. That has no bearing on anyone's home campaign, and never did.

 

[JEB]

You seemed to think it should with your comment on it being interesting they didn't have the rules in a third core book.

I was actually just responding to @Faolyn 's comment on the matter, but OK.

You can say that it is a mistake, but it is literally direct evidence that you can just use the block without the Racial traits as the official default, since the only time they used an official NPC statblock with a race, they didn't use the Racial Traits.

I never said you can't use the default NPC statblock to represent members of nonhuman races. As you quoted from the Monster Manual, it outright says this. But it's also plain that the default NPC statblock doesn't include racial traits; you have to add those yourself. And when 5E launched, racial traits included ASIs.

Again, I doubt they'd do this now. In fact, I take this as a strong indicator that a formal edition upgrade is in the early stages, so they can create a version of 5E (or a 6E) that doesn't have default ASI at its core.

(Though even then, they should still include quick builds for races, just like they do for classes.)

So... now the DMG isn't part of the core rules, when it was before?

Or are you saying that since Volo's isn't Core, it gets overwritten despite being the official version of these races, for an optional rule on a table that isn't supported by their digital tool set?

I'm fuzzy on what your objection is at this point, but... the DMG is part of the core rules, and represented Wizards' approach as of 2014. Volo's is not core, but may represent an evolution in their thinking as of 2016 - though it doesn't necessarily indicate that they'd embraced PCs and NPCs being different as far as ASIs, only that they had a rethink about those races' traits.

That is actually not even the first question that needs to be asked. The first question is "does it matter".

Does it matter if the Elf NPC has darkvision when he is the court mage for the King and isn't in darkness? If he is never in a situation that utilizes Dark Vision, then it doesn't matter if I give him darkvision or not.

But then we get to the gotcha part of this question. If it does matter, and I agree that the elf gets darkvision, does that mean I have to give him longsword proficiency and +2 dex as well?

I mean, I definitely think it would be cool to see a Dragonborn forging a sword by using his breath weapon... which is supposed to be 1/ short rest and would be impossible to do following the rules. Or maybe a bartender using his ice breath to cool drinks... but again, 1/short rest, so by the rules, that would be a complete impossibility. But, what if I do it anyways? Am I then honorbound to give them other traits?

I don't think so. Just like I can give a character a wizard's spellbook and a cantrip, but I don't have to give them any actual spells. That doesn't fit the rules, no character can get a wizard's spellbook and be learning arcane magic enough to cast a cantrip, but not any spells.

Maybe Dragonbreath is hard to master, maybe it is actually a rare trait, maybe any number of things. I as the DM have full authority to decide if my dragonborn can use it and how often, so I don't see the point except to try and point out that it is a trait they are famous for, that by following the rules the commoners wouldn't get, then back-end that to force me to accept giving them all the same ASIs as well.

Yes, as the DM you can do whatever you want. I never said otherwise. I only said what they expected you to do to reflect racial traits for NPCs under the core rules of 5E at their launch. That's it. What you or anyone else does with racial traits is entirely your business.

Four existing races. Changeling, Half-Elf, Warforged and Simic.

As for how popular, looking around on the internet I found the chart people have been posting. Simic doesn't break top 20. Changeling is 0.54% Warforged is 0.66% and Half-elf is 3rd place overall with 9.53% (only beaten by Elf and Human. Human by the way gets 21.17% though it isn't possible to tell how much of that is floating. Elf is 13.66% )

Now, where this data is interesting is that the Half-Elf is the only one of these races in the PHB. The others are Eberron or Ravnica specific. And the gap is fairly significant.

4th place Tiefling -> 7%
5th place Dwarf -> 6.22%
6th Place Dragonborn -> 6.03%

That's interesting, actually. We're overdue for another one of D&D Beyond's grand releases of player stats...

I also enjoy how Variant Human, a core rule race option and the most popular human option as far as we're able to tell, doesn't count. But the DMG optional chart buried in the book that no one really looks out except for dungeon masters customizing monsters does count.

Variant humans, by definition, aren't default humans. So no, they do not count in a discussion about default ASIs.

And look, it would be nice if players who want static default ASIs got tossed a bone. But I'm just saying that they already have races that don't do that for them. There are no recommendations for Humans, Changelings, Warforged or Simics, why should we now start demanding recommendations for every race no matter its default? It was okay not to have them before.

There are recommendations for humans. They get +1 to all six stats.

And the existence of races that did have partial floating ASIs isn't an argument against recommended defaults for all races. I'll concede that if you have some kind of hyper-adaptable, formless race, then arguing that they literally don't have typical members is fair. (If still unhelpful for casual players.) But suggesting that a race like the lupin or the thri-kreen would never have typical members, such that you couldn't recommend defaults, is a stretch. If Wizards were to make that argument, it would sound like an excuse.

 

[JEB]

Actually, looks like DnDBeyond gave the Goblins straight 10's. So, 5e tools gave them the 8, not DnD beyond

And again, you can claim it was a mess up on DnDBeyond's part, but it is literally the only official examples we have.

View attachment 133032

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

But I should also note that in addition to not having ASIs applied (neither the DMG nor Volo versions), the statblock also lacks any other goblin racial traits. (Except for small size and the goblin language, I suppose.) Suggests to me they simply didn't apply racial traits to this statblock... which as discussed, you can totally do.

This assumes, again, that D&D Beyond didn't just mess up; this is already a statblock that doesn't appear in the original work.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, the DM can do whatever they want with character races. Was there a point at which I argued otherwise? (Once again, I think you're mixing me up with other folks.)

I'm only speaking to how PC vs. NPC ASIs were treated by default under the core rules of 5E at the beginning, and how it doesn't match what they say about PC and NPC ASIs now. That has no bearing on anyone's home campaign, and never did.

PC vs. NPC Ability score adjustments were treated the same by default under the core rules of 5E at the beginning.
However 5e 100% did not see PCs as normal members of their race. PCs were all special and extraordinary.
NPCs rolled 3d6.
PCs rolls 4d6 drop lowest..

This is where the confusion lies.
All this Tasha's and this UA is describe more ways PCs are special and out of the ordinary