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."

 

[Arial Black]

Nope. As I have pointed out numerous times, there are many reasons to want to move the +2 around. I made three different standard stat arrays to show it.

And all three could have been created using set bonuses and unchanged concepts. The only difference is that +3 instead of +2.

And let's say that it is just about getting a stat of 17 at first level. So what? Is that wrong? Are you claiming that players who want to be effective in their chosen class are bad roleplayers? Is their fun sp wrong, so anathema to you that you would forbid everyone from being able to be freer in their chargen?

What's wrong about is misusing what the choice of race gives you for something that does not reflect that race.

To me, there is no difference to a halfling claiming a +2 racial bonus to Str is because halflings are a strong race-when they are not-and a 1st level fighter claiming that they should be able to cast wizard spells.

Saying "It's not fair that goliaths get +2 Str and halflings don't" is like saying "It's not fair that elves get Darkvision and halflings don't". Every race choice, every character creation choice, gives you what they give you, and don't give you what they don't give you. It's not unfair, you selected those game elements.

And it's a self-selected bar for 'effectiveness'; 16 is good enough but 15 is impossible to play as an effective character?

Remember, I have absolutely no problem with a halfling (for example) putting 9 points out of their 27 into Str because assigning ability scores is about that individual. Nor have I a problem with choosing ASIs at 4th/8th etc to improvements to Str, because that reflects the things your PC chose to train.

But I do have a problem with assigning ability score bonuses from race that are nothing to do with race! Just like I would have a problem giving a fighter features from a wizard just because you'd rather have spellcasting for your fighter than a fighting style.

Yes, because the reality is, there are species concepts, and they are reflected in racial traits and flavor text. Racial ASIs are only a small fraction of what differentiates species and can be a major hindrance to players who don't want to play whatever the species is designed to be.

But racial ability score bonuses ARE part of the game's attempt to realise the race's concept in the mechanics, just as much as all the other traits.

And, again, I don't believe for a second that races were designed to be certain classes.

I asked Scott Christian how he differentiates between (half)orcs and minotaurs, when he has said that racial traits aren't unique enough for him. Both (half)orcs and minotaurs have Strength +2, Constitution +1. So I'll ask you the same thing: do you believe that the conceptual difference between those species is reflected in their identical ASIs? Or do you think that their differences are reflected in their racial traits and flavor text.

After all, if the only thing, or the most important thing, that differentiats the races is their ASIs, then minotaurs and (half)orcs--and goliaths, longtooth shifters, and Ravenite dragonborn--are all redundant. Pick one, discard the rest. But I know I treat them as very different species. And that has nothing to do with their ASIs and has everything to do with their racial traits and their cultural flavor text.

That's the point; it's not that the racial ability bonuses by themselves are enough, especially since the choice is so narrow (+2, +1 or +0), and neither are the other traits enough by themselves.

But ALL the racial traits together-and racial ability score bonuses are just as much a racial trait as Darkvision or wings or whatever-do the job.

Having the concept of a strong race (based on size and physiology) without a bonus to Strength would be absurd; bad design at least.

 

[Arial Black]

But this has nothing to do with the point being discussed, which was that with a floating ASI the player had no guidance on what to pick.

Who cares if the ASI represents training? That doesn't change the fact that the player has no guidance to pick them, and yet that doesn't seem to be an issue, but choosing because of an adaptable race is, as long as it is a new race, older races were fine.

If the race is famous for being adaptable and that concept is represented by two floating +1s, your choice of skill and your choice of feat, you don't need any guidance in realising your concept than you needed for choosing your concept in the first place.

If you choose a race with set bonuses, you don't have guidance, you have a set score. But there was no guidance required when you freely chose your race and class, and you chose that race knowing about its set bonuses.

And so if the races concept includes adaptability there is no issue. You can't really argue against a future maybe on a rule, with no evidence.

There is evidence: the statement that from now on new races won't get set bonuses. The main problem would be if they failed to give set bonuses, which is the strong implication.

They could continue to give new races set bonuses, while reminding us that the Tasha's OPTION may apply; consult your DM.

And ASI's don't always do a great job with that matching to concept thing, ie Loxodon.

I haven't seen the Loxodon, but from the brief descriptions in this thread it seems either badly designed or that for game balance they could only give Loxodons so many bonuses and that this races is even more famous for....whatever bonuses they were given.

