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."

 

[TrickyDUK2]

Ability Scores are central to character design, but I don't think that necessarily means or dictates that the only meaningful way for them to be expressed is through races or even races with un-variable ASIs. IMHO, there are better places to attach ASIs to character design than to races: e.g., Classes.


Okay, so demonstrate to me how there is more creativity without the change, where people are inclined to pick from a more limited selection of optimal choice races?


I'm not sure if I agree with that assessment. If anything, I think that this change relieves pressure from optimization as it means that someone can pick a race without having to worry about whether it has the appropriate ASIs for the character build or concept.

I may have used a poor choice of words. I‘ve just run a year long Pathfinder adventure path, followed by almost a year (to date) D&D campaign. In both, one common desire of character design was a level of optimisation, and I felt it had more negative than positive impact on the fun overall, but the players felt that the game gave them little choice.

On limiting creativity, I think I mean from a narrative perspective in that players have play characters that aren’t perfect (although I do know of players that say if they wanted imperfection, they would look to real world; this is about escaping to a dream world, where things generally work out how you want them to).

 

[Aldarc]

I may have used a poor choice of words. I‘ve just run a year long Pathfinder adventure path, followed by almost a year (to date) D&D campaign. In both, one common desire of character design was a level of optimisation, and I felt it had more negative than positive impact on the fun overall, but the players felt that the game gave them little choice.

On limiting creativity, I think I mean from a narrative perspective in that players have play characters that aren’t perfect (although I do know of players that say if they wanted imperfection, they would look to real world; this is about escaping to a dream world, where things generally work out how you want them to).

Players who want to optimize and those who want less than perfect characters will likely do so regardless, and having the ability to decide where your ASIs goes means that you can make certain options less perfect than usual. A Tiefling using standard array can only reduce their Charisma to 10, but if those ASIs could float elsewhere, the PC could decide that their less than optimal Tiefling now has a Charisma of 8. It may be a dump stat for them anyway, but that's a least a little more player choice than usual.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The ASI thing is particularly contentious right now because, well... bounded accuracy.

The game is stingy as hell with bonuses. At this point, you can't even depend on circumstantial bonuses because those have been replaced with advantage with doesn't actually make you capable of getting a higher result, just a better chance at rolling better. So that +1 really does mean a lot.

 

[TwoSix]

I may have used a poor choice of words. I‘ve just run a year long Pathfinder adventure path, followed by almost a year (to date) D&D campaign. In both, one common desire of character design was a level of optimisation, and I felt it had more negative than positive impact on the fun overall, but the players felt that the game gave them little choice.

On limiting creativity, I think I mean from a narrative perspective in that players have play characters that aren’t perfect (although I do know of players that say if they wanted imperfection, they would look to real world; this is about escaping to a dream world, where things generally work out how you want them to).

I would say this:

1) I like optimizing, particularly in games with lots of options. Just so you know my frame of reference.
2) You never have to optimize, even in games that are high on the challenge rating. It's always a player choice. The worse thing that happens is if your characters are weak is that the PCs die, and that's no big deal.
3) If your players have a strong psychological desire to prioritize effective characters over their own character vision, than simply play games where they don't have to make that choice.

 

[TrickyDUK2]

I would say this:

1) I like optimizing, particularly in games with lots of options. Just so you know my frame of reference.
2) You never have to optimize, even in games that are high on the challenge rating. It's always a player choice. The worse thing that happens is if your characters are weak is that the PCs die, and that's no big deal.
3) If your players have a strong psychological desire to prioritize effective characters over their own character vision, than simply play games where they don't have to make that choice.

3) Exactly what I am doing as I start to look for my next campaign.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Personally, I'm probably going to replace the spell raise dead with a couple spells that make you a reborn (or one of the other options. (Reincarnate will still be available as well.)

A cash price, or even a four-day hangover, just isn't a real cost for dying and coming back. I want to let you still play your character, but you should be changed by the experience of death.

Aside from the sidebar, they're all cool, interesting and genuinely new ideas for 5e, something I've been waiting for for some time.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree that ASIs aren’t the necessarily the best way to differentiate races, but Ability Scores are central to character design.

I mean... This is a pretty succinct summary of exactly why I think races shouldn’t have fixed ability scores. They have a huge impact on character build but do little to differentiate how different races feel.

If the default rule is just get +2 and +1 to place anywhere, then I can see that may actually limit creativity because this is a game and has certain ‘success‘ conditions and so why would anyone not simply put these bonuses in the score that increases their success chance, which would lead to pretty obvious choices?

The obvious choices will exist no matter what. What I’m advocating for is making the choice “where do I put my ASIs?” (the obvious answer being “in your class’s primary and secondary score”) instead of “what race do I play?” (the obvious answer being “one that gives ASIs to your class’s primary and secondary score.)

I remember when a game would encourage you to play some not obviously optimal for the narrative experience it could provide.

I would rather players not have to choose between a mechanically optimal character and the narrative experience they want (unless of course they specifically want the narrative experience of playing a character who’s bad at something).

It‘s probably just me meta gaming too much, but I have been looking for game that tries to make optimisation less important. In D&D, the method behind the overall goal of character advancement, which enables the story to progress, creates a desire for some level of optimisation and this change feeds into that, and I feel that is a negative.

Yeah, D&D is definitely not the game you’re looking for then, in my opinion. 5e makes the gulf between optimized and unoptimized characters much smaller than it is in 3e and 4e (I haven’t played earlier editions so I can’t speak to them), but character optimization is always a concern on some level.

 

[TwoSix]

I would rather players not have to choose between a mechanically optimal character and the narrative experience they want (unless of course they specifically want the narrative experience of playing a character who’s bad at something).

This. Fundamentally, decoupling race/lineage and ability scores is anti-optimization. What the decoupling restricts is the ability to demonstrate your commitment to character concept over dirty optimizing by choosing a suboptimal race/lineage for your class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thank you for the personal jab and virtue signal. I won't fight you for the higher pedestal on the Good Guy scale, it's all yours.

What in the hell are you even talking about?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't associate with Nazis, and I don't live somewhere that the community would accept their behavior.

I'm inclined to see that as a good thing, not "sad."

I’m sorry, but, this is incredibly naive.