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]

DMG vs. Volo's:
Goblin: +2 Dex on both

DMG has -2 str, Volos has +1 Con. Volo's also has Fury of the Small, which is not in the DMG.

Kenku: +2 Dex on both

DMG has no further bonuses, Volos has +1 Wisdom. DMG has Ambusher trait, Volo's has Expert Forger and Kenku Training.

Kobold: +2 Dex on both, both also have a Str penalty (-4 in DMG, -2 in Volo's)

There is a sizable difference between -2 and -4. And Volo's was errata'd to not have the -2 Strength. Also, Volo's added Grovel, Cower and Beg

Orc: +2 Str, -2 Int on both (Volo's just gives them +1 Con as well)

And then was errata'd to not have the -2. And on top of Volo's giving them the +1 Con they also got Menacing and Powerful Build.

Also, if you look at the version on DnD beyond, they changed Menacing to Primal Intuition, so even Volo's is out of date for them at this point.

It is true that the hobgoblin and lizardfolk are completely different, however. (Though the DMG hobgoblin has no adjustments at all, so they might have just been concerned about leaving them at a disadvantage with other PC races. Balance issues over "accuracy", again.)

Nevertheless, I don't think you can say "nothing" matches, there are points of correspondence. And it's still consistent with a rethink on the baseline ASIs, rather than a suggestion ASIs were never meant to be a baseline trait for the species. (But I do grant that a shift to "PCs are special" could be indicated by Volo's as well.)

Yeah, I think seeing how different they are really tells us that at a minimum, five years ago they changed everything. Not recently. Not with Tasha's. Five years ago.

 

[JEB]

"If you wanted" is the key phrase though, isn't it? That is what tells us that, well, if you want them to use it, then you can reference those stats. But, since it requires a desire to apply, then it is not the default state of those NPCs.

Yes, if you want to apply racial features, you can, but it is optional.

Sure, it's optional. If you want to reflect the character's race. By default, you are not. Without racial traits applied, the NPCs are just completely generic statblocks. They can represent anyone because they represent no one.

I never said "zero correspondence"

But, let's start with the back end. If Volo's was when they "changed their mind" because nothing in the Volo's matches the DMG. Then that was back in 2016. So, five years ago. So, no matter what we want to say about anything else, do we agree that 5 years ago represents a change in the game?

A change in how they viewed those particular character races? Sure, that's obvious. A change in how they viewed ASIs for PCs vs. NPCs, in general? Not necessarily. It could as likely be them reexamining those races for balance and flavor purposes, now that they were becoming PC options. You'd have to ask the designers to be sure. (Though I suspect they would be rather coy with the answer at this point, knowing the scrutiny they're under.)

And, no I'm not saying that the DMG chart alone shows that NPCs don't use the ASIs. But add in the MM showing us that we don't need to change them, the DMG no longer being accurate to pretty much anything. It really starts showing that the NPCs are treated differently.

NPCs are treated differently in general, but in the core rules, PCs and NPCs have the same, or at least extremely similar, ASIs.

Yes, but "If you want to do this, here is how" is vastly different than "Every NPC of this race must have these traits."

Of course, because you can customize statblocks however you want. But they only offered one approach to having a NPC reflect racial traits in the Monster Manual and DMG, and that was applying racial traits - either as they appeared in the PHB (with ASIs) or as they appeared in the DMG (also with ASIs).

Disingenuous really?

There are no Subraces for:

Dragonborn
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Leonin
Satyr
Aarckrokra
Goliath
Bugbear
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Firbolg
Kenku
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Orc
Tabaxi
Triton
Yuan-Ti
Tortle
Changeling
Kalashatar
Warforged
Centaur
Loxodon
Simic Hybrid
Minotaur
Vedalken

And, in past editions, there were subraces for these types of creatures. So, would it really be disingenuous to treat them without a subrace, when the majority of races in the game don't have subraces?

Actually, dragonborn do in fact have subraces, if you count each dragon color. They just all share the same base ASIs. And half-elf subraces were included in Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (though most folks seem to forget about that book).

In any case, I meant that it would be disingenuous for Wizards to claim that they didn't provide default ASIs for a race on the premise that they had subraces. They were perfectly capable of doing so before. Also, that excuse wouldn't give them cover to avoid providing a default suggested ASI for the base race.

 

[JEB]

Yeah, I think seeing how different they are really tells us that at a minimum, five years ago they changed everything. Not recently. Not with Tasha's. Five years ago.

Or, seeing how similar most of them still are indicates it was just design evolution, while their fundamental thinking remained the same. Maybe it was a shift in their whole philosophy, maybe not. But the first time they explicitly stated that ASIs for PCs did not match the race in general was last year, ahead of Tasha's.

Short of a statement about their intentions between 5E's launch and what they said last year, we can ultimately only speculate. You are perfectly allowed to assume that Volo's was the turning point on ASIs; but I'll need more evidence than that, when there are other explanations.

 

[Faolyn]

I’d guess most of us who would prefer to continue to have the lineage writeup tell us things about NPCs as well as about PCs view that as a bad decision.

It's pretty easy to make that stuff up, you know.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's pretty easy to make that stuff up, you know.

Okay, then remove all the fluff from the game.

 

[Scott Christian]

This entire thread still boils down to players wanting to start with a 16 in their primary attribute.

The whole debate on WotC intent is an origin story. And if the origin story is debunked, then the fear is the house of cards crumbles (even though it doesn't). The point of racial feats and traits can't be overstated, as they are the only difference now between the races. But, that too is a house of cards.

It is all - I want that extra +1. Some may a variety of reasons, but it still boils down to that single mechanic. The great part is, you have your +1. The bad part is, what's next in line that will make the game easier?

