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."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That sounds needlessly complex and text-heavy, compared to just presenting the sort of general iconic default, giving rules for replacing a lot of a race's traits, including both biological and cultural traits, and which lets players and DMs make mountain elves and forest dwarves just fine, along with runty-weakling minotaurs and chimpanzee-strong halflings.

Because if all we know about gnomes is that they resist magic, then I don't need gnomes to be a game feature at all. Letting them have +2 int, but allowing me to change that if I want to, helps me and my DM talk about gnomish cultures, tropes, expernal vs internal views of gnomish culture and people, etc, in ways that won't happen without that default.

"Needlessly complex"? You choose what community you were raised with and what job you used to have, and you get different features for both choices. That's really not complex.

 

[Scribe]

Question: You seem to want racial differences, but RAW now their really aren't any. Yes a minotaur may get a +2 STR, but in the end the minotaur's max is still 20, same as the halfling. What exists now is a false difference IMO. That is the big reason it is so easy for me to accept this revision. It really isn't revising anything IMO.

Do you really think giving some creatures a +2, others a +1, and others nothing to a given stat really makes a difference? Even if they all have a 20 in the stat in the end?

In the end, mechanically yes you are right. I'm sure there are reasons for that, but it's still an 'eventually' type problem.

It's not an immediate one.

Ultimately, yes I want race to matter, and when a framework has existed where that is the case, I don't want it absolutely negated for what I see as plainly a net loss in variation.

Doctorbadwolf illustrates that 'eventually' issue well.

Race currently matters. This is a clear plan to remove or negate it, for reasons.

 

[dave2008]

So, any lack of difference, IMO, is...a spreadsheet reality, not a table reality.

Probably, but that mattes to me. As a DM I like things to make sense to me, and the possibility doesn't make sense (to me). FYI, the idea that dwarfs can be stronger/as strong as the strongest humans really bugs me too.

 

[dave2008]

In the end, mechanically yes you are right. I'm sure there are reasons for that, but it's still an 'eventually' type problem.

It's not an immediate one.

Ultimately, yes I want race to matter, and when a framework has existed where that is the case, I don't want it absolutely negated for what I see as plainly a net loss in variation.

Doctorbadwolf illustrates that 'eventually' issue well.

Race currently matters. This is a clear plan to remove or negate it, for reasons.

Race can matter without a +2 or +1 to an ability score though. In fact, i think the lineages presented in the UA matter quite a bit without any ability scores.

 

[Scribe]

Race can matter without a +2 or +1 to an ability score though. In fact, i think the lineages presented in the UA matter quite a bit without any ability scores.

Yes, but they matter less, and the system of that ASI as applied to race matters to me.

I want dwarves to be hardier.
I want elves to be more graceful.
I want half orcs to be stronger.

I'm 100% fine with Tashas being the default.

Just don't throw out the system for the rest of us.

As of this UA, they very clearly are.

 

[MGibster]

Right. It’s just an awkward kludgy mess. And I say that as someone who supports the idea behind the changes. They’ve just gone about making them in the least elegant way possible.

I've been on the fence about D&D for a few months now and I think this is the final nail in the coffin for me. While I have no desire to separate ability score increases from race, I could probably live with it if I was dealing with a system that had the same rules across the board. But they're tacking this on and I just don't want to deal with it. I always figured there'd come a time with 5th edition and I would part ways but it isn't acrimonious. The game is just moving in a direction I don't care for. But I continue to wish WotC success and am happy other people enjoy the changes.

 

[Retreater]

While I really like the classic Ravenloft setting from the TSR era, I have to say that I wouldn't want gothic lineages where players can play half-vampires, revenants, etc. To me, the idea of Ravenloft is that these things are meant to be horrific, the monsters (or at least the tortured souls being punished by the Dark Powers). Giving players access to this material just seems a power fantasy that doesn't belong in that style of game.
I wouldn't be allowing any of it in my Ravenloft campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wasn't particularly on board with genericizing ASIs when they first starting talking about it, but in the end its not that big a deal to me, and I can see the benefits. Tasha's is fine. But removing cultural concerns from the game altogether really seems a bridge too far to me. I don't see what it gives anyone. Can someone tell me how this makes the game better?

 

[dave2008]

I want dwarves to be hardier.
I want elves to be more graceful.
I want half orcs to be stronger.

But I don't want those (or at least not all of them).

Dwarves: I want dwarves to be small stout humans with not particular distinguish attributes. The have a culture preference for crafting, forging, etc. The are on average about the same strength as humans, perhaps a bit hardier, but I think that is better expressed with interesting features than a + to CON. Though I am not opposed to the inclusion. Maybe they have resistance to exhaustion, that is more interesting than a CON bump to me.

Elves: I want elves to be long-lived, unusually strong and graceful. I see mostly the same stats as human, but I could see higher Dex and Charisma. However, I think there differences would be better represent in unique features. Maybe the all get the magic initiate feat and ignoring difficult terrain among others.

Half-Orcs: I want half orcs to be basically humans, if I could I would make them weaker though. I can think of any ability bonuses I would give half-orcs. I would have to think more than I want to right now about what features to give them.

Again, since I know they will not do what I want, I would rather they don't do it.

 

[Morrus]

I want dwarves to be hardier.
I want elves to be more graceful.
I want half orcs to be stronger.

Sure. But what if I want to play a strong bodybuilding ungraceful elf, or a frail bespectacled orc scholar, or a dwarf with asthma? You say I'm not allowed to because it offends your sensibilities about what all elves or dwarves or orcs should be?

The idea that I have to play my character according to what some rando on the other side of the word thinks an orc has to be is ridiculous. My orc is a ballet-dancer!