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."

 

[dave2008]

That's . . . a strange interpretation on WotC's part. Not that I'm complaining, but that just seems weird. If you count as both undead and humanoid, shouldn't that stop you from being healed by Cure Wounds?

It's fine as is, and helps Dhampir characters, but it just goes against what I would assume to be RAW.

Surprised me too because I thought the RAW was you couldn't have two types. I was either wrong or this was changed. If they allow two types, I can see this being an OK interpretation.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't like ASI's tied to race or culture, so I'm in favor of the direction WotC is going here, but . . .

If your culture has a focus on athleticism, you might represent that with a +2 to Strength. If your culture has a focus on academic learning, +2 to Intelligence. A focus on parkour, +2 to Dexterity. Etc, etc.

I think proficiencies would serve that purpose better.

 

[Knightfall]

That's . . . a strange interpretation on WotC's part. Not that I'm complaining, but that just seems weird. If you count as both undead and humanoid, shouldn't that stop you from being healed by Cure Wounds?

It's fine as is, and helps Dhampir characters, but it just goes against what I would assume to be RAW.

You could always house rule it to say that a Dhampir only gains half of the normal benefit from cure spells.

 

[dave2008]

You could always house rule it to say that a Dhampir only gains half of the normal benefit from cure spells.

seems like a (un)reasonable compromise

 

[J-H]

Adjustable ability score modifiers for these templates (for that is what they are) make sense. For the rest, with the Tasha's optional rules? Nope. Ogre strength is not cultural. Dwarven constitution is not cultural. Gnomish intelligence is not cultural.

I expect whatever changes come next will probably break ability adjustments into 3 parts:
Racial/genetic/nature
Culture/nurture
Starting class/training

You're a half elf, cha+1
You were raised in a druid commune, wis +1
You decided to specialize in fighting, dex+1 or str+1

 

[Faolyn]

Or Innistrad. WotC does love their M:tG settings. Though, I do think that we're more likely to get Ravenloft this year than Innistrad, as we got a M:tG setting just last year.

They did say we're getting "classic settings" and that they worked with people to redo the Vistani.

 

[Scribe]

I don't like ASI's tied to race or culture, so I'm in favor of the direction WotC is going here, but . . .

If your culture has a focus on athleticism, you might represent that with a +2 to Strength. If your culture has a focus on academic learning, +2 to Intelligence. A focus on parkour, +2 to Dexterity. Etc, etc.

Ability scores are pretty abstract though, and I don't think big dudes like minotaurs and goliaths really need a +2 to Strength, and so on. Ditch ASI's tied to race and culture is the way to go, IMO.

A cultural focus is fine and dandy, but it should not be the only contribution to how a character is built up. Race should matter for being's which are biologically distinct.

A minotaur should in all but the most fringe of corner cases, be far more physically powerful than a halfling, and that has nothing to do with culture.

An elf, should in all but the most fringe of corner cases, be more graceful, more dexterous, than a dwarf, which is more hardy, and solid, and that has nothing to do with their professions.

I mean its fantasy, whatever, so what if your halfling can press a minotaur over their head and your dwarves are running up walls and pulling a double backflip before landing on the head of the (absolutely not evil!) Orc in a pose on one foot.

I'll take a system like @AcererakTriple6 has described elsewhere, that at least keeps some link to a logical difference between races at the ability score level.

 

[Scribe]

Adjustable ability score modifiers for these templates (for that is what they are) make sense. For the rest, with the Tasha's optional rules? Nope. Ogre strength is not cultural. Dwarven constitution is not cultural. Gnomish intelligence is not cultural.

I expect whatever changes come next will probably break ability adjustments into 3 parts:
Racial/genetic/nature
Culture/nurture
Starting class/training

You're a half elf, cha+1
You were raised in a druid commune, wis +1
You decided to specialize in fighting, dex+1 or str+1

Exactly this.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Hm. I am surprised by some of the reaction here. I find that using lineages and getting rid of ability scores as defining characteristics opens a much more fun and creative design space. I'd much rather focus on cool abilities than on whether one race is stronger or smarter than another.

That's why I don't like it, a universal floating +2/+1 is boring af. I'd rather use that design space to for a "feat and a half" of lineage specific cool stuff.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see a lot of us are thinking Ravenloft, though it's pretty well represented in this edition so far, and recently. Maybe a Van Richten's Guide to [Synonym for Supernatural]? I think I might side with those thinking these are for Innistrad--do these archetypes fit the lore of that world at all? (I don't play Magic--I know Innistrad is cut from the same cloth as Barovia, but that's it).

One could easily put Ravenloft and Innistrad material in an undead-themed monster book like Draconomicon. (Previous editions have had them, although they've all had different names, since none has anything as punchy as "Draconomicon.")