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]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

I like the change in Tasha's because it allows me to hit that 16, which feels like a requirement to keeping my character mechanically average at character creation.

If you are asking about doing higher point buys or a different array, sure, I've considered those. They would accomplish the same end goal, but I feel like they also wouldn't crack that same barrier of "I'm playing a strength character, I need a strength race" that is so common. That part isn't as big for me, I've got no problem with Savage Attacks making Half-Orcs better melee class choices than spellcaster choices, but I also like this sense of freedom that comes from the Tasha's change.

OK, yep, thats more what I was wondering. Thanks.

 

[JEB]

Sure, and I agree with that, but you attacked my position demanding to know if I was arguing that there was nothing unfortunate about your friend having a harder time when a sidebar would solve all of his problems.

I'm sorry if you felt that was an attack on your position. The intent was to guide you towards sympathy for a playstyle you didn't seem to have much empathy for.

If the entire issue is the potential issue of the sidebar, well, I have never once argued that the sidebar shouldn't exist. It might, but the other side has repeatedly demanded to know why we won't change the rules when a simple sidebar that might exist would solve the issue. It seems like you are holding it up as a reasonable compromise that we are refusing, when most of us are not refusing the sidebar, we just can't predict the future.

So you believe the sidebar should exist! I'm glad to hear it. That honestly wasn't clear before.

Don't care about the questions, because the V. Human not having default recommendations was my point.

I hope Wizards cares more about that question than you do! It's going to be an important one, since there are plenty of people who play human characters, and their "no defaults" niche won't be enough anymore.

So your friend struggled to play interesting human characters right? If that hasn't been a problem worth demanding static ASIs for... heck since 3rd edition? Why is it a problem if a few races/lineages are released now that also don't have static ASIs? Humans were designed that way, why can't other racial options be designed that way?

This particular friend never plays human characters; I think he probably thinks they're kind of boring. (Though other players in the group don't have that problem.) If he did play a human, I would guess it was because he had a character in mind that was focused on class or maybe background, so he'd be relying on those to guide his decision-making instead of factoring in character race or defying archetypes. (Which I expect many players to do for all races, if floating is the default but no "quick build" is provided. They'll just move on to the next easy, default expectation available.)

I should also point out that the variant human isn't the standard human; it's clearly designed for players who desire a greater degree of control over character design. Players who aren't interested in that don't choose the variant human. But now, to some degree, all races are variant human. Maybe that'll be an eye-opener for some players, but others may just see it as extra work...

Sure, again, I hope you guys get your side bar. But this isn't an argument that really moves me, that they want the option to make subpar characters without thinking about it. I'm sorry, character creation takes thought for me, I invest a lot of thought into it.

And again, this only means that the new couple of lineages being released will not be for him. There are still plenty of options that he won't have to think about when using.

If it was just lineages like the dhampir etc. where this applied, that'd be fine, since these are clearly unusual. But ALL character races from this point forward will be like that, per the UA. My friend will either have to be satisfied with the old character options, or do extra work to play the later ones. Unless, of course, they include defaults as well. Hence my advocacy.

...Wouldn't the DM and other players help this person make good decisions about it?

1) That assumes the DM and the other players have any better ideas about where the +2 should go than this person does. Some folks just use things right out of the book without deep consideration about where a character race fits into the world; in some cases, they may even let the tail wag the dog, and build the setting around the character races their players choose. This is why defaults are useful.

2) Couldn't the same argument be made about the quick builds for classes? And yet, Wizards provides that guidance. (I can attest that it's been helpful, too.)

Another player at my table was forbidden from lowering his stats by the DM because he does it so often.

Wait, what? Setting upper limits is one thing, lower limits is a bit strange...

 

[Faolyn]

1) That assumes the DM and the other players have any better ideas about where the +2 should go than this person does. Some folks just use things right out of the book without deep consideration about where a character race fits into the world; in some cases, they may even let the tail wag the dog, and build the setting around the character races their players choose. This is why defaults are useful.

If a DM doesn't know that a person who wants to play a wizard should put a +2 in Int, or a person who wants to play a rogue should put that +2 in Dex, then maybe that DM should play a bit longer before taking up the mantle.

