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."

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer The only point I've been focused on, is why only 1 option needs to be written into stone, and yes, because of the hypothetical of any new lineage that is not some mystical construct or rebirth, but just some natural biological fantasy entity.

So, you want them to make sure in their design that they never make a natural biological fantasy entity with floating scores.

Like humans. Humans do that. Have since the first release of the PHB.

I'm not saying this ruins prior options. I'm saying floating as the one and only truth, ruins (yep) my view of one of the facets that makes fantasy different from reality.

Thats all. I just want the 5e view on ASI to continue. Maybe they dont work for these templates? Fine! However that is not what the sidebar specifically states, and so I do not find it an unreasonable position to see what Wizards explicitly states as 'the way going forward' and raising concern about that.

You raised your concern.

Then you started arguing about how goliaths shouldn't be stronger than halflings, which has nothing to do with this UA, or any future races being released. Halflings and Goliaths already use your system. You system is their default. You won that fight before it was even a fight.

"I'm worried that maybe going forward they might release a lineage with floating ASIs that I won't think should have floating ASIs" and "I'm worried that when they design 6e, this will be the system they use." are both concerns, but they have nothing to do with Halflings and Goliaths, and they are so vague or so far into the future as to barely be worth discussing.

Heck, I'm concerned that Wizards might one day release a class I don't like. That is a valid concern. But arguing that the Beast Barbarian is completely inappropriate because the Totem Barbarian covers that design space enough for me to be happy with it has nothing to do with my concern, and has nothing to do with anything that makes since to argue about. Because both of those options already exist

Either way, enjoy the new lineages. I likely wont care, even though I have said several times that the Reborn is a really inspirational hook for me, because I'm not too into Gothic Horror anyway, but this is a nice preview of how templates from the past could be applied to characters. Great. Neat. Fantastic. I dont really care.

It seems what you care about is arguing that Tasha's is a bad rule system. That's all you have really been arguing. Which, hey, that's your opinion, but that has pretty much nothing to do with this UA or future lineages, until they release a lineage where using Tasha's rules is inappropriate.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It isn't terrifying to me. Like I said earlier, I just find it clunky and arbitrary. Those two things do not equal terrifying. A bit annoying maybe, but not terrifying.

What is clunky about designing a lineage from the ground up to have floating scores?

What is arbitrary about designing a lineage from the very beginning to have floating scores?

 

[Chaosmancer]

a grief-distressed mother trying to recreate her dead child out of ragged old clothes and ashes.

Yoink

I am 10000% stealing that. That is amazing

 

[JEB]

This is what you guys need to do with those floating ASIs. You don't like 'em, then don't use them. You know what the ASIs are for about a hundred races and subraces. If any new races come out, you can easily guess what their ASIs are based on description and picture, take them from the list of mini-templates in the DMG, or adapt them from an earlier edition. That's maybe a couple of minutes of work for you.

That way, you get your precious racial limitations and everyone else gets what they want.

I'm pretty sure @Scribe has said he's fine with floating ASIs being a thing, as long as he also gets his default racial ASIs. He's repeatedly said he's fine with two options, not one. Are you misinterpreting his stance, or do you specifically not want there to be two options? If the latter, why is it important that floating ASIs be the sole option?

 

[Faolyn]

I'm pretty sure @Scribe has said he's fine with floating ASIs being a thing, as long as he also gets his default racial ASIs. He's repeatedly said he's fine with two options, not one. Are you misinterpreting his stance, or do you specifically not want there to be two options? If the latter, why is it important that floating ASIs be the sole option?

Well, in that particular case I wasn't talking to Scribe, and other people have strongly indicated that they wouldn't be happy with even an optional floating ASI. It's why they've been so adamant about the whole halflings-versus-goliaths thing, while ignoring the other possibilities.

The problem that I have is that there are a lot of people who, for reasons they still won't explain, can't even accept that a single individual can be exceptional, even in a game that's supposed to be centered around exceptional people. Maybe I'm just letting that get to me, but it really ticks me off.

