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."

 

[Scribe]

You have 5 books in your preference. Mind if we have one or two?

When it doesnt have any need to be a zero-sum? Yes, I do mind. Like this is what is so nonsensical. There is zero, absolutely zero, reason why they need to declare Tasha's as the one and only way.

They might give an official recommendation. Nothing about designing them with floating ASIs prevents this. They haven't gone on record saying they will never print a single "recommended build" ever.

You are assuming they won't, because... you want to assume they won't I guess. They very well might.

I'm assuming, because thats what the PDF said. Am I wrong?

 

[Chaosmancer]

When it doesnt have any need to be a zero-sum? Yes, I do mind. Like this is what is so nonsensical. There is zero, absolutely zero, reason why they need to declare Tasha's as the one and only way.

You are the one declaring it a zero sum. You are demanding we turn back the clock and not have a new way forward so you can have your preference.

I don't think it needs to be a zero sum, but if you want to insist it is, then when we lay the cards on the table... you've got all the chips.

I'm assuming, because thats what the PDF said. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.

The PDF says, and I'll go ahead and quote it, " Following in that book’s footsteps, 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."

Lacking the ability score increase trait does not mean that they won't include a sidebar of recommended builds. They might not do it, but they also might do it. It depends. You are assuming that they will not, but that is based entirely on fear of them not doing so. They never stated they wouldn't

 

[Faolyn]

That's making the assumption that its remotely comparable to assigning limitation by sex, when racial distinction has been a defining feature for decades. Females exist. Elves, do not. And its a straw man comparison anyway.

It's not at all a strawman. At one point, they decided that because the "typical woman" is weaker than a man, then all female PCs should have a limit to their Strength score.

Elves don't exist, as you say. Neither do halflings nor goliaths. Therefore, any racial distinction, either in the form of bonuses or penalties--another thing that they've stopped doing--is completely arbitrary.

Dragons? Magic? Undead? They break the laws of physics in a zillion different ways, but it's the possibility of a physically strong halfling that bother you?

 

[Scribe]

You are the one declaring it a zero sum. You are demanding we turn back the clock and not have a new way forward so you can have your preference.

I don't think it needs to be a zero sum, but if you want to insist it is, then when we lay the cards on the table... you've got all the chips.

...

I've said the entire time, let both options exist. How in any way shape or form, does that deny people who want floating?

Elves don't exist, as you say. Neither do halflings nor goliaths. Therefore, any racial distinction, either in the form of bonuses or penalties--another thing that they've stopped doing--is completely arbitrary.

Dragons? Magic? Undead? They break the laws of physics in a zillion different ways, but it's the possibility of a physically strong halfling that bother you?

Of course its arbitrary, but it is a way (not the only way, as we have discussed in this thread already) to provide a mechanical distinction between races, that not only has existed for decades, but is part of this edition up to the point this UA goes into an official product.

Clearly I am simply irrational for not wanting to lose something.

I'm extremely over being intentionally misrepresented. If folks cannot see the point I'm making, I'm not going to be able to make it any more clear, so forget it.

 

[Faolyn]

When it doesnt have any need to be a zero-sum? Yes, I do mind. Like this is what is so nonsensical. There is zero, absolutely zero, reason why they need to declare Tasha's as the one and only way.

Yes. It's like when they declared that you no longer had prepare a spell multiple times if you wanted to cast it more than once. It's called rules. Which is what this game is: a bunch of rules and settings that use those rules.

 

[Faolyn]

Of course its arbitrary, but it is a way (not the only way, as we have discussed in this thread already) to provide a mechanical distinction between races, that not only has existed for decades, but is part of this edition up to the point this UA goes into an official product.

Clearly I am simply irrational for not wanting to lose something.

I'm extremely over being intentionally misrepresented. If folks cannot see the point I'm making, I'm not going to be able to make it any more clear, so forget it.

There are still multiple differences between races. Halflings have Halfling Luck, Bravery, Nimbleness, and subrace abilities. Goliaths have Natural Athlete, Endurance, Powerful Build, and Mountain Born. Even if you completely removed attribute modifiers altogether (like they're doing in the Level Up playtest), those two races would have plenty of mechanical differences.

 

[Scribe]

You quoted the part where I said that.

 

[Scott Christian]

Dragons? Magic? Undead? They break the laws of physics in a zillion different ways, but it's the possibility of a physically strong halfling that bother you?

There it is. The dragon argument. It took awhile, but it has finally appeared.

If I can interject, it is not about the possibility of a halfling being stronger. It is the probability of the halfling being stronger.

I think we can all agree that character creation and development is integral to the game. Most posts on these boards revolve around it in one way or another. It is a step that must be done. Without, you cannot play the game. That being said, there is a group that wants the character creation/development to follow their own internal logic. That's it. D&D 5e advanced this internal logic. They wrote the rules regarding culture and ASIs, and said here is our game. Now, they want that to change without changing any other rulesets.

People have a right and a justification to say:

• This goes against what you sold me
• I don't like this change
• This breaks my internal logic

For others it does nothing. Like literally, nothing. And for others, now they can finally have that halfling 16 strength at first level, because they couldn't bear to play it earlier with a 15. (In a sense, it ruined the race/class combo.)

If you view it this way, both sides are (in my humble opinion) being a bit petty. That said, both sides have the right to debate their side should be the one to stay in the ruleset. Because both can be backed up with sound arguments.

 

[clearstream]

On the merits, none of the lineages seem particularly interesting from a mechanical standpoint. Decoupling stats has reduced the design space for races lineages.

It is very interesting to cut ASIs from PHB races and take a hard look at what remains. Racial ASIs seem to me to have fostered more of an unbalanced hodgepodge, than opened up any meaningful design space. They narrowed player choice, rather than widened it, because they resulted in fewer equally viable strategies.

When you go back to making distinctive species that are equally viable - without leaning on ASIs - I so far believe it drives better design work. Assaying some designs, I found myself thinking much harder about capturing each distinctive species in their game mechanics.

 

[Scott Christian]

It is very interesting to cut ASIs from PHB races and take a hard look at what remains. Racial ASIs seem to me to have fostered more of an unbalanced hodgepodge, than opened up any meaningful design space. They narrowed player choice, rather than widened it, because they resulted in fewer equally viable strategies.

This is the opinion of many. But, just as the other side says: "You can still have a lower number in your primary stat, it stands to reason that player choice was never narrowed. There were no class/race restrictions. The only restrictions were those imaginary ones built by players.