I mean, I see building the setting around the player's choices. Because of reasons (introducing a new player to RPGs) I made my current setting to be PH-races only plus full-blood orcs, with the exception that players could pick something else later on. So far, we have two halflings, two tieflings, and an orc. I wrote up tieflings as a magical mutation that occurs when some people reach adolescence and said the book-standard tief was assumed to have been born to humans; the players could represent tieflings born to other races by switching out certain traits (this was before Tasha's, or even the Ancestries and Cultures books). We have a halfing/tief and an elf/tief who hates elves. As a result, I haven't really dealt with humans, dwarfs, or gnomes all that much, because they're less important to the players. Their most obnoxious villain--they decide if their foes deserve to die largely by how much of a dick they are--was a halfling cultist.

But I don't understand how, if the players get to put a +2 wherever they want, that prevents me from building a setting I want. I decide how the various races live based on their other traits, or on cultural aspects that are either from D&D or that I make up.

Wait, what? Setting upper limits is one thing, lower limits is a bit strange...

When you have a player who enjoys being an angst-monkey with low stats, sometimes you have to have limits. I mean, I oked him lowering his Int because he wanted his character to be slightly dumber than average,

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But I don't understand how, if the players get to put a +2 wherever they want, that prevents me from building a setting I want. I decide how the various races live based on their other traits, or on cultural aspects that are either from D&D or that I make up.

If I want a setting where half-orcs are stronger than halflings, but floating bonuses make this not to be true in the rules, this prevents me from building such setting if I want the rules to be connected to the lore, which I very much do. I assume that this last bit is where we differ.

 

[JEB]

If a DM doesn't know that a person who wants to play a wizard should put a +2 in Int, or a person who wants to play a rogue should put that +2 in Dex, then maybe that DM should play a bit longer before taking up the mantle.

OK, but what if the person doesn't want to make a character that always has a +2 in what's the best stat for their class? What if they want, say, the best barbarian you can make as a typical halfling? If there is no typical halfling, they're on their own. But if you have a default AND floating ASI, folks who want guidance have it, and folks who want unlimited character creation get what they want too.

But I don't understand how, if the players get to put a +2 wherever they want, that prevents me from building a setting I want. I decide how the various races live based on their other traits, or on cultural aspects that are either from D&D or that I make up.

I wasn't arguing that the players getting to put a +2 wherever they want prevents you from building a setting you want. But some people use defaults to help shape their world-building, rather than the other way around. There's no one true way to design a setting or create characters, there are many. And Wizards should support them all.

When you have a player who enjoys being an angst-monkey with low stats, sometimes you have to have limits.

But if the player enjoys making characters like that, what's wrong with it? Were they actively making things less fun for the other players? Though even if they were, that's an out-of-game problem...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I was thinking "10 or higher" and forgetting that there is no 0 making all the math 5% higher than is intuitive.

I will still stand by my main argument, even if the chances of getting a 10 or higher are 55% instead of 50%

So you were convinced by the math when you though it supported your preconception, but now that it actually support +2 modifier being the baseline, you're no longer are convinced by it? Got it.

 

[Faolyn]

OK, but what if the person doesn't want to make a character that always has a +2 in what's the best stat for their class?

Then they don't have to put the +2 in that stat. I've said this before.

Edit: I'm going to give an example of Roy Greenhilt from Order of the Stick. He prizes his intelligence, and at least one copyrighted squid-thingy thought his brain more delectable than that of the 18-Int wizard. If Roy were made in 5e, he may very well have put his +2 in Int--a generally useless stat for a fighter.

What if they want, say, the best barbarian you can make as a typical halfling? If there is no typical halfling, they're on their own. But if you have a default AND floating ASI, folks who want guidance have it, and folks who want unlimited character creation get what they want too.

I've answered this one before as well, but again: Each race already has traits. A halfling is Brave and Lucky and is Agile enough to be able to move through another race's space. This is what a typical halfling is.

The stats of any NPC halfling are either (a) the stats of whatever nameless NPC statblock from the back of the MM that the DM is using, or (b) whatever the DM wants them to be because they're making a named NPC.

Thus, a typical halfling is a halfling Commoner or a halfling Guard or a halfling Noble or a halfling Bandit. So if you want to make a halfling character of any type, that's your baseline, right there.

I wasn't arguing that the players getting to put a +2 wherever they want prevents you from building a setting you want. But some people use defaults to help shape their world-building, rather than the other way around. There's no one true way to design a setting or create characters, there are many. And Wizards should support them all.

I still really don't see how. You seem to be saying that if you describe a race as having a +2 to Dexterity, that's more evocative than describing the same race as being brave in the face of danger and having been blessed with an almost supernatural luck. It seems to me that actually going by the race's traits is much more interesting than a dry bonus is.