 

[JEB]

Well, in that particular case I wasn't talking to Scribe, and other people have strongly indicated that they wouldn't be happy with even an optional floating ASI. It's why they've been so adamant about the whole halflings-versus-goliaths thing, while ignoring the other possibilities.

OK, so you would be fine with a system that has floating ASIs, but also has default recommendations (like the quick build for classes)? Surely that addresses everyone's preferences?

The problem that I have is that there are a lot of people who, for reasons they still won't explain, can't even accept that a single individual can be exceptional, even in a game that's supposed to be centered around exceptional people. Maybe I'm just letting that get to me, but it really ticks me off.

I think that's what @Scott Christian was trying to get across, that some folks believe that characters need to be consistent and fit to a certain standard to satisfy their "fantasy realism". But you and other folks don't need or want that. And that's fine! That simply means that you wouldn't enjoy playing in their games, and they wouldn't enjoy playing in yours. But there should be room for both.

 

[Scott Christian]

All of those are things up to the table to decide, not the game itself. The rules should be written to allow for the most inclusivity, not because some people can't handle the idea of a halfling that is unusually strong, or healthy, or smart, or wise, or personable.

Because while people here are focusing on the "horrors" of a halfling with a +2 bonus to Strength, what is actually happening is, because you want to deny that floating +2, you are also saying that halflings can't be anything but dexterous, and goliaths can't be anything but strong, and gnomes can't be anything but smart, and tieflings can't be anything but charismatic, and so on.

Serious question: Are you reading the posts?
Not a single person has denied floating ASIs. Not one. They just think it should be an optional rule.
I have never said horrors in regards to a +2 strength halfling. Has anyone? I don't believe that I have read it.

You are literally saying that all races need to remain in their little boxes and that all players need to limit themselves because some players are incapable of imagining that there's a strong halfling or a smart orc or a wise goliath.

I am noticing a pattern. Again, I have never said anything remotely like that. If you use floating ASIs as an optional rule, go ahead. Cool. Whatever works for your table. It is what Scribe and Oofta have consistently stated as well. The people that prefer the ASIs think it adds to the world. It separates the races and cultures instead of homogenizing them.
And just as you seem to think it limits the race/class combinations, I do not think it does. I mean, with ASIs your halfling can still start with a strength bonus 1 point less than goliath. And you think this is unfair. That's okay. It is your opinion. But if I were to use your language it might sound like:
"A +1 difference can't be accepted because some players are incapable of imagining another side of their character."

And quite frankly, I don't care about those players. They need to expand their horizons a bit. Or, y'know, put their floating ASI in the stat that makes them feel safe and happy.

Sorry Faolyn, I don't understand your logic. I can't understand how getting that extra +1 makes a person feel safe. Maybe in game terms, feeling safer. But in real life terms, you tie it with happy. As in the player feels safe and happy if they get that extra +1 at level one. As opposed to catching up at level 12.
And I get it, you don't care about those other players. It is obvious.

Here, I'll give you another example. My preference for medieval fantasy to be kind of low tech, or at the least, to have realistic levels of technology.

The Artificer completely flies in the face of that. It bugs the hell out of me that Artificers are able to make complex machinery in six seconds while in the middle of a tense situation like a combat. Even "fantasy realism" insists that wondrous devices should require at least days worth of work in a workshop somewhere, and more likely months, and should be limited to things like a weirdly complex and working clockwork device or maybe an ornithopter that really flies and simple distilled elixirs.

And yet, the artificer is a thing, and is capable of creating an equivalent of the Iron Man suit of armor in an hour--and not only in an hour, but while resting. Fighting for a minute or casting a spell or two ruins your ability to get the benefits of a rest, but creating gauntlets, by hand, without using magic to do so, that can shoot lightning bolts is easy-peasy! It would take a wizard months to do the same thing!