And you are ignoring the entire side debate we have been having.

Go look at the Lizardfolk Commoner from Ghosts of Saltmarsh and tell me how we are supposed to have every member of that race have no strength bonus (they have a str 15) and instead focus on Wisdom and Con (12 each I think) as their primary scores.

I think they also had an INT penalty, despite their racial scores not giving that.

The purpose of creature statblocks is to help the DM set challenging encounters, not to supply a back-door way to make PCs. The lizardman stats you supplied are consistent with a lizardman warrior who put most points in Str, while still applying the racial modifiers for lizardmen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right, you don't have to do anything. But Wizards only provided guidelines for one approach at the beginning of 5E, which indicates their original assumption that for PHB races, PCs and NPCs had the same traits.

No.

All it indicates is that they only wrote one version of dragonborn, and said "if you want to use the dragonborn traits for your dragonborn NPC, use the Dragonborn traits"

This is the most frustrating thing about this, you are acting like the fact they provided and option to match those two sets of abilities means that they assumed all members of the same race had the same abilities. And, even if you are right. Even if I concede this point. That assumption was left behind YEARS ago. So who cares?

No, we are at the point where ASIs could have been applied to their scores, and simply not noticeable in a statblock that doesn't conveniently have all 10s.

So, it is impossible to tell if they did it one way or the other. So, why assume they made two numbers lower than they wanted, just so they could add in values to get what they wanted? That seems to be a rather silly step for them to have taken.

Or, when they examined these monsters for use as PC races, they re-evaluated what their traits should be, to balance them with the other PC races. It doesn't mean that they had suddenly decided PCs and NPCs were fundamentally different, only that they updated their idea of what the races were like at the baseline.

But here is the problem with that argument. If they updated the baseline, why didn't they apply that new baseline to the creatures in that book or in future books?

No Lizardfolk in Ghosts of Saltmarsh has any of the racial traits of the new baseline that was established years before. If they still wanted NPCs and PCs to be the same, why is that? Why didn't Volo's Kobolds, Goblins, and Hobgoblins reflect the new rules? Why didn't the Githzerai or Duergar follow their new baseline for Mordenkainen's?

Every example I can find, there are discrepancies between the PCs and NPCs. Every time. And the closest you can get is assuming their intent at the start, when none of these changes existed.

Wait, we're talking about 2E now? That's a whole different ballgame. For starters, monsters didn't even have a full set of ability scores...

I said Eladrin PCs don't match Eladrin NPCs. You defended by saying in 2e that was the case. Not sure why that matters for 5e, but you seemed to think it was a defense, and you brought up 2e.

You're extrapolating way more from what I said than what was intended. All I pointed out is that you could see dragonborn of different colors as subraces, if you wanted to, and then you tried to use that to somehow prove that was an argument in favor of "subraces exist" justifying a floating ASI for the entire species, to which I said it really didn't.

Then what was the point of saying that you could decide that they are subraces when they aren't, and trying to use that to disprove the idea that a race with multiple subraces could have floating ASIs? I don't get what you are trying to achieve.

Actually, I went back and looked at the lizardfolk commoner. You're right, it doesn't reflect Volo's. But it is broadly consistent with the DMG NPC Features. Its highest stat is Strength, its lowest stat is Int, plus Hold Breath, +3 AC, swim 30 ft, and Draconic language. It could mean that they'd decided on PCs and NPCs as being different... in 2019. Or it could mean they just ignored Volo's for this book.

(Also, realistically, it's probably just designed to be a weaker version of the MM lizardfolk statblock, and it's not actually a commoner at all.)

If Volo's is supposed to represent a new baseline, why ignore it? Or are you trying to say that in 2016 when Volo's was printed they changed the baseline, then in 2019 they changed it back? Without making any announcements or errata?

And you also want to say it isn't really a commoner, despite being called "commoner"? That's almost sticking your head in the sand man, ignoring evidence just because you want them to still be following the assumption you had.

You weren't required to do anything for NPC design. But Wizards had a certain expectation at the beginning of 5E, that PCs and NPCs for PHB races were treated the same. Maybe that changed in 2016. Or 2018. Or 2019. But they never made any statement on the matter until 2020, in the leadup to Tasha's.