But if the player enjoys making characters like that, what's wrong with it? Were they actively making things less fun for the other players? Though even if they were, that's an out-of-game problem...

I... never said there was anything wrong with it. People have been saying that I only care about high stats. I said I had lowered my stats on occasion, and a friend of mine did it so often that the DM said no one time. In this case, partly to tease him and partly to help him realize that yes, you can roleplay with high stats.

 

[Faolyn]

If I want a setting where half-orcs are stronger than halflings, but floating bonuses make this not to be true in the rules, this prevents me from building such setting if I want the rules to be connected to the lore, which I very much do. I assume that this last bit is where we differ.

No it doesn't. Once again, the floating ASIs are for PCs only and both half-orcs and halflings use the same statblocks: the ones that are in the back of the MM under NPCs. The only races that have their own statblocks are the "evil" ones like orcs and drow.

And you can still have the lore and rules connect. You want half-orcs to be strong? Great! Every NPC half-orc you make will have a high Strength score, and every NPC halfling you make will have a lower Strength. Voila! There is literally no problem here.

You do know this is 5e, not 3e where NPCs are built exactly like PCs, right? You don't actually figure out each NPC's stats based on rolling the dice or stat array or something then factor in their racial bonuses and what level they are so you know how many ASIs they get, do you? I mean, I have tons of free time, I like making creatures, and have a bit of obsession for accuracy and I don't do this.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm sorry if you felt that was an attack on your position. The intent was to guide you towards sympathy for a playstyle you didn't seem to have much empathy for.

I do feel for him a little bit, but this seems like such a strange thing to complain about. Again, Variant humans have always been this way, and "I'd prefer not to think about where to put my stats" is... almost aggressively trying not to think about your character.

So you believe the sidebar should exist! I'm glad to hear it. That honestly wasn't clear before.

I've stated my support for it multiple times.

I hope Wizards cares more about that question than you do! It's going to be an important one, since there are plenty of people who play human characters, and their "no defaults" niche won't be enough anymore.

Variant Humans still get a bonus skill and a bonus Feat. That is still incredibly useful.

And again, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Minotaurs, Goliaths, and a few others are all +2 strength +1 Con, so another race with "no defaults" isn't exactly going to hurt humans if "strong and tough" didn't hurt all of them.

This particular friend never plays human characters; I think he probably thinks they're kind of boring. (Though other players in the group don't have that problem.) If he did play a human, I would guess it was because he had a character in mind that was focused on class or maybe background, so he'd be relying on those to guide his decision-making instead of factoring in character race or defying archetypes. (Which I expect many players to do for all races, if floating is the default but no "quick build" is provided. They'll just move on to the next easy, default expectation available.)

I should also point out that the variant human isn't the standard human; it's clearly designed for players who desire a greater degree of control over character design. Players who aren't interested in that don't choose the variant human. But now, to some degree, all races are variant human. Maybe that'll be an eye-opener for some players, but others may just see it as extra work...

I've really never seen anyone actually play a Basic Human. Everyone goes Variant. But that is my point, if he were to go human, he would go with a different way of reaching what he wants. All of these future lineages are just basically variant humans. So any problem playing one would be the same type of issues you would already have

If it was just lineages like the dhampir etc. where this applied, that'd be fine, since these are clearly unusual. But ALL character races from this point forward will be like that, per the UA. My friend will either have to be satisfied with the old character options, or do extra work to play the later ones. Unless, of course, they include defaults as well. Hence my advocacy.

But here is the thing. What if all lineages going forward are clearly unusual?

This is my problem with the outcry coming out. The ones we have clearly make sense under this design, so why are we assuming that the others will also not make sense under this design? There seems to be an asusmption that we will get elves and halflings, which we have no evidence that that will be how it works.

 

[Chaosmancer]

OK, but what if the person doesn't want to make a character that always has a +2 in what's the best stat for their class? What if they want, say, the best barbarian you can make as a typical halfling? If there is no typical halfling, they're on their own. But if you have a default AND floating ASI, folks who want guidance have it, and folks who want unlimited character creation get what they want too.

Then the DM can decide where the ASIs should go.

Again, if the DM can't figure out where they think the defaults should be, one of two things is happening.

1) They aren't putting in any effort

2) The race has no defaults just like humans, so they should be treated just like humans.