This completely destroys any logical sense of fantasy realism, it makes wizards look incompetent, and it destroys my sense of immersion. And yet, it exists. It's an official class with official archetypes. So, to keep fantasy realism alive, we have two options:

1: Completely remove it from the game. it's completely illogical, it doesn't even mesh with a Medieval-style setting, I don't like it. Get angry with WotC if they even think about publishing anything for the artificer in a further book. Don't allow it to be in 5.5 or 6e because it's so against fantasy realism.

2: Don't allow it in my personal game. It doesn't exist in my setting. That way, everyone else can enjoy, or not enjoy, the artificer as they see fit. If I have a player who wants to play an artificer in my setting, too bad for them, and possibly too bad for me. I have to deal with the consequences of that player's desire myself, but that's on me. Not on you or anyone else who likes the artificer.

I see you are on the side that the DM controls and runs the table. Interesting. That doesn't seem to coincide with you wanting players to feel happy and safe.

This is what you guys need to do with those floating ASIs. You don't like 'em, then don't use them. You know what the ASIs are for about a hundred races and subraces. If any new races come out, you can easily guess what their ASIs are based on description and picture, take them from the list of mini-templates in the DMG, or adapt them from an earlier edition. That's maybe a couple of minutes of work for you.

That way, you get your precious racial limitations and everyone else gets what they want.

So since you understand that D&D is a bit different for each table, then you will understand it isn't always the DM's choice. Which is why, and I will repeat yet again, floating ASIs as an optional rule is fine. You get to have your cake. And the others do too.

It doesn't hint at them being dexterous either. In fact, it describes halflings as stout, which is pretty much the opposite of agile and supports the idea of them maybe having a sturdy, solid build; that is, the possibility of strength. It doesn't even say halflings have "clever fingers." And even if you prefer to see stout mean fat, well, that itself goes against the Stout halfling's Constitution bonus. The PH does describe halflings as curious and personable, which would support a bonus to Intelligence or Charisma. But only one halfling gets a Cha bonus (two, if you count Dragonmarked halflings) and that's only a +1, and none get an Int bonus. Strangely, some get a Wisdom bonus, even though they're not described as having the kind of philosophical outlook on life that would support that.

So what were you saying about descriptions again?

Dexterity is not just about fine motor skills. It is why it is attached to acrobatics and stealth. And it literally states in the description:

"The combination of their inherent stealth..."(pg. 27) So it is mentioned. Then if we infer things, such as being 3 feet tall (which it mentions) and being 40 pounds, which it mentions, we can see why they might have a bonus to things like acrobatics and stealth. But again, I get the feeling the only frame you are looking through is why does the halfling get a +2 when shooting a bow?

 

[bedir than]

Not a single person has denied floating ASIs. Not one. They just think it should be an optional rule.

There are several that consider any addition of floating ASIs a "homogenization of the races" and other bunk.

 

[Scribe]

I'm pretty sure @Scribe has said he's fine with floating ASIs being a thing, as long as he also gets his default racial ASIs. He's repeatedly said he's fine with two options, not one.

Thanks Jeb, and yes that is literally it. I have nothing further to say on this topic. This is it right here.

 

[Faolyn]

Serious question: Are you reading the posts?
Not a single person has denied floating ASIs. Not one. They just think it should be an optional rule.
I have never said horrors in regards to a +2 strength halfling. Has anyone? I don't believe that I have read it.

Are you serious? I should ask if you're reading the posts. At this point, I can't tell if you haven't been reading them or if you're trying to gaslight me. Half this thread is people insisting there's no way that a halfling can ever be as strong as or stronger than a goliath, that such a thing flies in the face of all reason. People have literally said that having a floating ASI takes away from the game. Even you did, by using the tired trope that allowing individual PCs to have different stat bonuses makes the the races homogenous--as if the Planet of Hats you get when all individuals in a race are the same is somehow better.

I am noticing a pattern. Again, I have never said anything remotely like that. If you use floating ASIs as an optional rule, go ahead. Cool.

And again, so much of what you and others have said has been exactly this.