That means we have to go with the evidence of the books. In 2014, they very clearly weren't meant to be different, or at least not significantly different. From 2015-2019, the evidence is ambiguous and uneven at best, and could reflect changes in baseline expectations for the race, or adjustments made purely for player balance rather than a philosophical shift. Then in 2020, they finally made an official assertion that PCs are archetypes that don't reflect NPC members of the race.

Also, I'm not especially upset with them. I just think they're implying this was the idea all along, and quite simply, I don't think it was.

Or

They presented an option to allow customizing with PC options on NPCs, referencing the only PC options they had, the races in the PHB.

Then they kept NPCs and PCs different through the years, which is fairly consistent with the evidence.

And now they've made a clarifying statement, because everyone has gotten bent out of shape about them nerfing all the races into being formless blobs, which isn't the case.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If the race is famous for being adaptable and that concept is represented by two floating +1s, your choice of skill and your choice of feat, you don't need any guidance in realizing your concept than you needed for choosing your concept in the first place.

If you choose a race with set bonuses, you don't have guidance, you have a set score. But there was no guidance required when you freely chose your race and class, and you chose that race knowing about its set bonuses.

All this shows you haven't been paying attention to the discussion with JEB that you were quoting. Because none of this matters to that debate. You might as well be telling me about the price of trout.

There is evidence: the statement that from now on new races won't get set bonuses. The main problem would be if they failed to give set bonuses, which is the strong implication.

They could continue to give new races set bonuses, while reminding us that the Tasha's OPTION may apply; consult your DM.

I'm sorry, what new lineage do you have a problem with? Was there a new UA that gave us a lineage that can't be so diverse as to be partially defined by their adaptability?

Go ahead and tell me, specifically, which lineage you feel doesn't match with their newly designed ASIs. Otherwise, it seems you are complaining about an imagined future problem that may never come to pass.

I haven't seen the Loxodon, but from the brief descriptions in this thread it seems either badly designed or that for game balance they could only give Loxodons so many bonuses and that this races is even more famous for....whatever bonuses they were given.

But, interestingly, if I decided to use Tasha's that issue mostly goes away.

The purpose of creature statblocks is to help the DM set challenging encounters, not to supply a back-door way to make PCs. The lizardman stats you supplied are consistent with a lizardman warrior who put most points in Str, while still applying the racial modifiers for lizardmen.

Since when are Commoners Warriors? Did I miss a memo that all commoners are now Warriors who put all their points in strength?

 

[Faolyn]

And all three could have been created using set bonuses and unchanged concepts. The only difference is that +3 instead of +2.

You are again ignoring that allowing for the floating ASI allows the player for freedom to create their character.

To me, there is no difference to a halfling claiming a +2 racial bonus to Str is because halflings are a strong race-when they are not-and a 1st level fighter claiming that they should be able to cast wizard spells.

Saying "It's not fair that goliaths get +2 Str and halflings don't" is like saying "It's not fair that elves get Darkvision and halflings don't". Every race choice, every character creation choice, gives you what they give you, and don't give you what they don't give you. It's not unfair, you selected those game elements.

A number has no flavor, no biology, no purpose in and of itself. It's dull. It doesn't have to exist at all.

Traits are actually interesting. They tell you things about the race that flat numbers don't.

And it's a self-selected bar for 'effectiveness'; 16 is good enough but 15 is impossible to play as an effective character?

And if I don't want a 16 in a stat, but instead want two 10s, or two 14s, or two 15s?

But that's OK. You're saying that people who want a 16 in a stat are playing wrong.

Remember, I have absolutely no problem with a halfling (for example) putting 9 points out of their 27 into Str because assigning ability scores is about that individual. Nor have I a problem with choosing ASIs at 4th/8th etc to improvements to Str, because that reflects the things your PC chose to train.

But I do have a problem with assigning ability score bonuses from race that are nothing to do with race! Just like I would have a problem giving a fighter features from a wizard just because you'd rather have spellcasting for your fighter than a fighting style.

But racial ability score bonuses ARE part of the game's attempt to realise the race's concept in the mechanics, just as much as all the other traits.

And these ASIs have changed over time.

Githzerai, when they were introduced as a PC race in Planescape, had a -1 penalty to Wisdom. Now they have a +2 bonus.