 

[Scribe]

Okay, then remove all the fluff from the game.

Indeed, just print up the SRD...then again, the ASI is on the Lineage there too.

 

[JEB]

This entire thread still boils down to players wanting to start with a 16 in their primary attribute.

I don't think that's quite fair. For some folks, floating ASI is about the numbers, sure. But others believe that fixed ASI held players back, that it limited their options in the game; they see its removal as freeing. And even for those folks who are about the numbers, it's perfectly understandable to want your character to be good at what they do.

It's not right to cast aspersions on folks who want floating ASI, just as it's not right for those folks to make bad-faith accusations when others want character races to have defaults.

But ultimately, there's no reason both stances can't coexist in official D&D. And I hope Wizards keeps that in mind.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't think that's quite fair. For some folks, floating ASI is about the numbers, sure.

Agree.

But others believe that fixed ASI held players back, that it limited their options in the game; they see its removal as freeing.

Agree. But the question remains, what is holding these players back? If it is not +1, then what is it? With point buy using racial ASIs they can accomplish everything any other race can accomplish outside of that extra +1. So I understand the ideology behind it being freeing, but if you cut through the rhetoric, it still boils down to starting with that extra +. Because with point buy, and player can assign any attribute points, the difference is with some races, they couldn't reach that extra +1. Every other combination is possible to achieve using point buy and racial ASIs.

And even for those folks who are about the numbers, it's perfectly understandable to want your character to be good at what they do.

100% agree. They should be good at what they do. And if for the table, that means they must have that extra 5%, then this is a good thing. But, others view this with a big picture lens.

It's not right to cast aspersions on folks who want floating ASI, just as it's not right for those folks to make bad-faith accusations when others want character races to have defaults.

Agree. I never have. I simply want both sides to see that turning this knob up turns another knob down. Basically, there is no such thing as all knobs at 11.

But ultimately, there's no reason both stances can't coexist in official D&D. And I hope Wizards keeps that in mind.

Truer words could not be said. I am with you.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay, then remove all the fluff from the game.

I wasn't aware that fluff and ASIs were the same thing.

This entire thread still boils down to players wanting to start with a 16 in their primary attribute.

And this proves you haven't been paying attention in the slightest. Or that you have your strawman stuck in your head and are refusing to let anything dislodge it. You are basically stating "your fun is wrong" here.

No. This is about giving players the ability to put their floating ASI wherever they want, rather than in some attribute that the racial write-ups demand even if it makes no sense to their character.

Edit: Since you still insist on it being able to start with a 16, consider that there are people who may want to turn the 12 or 13 into a 14 or 15--especially people who are playing a MAD class--or who want to turn the 8 into a 10--especially people who don't imagine their character being that much below average. Stop assuming it's always going to be starting out with a single maxed out stat.

The whole debate on WotC intent is an origin story. And if the origin story is debunked, then the fear is the house of cards crumbles (even though it doesn't). The point of racial feats and traits can't be overstated, as they are the only difference now between the races. But, that too is a house of cards.

This is a really poorly thought-out slippery slope here. If anything, multiple editions of D&D have shown that racial traits have become more important over the editions. For instance, take the half-orc.

In both 1e and 2e (using The Complete Book of Humanoids for 2e), half-orcs got +1 Strength, +1 Constitution, -2 Charisma (but only with humans and demi-humans; they use their full Charisma bonus with other half-orcs), and 60-foot infravision. In 1e, they could apparently be assassins to unlimited levels, while they were limited to being 10th-level fighters. In 2e, they could be 10th-level fighters but 11th-level thieves, as there was no assassin class in that edition. Interesting how they weren't supposed to be powerful fighters, but instead were supposed to be stealthy fighters.

I'll also point out, as an unrelated aside, that in 2e, full orcs didn't get the Constitution bonus (instead getting a dwarf-like ability to detect new construction and sloping corridors), so the weird bit where 5e half-orcs are stronger than full orcs isn't new to 5e. Possibly because PC half-orcs are, as 1e put it, are assumed to be one of the "superior 10% of half-orcs" that could "pass for human." (Yikes.)

In 3e, they got +2 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma, and 60-foot darkvision. Their only trait is Orc Blood, which treats them as full orcs for the purposes of spells, magic items, etc. Those poor orcs. A definitely sub-par race.

In 4e, they got... well, I have no idea how 4e did attributes bonuses, but according to this wiki, when introduced in PH2, they had Dexterity and either Strength or Constitution. They also got Furious Assault, Half-Orc Resilience, and Swift Charge, low-light vision, and skill bonuses to Endurance and Intimidation. This is very similar to how they're portrayed in 5e, although curiously it suggests that they are not all physically strong powerhouses, but they are all quite dexterous. A callback to them being the assassin class in AD&D?

And now look at them in 5e, where they get Strength +2, Con +1, Darkvision, Menacing, Relentless Endurance, and Savage Attacks.

In 1e and 2e, if you take away their ASIs, half-orcs get infravision. In order to be distinguished from the other races, AD&D half-orcs need their ASIs.

In 3e, if you take away their ASIs, half-orcs get darkvision and can use or be affected by certain items, spells, and other things that had the Orc tag. In order to be distinguished from the other races, D&D3.x half-orcs need their ASIs.

In 4e and 5e, if you take away their ASIs, half-orcs get to inflict extra damage, can shrug off death, can move charge their enemies, are very intimidating, and can see in the dark. They are quite distinguished from other races even without their ASIs.

So tell me, what on earth makes you think that they're going to remove any traits, or at least, remove any traits and not replace them with something else, in this edition or in the next? Because right now, you're just clutching at pearls and saying "won't someone think of the children!?"