Whatever works for your table. It is what Scribe and Oofta have consistently stated as well. The people that prefer the ASIs think it adds to the world. It separates the races and cultures instead of homogenizing them.
And just as you seem to think it limits the race/class combinations,

And that is something I haven't said.

The people who prefer the fixed ASIs seem to think that a mere stat bonus is enough to differentiate two different races (thus are ignoring other traits and cultural lore), that members of the various races should be penalized for going against their race by not having bonuses to their preferred stats, and that if a race puts a floating ASI in a different attribute, it's somehow minmaxing--but also, that playing a race in its "traditional" class "separates the races and cultures," because that race comes with the preferred ASI, isn't minmaxing or cliché. E.g., a goliath fighter with +2 Str is perfectly fine; a halfling fighter with a +2 Str is being played by a poor player who hasn't bothered to examine their character and who just wants a high stat. You seem to think that, because you think I only care about race/class combos.

I think that having a floating ASI opens up possibilities. Not just for race/class combos, but to simply have characters who are good at things other than what their race dictates--like strong halflings instead of sneaky ones.

I do not think it does. I mean, with ASIs your halfling can still start with a strength bonus 1 point less than goliath. And you think this is unfair. That's okay. It is your opinion. But if I were to use your language it might sound like:
"A +1 difference can't be accepted because some players are incapable of imagining another side of their character."

Sorry Faolyn, I don't understand your logic. I can't understand how getting that extra +1 makes a person feel safe.

You misunderstand my comment. The people for fixed ASIs have said it's upsetting and illogical and ruins fantastic realism for halflings to put +2 into Strength. Since neither you nor any of the others have commented on the option of a halfling putting a +2 into Intelligence or Wisdom or something else (despite me bringing it up a couple of times), I have to assume that the same feelings are engendered. Therefore, with a floating ASI, I can put the +2 in the stat I want (which can be any of them) and you fixed ASI people can put the +2 in Dexterity, since that's apparently the only thing that makes sense to you.

I see you are on the side that the DM controls and runs the table. Interesting. That doesn't seem to coincide with you wanting players to feel happy and safe.

I see that you don't understand that DMs sometimes create their own world and populate it with the races they want them to instead of allowing everything. I notice that you also don't seem to understand the point, which is: the rules are for everyone. I'm not fond of some of them, you're not fond of some of them, whatever. They're for everyone, not just you and me, and as such, they should be made to be for everyone.

So since you understand that D&D is a bit different for each table, then you will understand it isn't always the DM's choice. Which is why, and I will repeat yet again, floating ASIs as an optional rule is fine. You get to have your cake. And the others do too.

Except that as the pdf says, it's no longer an optional rule: from now on, races won't have fixed ASIs. And some of the people in this thread are treating that like it's the end of the world. And the whole cake thing still applies because you can put that ASI in Dexterity if you want your halfling to be dexterous. But by making the new rule official, everyone gets what they want: people who want agile halflings are happy, and so are people who want wise halflings or smart halflings.

Dexterity is not just about fine motor skills. It is why it is attached to acrobatics and stealth. And it literally states in the description: "The combination of their inherent stealth..."(pg. 27) So it is mentioned. Then if we infer things, such as being 3 feet tall (which it mentions) and being 40 pounds, which it mentions, we can see why they might have a bonus to things like acrobatics and stealth.

Yes, which is why I pointed out that "stout" and "agile" are not really synonyms. Sure, halflings might be stealthy, but they're also child-sized. It's easy to be stealthy when you're three feet tall hanging around a bunch of 5-6-foot humans. Which means I fail to see how being that small would help with Acrobatics or with picking locks.

Except that D&D has decided that manual dexterity and physical agility are represented by the same stat, and that halflings are really good at both. Which means that, with a standard fixed ASI, you're basically not allowed to play a clumsy or butterfingered halfling; you have to play someone who's at least of average Dexterity.

But again, I get the feeling the only frame you are looking through is why does the halfling get a +2 when shooting a bow?

Your feelings are quite incorrect.