Aasimar, also from Planescape, had +1 Wisdom and +1 Strength... except for the ones who had +1 Cha instead of Strength. Player's choice, which was weird from a 2e perspective.

Genasi all had bonuses to Constitution as well as another stat (and all had penalties to Charisma, due to being so alien) ; now, only Earth genasi are particularly sturdy.

Gnomes in 1e got no stat bonuses, but instead got extra hp if they had sufficiently high Con. They only got an Int bump in 2e. And in 3e, they got +2 Con, -2 Strength.

Firbolgs in 2e had +2 Strength and -2 Wisdom. Now they have +2 Wisdom, +1 Strength.

The poor little kobold had no attribute bonuses in 2e while still getting -1 to Strength and Con; they got even more screwed in 3e, where they could be made with -4 Strength, +2 Dex, and -2 Con. They were originally made for 5e with a Strength penalty, but that's been errata'd away, so a two-foot-six kobold and a nearly 6-foot-tall hobgoblin are now equally strong. Makes sense, yes?

And hobgoblins, in 2e, had -1 Charisma and no bonuses, could be made with +2 Dex, +2 Con in 3e, and now have Con +2, Int +1.

The Lizardfolk had no bonuses or penalties in 2e, while in 3e they had +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, and in 5e, +2 Con, +1 Wis.

Half-Elves had no ASIs in 2e or 3x; now they get +2 Cha and a floating +1.

Warforged in 3.x had no ASIs; now, they get +2 Con and a floating +1.

Kalashtars also didn't get any ASIs but now have Wis +2, Cha +1... but this was originally Wis +1, Cha +1, and a floating +1.


So, did the core concepts of each of these races change as much as their ASIs did? Or did the concepts envisioned by their flavor text and special abilities remain mostly the same while the ASIs changed?

Also, we no longer have racial penalties or class and level limitations for them. The one attempt to bring them into 5e was met with such disapproval that they were errata'd away forever. Are you upset about that? These penalties were just as important for "realizing the race's concept."

 

[Arial Black]

I'm sorry, what new lineage do you have a problem with? Was there a new UA that gave us a lineage that can't be so diverse as to be partially defined by their adaptability?

Go ahead and tell me, specifically, which lineage you feel doesn't match with their newly designed ASIs. Otherwise, it seems you are complaining about an imagined future problem that may never come to pass.

Actually, I don't have a problem with these three lineages because one concept they share is that each creature with one of these lineages was born with a conventional race, then something happened to stop them being that race and start them being one of these lineages.

They chose to represent that concept by giving them each a floating +2 and a floating +1, aaaand I'm okay with that, but they could have chosen to represent the same concept by saying that they retain the original race's set bonuses. Might be an issue with balance if they chose that though.

But the 'future problem that may never come to pass' didn't spring from my imagination, it sprang from what they actually wrote about how ALL future races will be presented with those floating bonuses. I doubt that every single future race they present will be conceptually famous for having no particular physiological differences that could be represented by set racial modifiers!

But, interestingly, if I decided to use Tasha's that issue mostly goes away.

It's a shame that those who wanted the other option will not be catered for in future.

Since when are Commoners Warriors? Did I miss a memo that all commoners are now Warriors who put all their points in strength?

The name is irrelevant. If they called them warriors, or commoners on the grounds that the most common role for lizardmen who fight PCs is the role of warrior, it still doesn't make those statblocks rules for PCs or deny that they used the PC set racial bonuses.

If they put out a lizardfolk shaman, they would change the stats accordingly. But this would not mean that they got different set racial bonuses, it would demonstrate that they allocated their points differently.

 

[Arial Black]

You are again ignoring that allowing for the floating ASI allows the player for freedom to create their character.

And I am also ignoring the fact that I want my 1st level fighter to be able to cast 9th level spells. Waaah, my creative freedom has been taken away!

A number has no flavor, no biology, no purpose in and of itself. It's dull. It doesn't have to exist at all.

Traits are actually interesting. They tell you things about the race that flat numbers don't.

If a race is conceptually strong, then it's appropriate that they get a bonus to Strength. Whether it is interesting or not isn't a factor on whether it should exist.

And if I don't want a 16 in a stat, but instead want two 10s, or two 14s, or two 15s?

Then allocate your points differently.

But that's OK. You're saying that people who want a 16 in a stat are playing wrong.

It's not wrong to want a 16, 18, 20 or 30 in a stat. What's wrong is claiming ability bonuses from race that have nothing to do with race.

And these ASIs have changed over time.

Sure, but what each version had in common was that they were sincerely attempting to use those rules to reflect that race's concept, while keeping an eye on game balance.

What you propose is to misuse racial bonuses for something entirely divorced from racial concepts.

What's your excuse? Because you want it? Well I want 9th level spells for my 1st level fighter!

 

[Faolyn]

And I am also ignoring the fact that I want my 1st level fighter to be able to cast 9th level spells. Waaah, my creative freedom has been taken away!

Wow, it's almost like there's a huge difference between a 1st-level fighter and an 18th-level spellcaster, where there's almost no difference between a dwarf with +2 Con and a dwarf with +2 Int.

Oh, but in your mind, dwarfs can't actually start out as particularly intelligent, because that's not their core concept.

Edit: And before you claim "well, dwarfs can just allocate their points into Intelligence," you're still trying to claim that a smart 1st level dwarf can never be as smart as 1st level gnome.

If a race is conceptually strong, then it's appropriate that they get a bonus to Strength. Whether it is interesting or not isn't a factor on whether it should exist.

Gnomes were conceptually strong. Now they're not.

Then allocate your points differently.

And for people who don't use point buy? Must we, so we can follow your edict?

It's not wrong to want a 16, 18, 20 or 30 in a stat. What's wrong is claiming ability bonuses from race that have nothing to do with race.

Sure they do! A halfling who chooses to build muscles is a strong halfling. So go ahead: prove a bodybuilding halfling fighter can't be stronger than a weak, bookish orc wizard who doesn't even like lifting books.

Sure, but what each version had in common was that they were sincerely attempting to use those rules to reflect that race's concept, while keeping an eye on game balance.

Which as I just showed you, changed radically over time. If their core concepts change radically, then there's no point in whining that they can't be something now because in an edition or two, they'll just have changed again.

 

[Scribe]

And still, my take away is we need caps and negative modifiers...

 

[Arial Black]

Wow, it's almost like there's a huge difference between a 1st-level fighter and an 18th-level spellcaster, where there's almost no difference between a dwarf with +2 Con and a dwarf with +2 Int.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Oh, but in your mind, dwarfs can't actually start out as particularly intelligent, because that's not their core concept.

An individual dwarf can certainly start out intelligent. Int 15 is definitely particularly intelligent.

Edit: And before you claim "well, dwarfs can just allocate their points into Intelligence," you're still trying to claim that a smart 1st level dwarf can never be as smart as 1st level gnome.

1st level gnomes can have Int as low as 10 in point-buy, and as low as 5 by rolling. A smart dwarf can certainly start out smarter than that gnome.

Can the smartest 1st level dwarf be as smart as the smartest 1st level gnome? No. Not according to the 5e PHB.

Of course, individual tables might not want to be restricted by the mere rules of the game. But, for me, letting the PCs start with +2 in a random stat (as opposed to +2 in a stat that the rules say they get) is no different than letting them start with a Blessing. Or an Artifact.

Doable. Frodo did. But it's not the default.

Gnomes were conceptually strong. Now they're not.

Sometimes concepts change, but more likely the game mechanics that represent a race's concept get tweaked.

And for people who don't use point buy? Must we, so we can follow your edict?

The rules are the edict, not me.

And the principle of racial bonuses applies no matter how ability scores are initially generated. They are different stages of character creation. Your proposal seeks to take racial bonuses out of the game completely and replace them with bonuses that have no relation to race or any other part of character creation.

Sure they do! A halfling who chooses to build muscles is a strong halfling. So go ahead: prove a bodybuilding halfling fighter can't be stronger than a weak, bookish orc wizard who doesn't even like lifting books.

Such a halfling is that strong because of where the ability scores were assigned at that stage of character creation (which represents the individual not the race). They are not that strong because they are a halfling!

Which as I just showed you, changed radically over time. If their core concepts change radically, then there's no point in whining that they can't be something now because in an edition or two, they'll just have changed again.

But they are not changing the core race concepts from what they were into races that are physiologically equal. They are not changing the concept, they are refusing to acknowledge physiological differences in species because they are afraid of cancel culture in the real world, and then ret-conning a half-baked idea that elephants are only stronger than mice because of their culture!