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]

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.

No.

I just misstated the percentage, because I forgot that "10 or higher" is actually a 55% chance instead of a 50%. You can claim whatever you like about how that makes me inconsistent or whatever personal attacks you want to make, but I made a mistake, I own that mistake, and it doesn't change my position.

 

[JEB]

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.

As is, there are no stats for NPC halflings in 5E. There are stats for NPCs, and then there are the adjustments provided in the PHB and/or DMG for creating halflings, which you apply to NPC stat blocks to create NPC halflings. If there are no recommended default adjustments anymore, then what would a player - one that doesn't want to make them up himself, but create something "default" according to D&D lore - use to create a typical halfling?

If you're suggesting it would be better for players to reverse engineer halfling stats from halfling NPC statblocks, I don't really see how; that seems like a lot of extra work. Better for Wizards to just provide a quick build.

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.

I'm not arguing whether ASIs are good or bad, or whether they're evocative enough compared to racial traits, or any such matter. I'm arguing that some folks like having them, and find them useful for character creation, whether that's to embrace tropes or to rebel against them. And that's plenty reason for Wizards to continue supporting them, just as much as they should folks who want complete creative freedom.

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.

You're right, you never said there was anything wrong with it, but I was just curious about the motives of your DM. Still seems heavy-handed to me, but I assume it worked out...

 

[JEB]

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

My group has several basic human PCs. I've even played a few! Sometimes you don't have a particular vision for a character when it's game time, and you just put together the defaults and figure them out as you go.

And the point I was making is, if the halfling barbarian player wanted to create a human PC for once, he would presumably want something different from what he usually wants out of characters - something besides subverting expectations. And even if he did, he's probably going to rely on other expectations, like the quick builds for classes. So having default assumptions is always helpful to him and players like him.

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.

Sure, it's possible we'll never see another traditional character race, and they'll all be unusual lineages designed to replace another race's traits. But a) I find it unlikely that Wizards will never add another traditional character race or subrace, especially if more campaign settings are introduced to 5E in the future and b) as such, it seems wise to make sure Wizards knows that some folks want continued support for default ASIs, so they can use new 5E material in the same way they use the old 5E material.

 

[JEB]

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.

Just because the player doesn't know what to do, doesn't mean it's cool for the DM to force a decision on them. Fortunately, if there are suggested defaults, the player doesn't have to come up with anything, and the DM doesn't have to force them. Win-win!

1) What's wrong with a DM not wanting to put in extra effort? Running a game seems like plenty enough for most, so if they want Wizards to make their lives easier with some defaults, I think that's fair.

2) You realize "all the races will be treated like humans" has been a specific criticism of floating ASIs, right?

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, sigh. No, they're not. For instance, I said



And you said



Despite the fact that doesn't flow at all. I never said that any stats were ordinary, bad, or extraordinary; I was talking entirely about how many people seem to think that allowing PCs to put a +2 in the stat of their choice means that it'll somehow make it so halflings as a whole are stronger than goliaths.

Likewise, you say



Despite the fact that nobody--not myself, not anyone else--has said that a character with a 15 in a stat is nonviable.

So you are either completely misunderstanding what I'm writing or making strawmen.

I have pointed out how you, Scribe, and Crimson Longinus have all said that halflings shouldn't get a +2 to Strength no matter what the cause. You ignored that and remained focused on the word "average." Which you're still doing.


It literally doesn't matter if I am satisfied or not. It should be that all players have the option to put a +2 in whatever stat they want. People who want racial ASIs still get them with the floating ASI rules.


You do not seem to be using optimizer in a neutral way. You may go on to claim you think it's perfectly valid, but your actual words more strongly indicate that you feel that it's not as good: as you say, the player should be "satisfied" with having a 15 in a stat, which goes into "your fun is wrong" territory.

Here is the only question: Is 15 good enough for a main attribute at first level?

That is the crux. The question. The only answer that matters.

 

[Faolyn]

Here is the only question: Is 15 good enough for a main attribute at first level?

That is the crux. The question. The only answer that matters.

You are obsessed with whether or not a 15 is good enough... but there will be players who want to turn at 11 or 12 into a 13 or 14--or the 8 into a 10. You are obsessed as to whether or not it should be good enough at 1st level... but a lot of games start at 3rd level these days.

And as I have said on multiple occasions, it's not whether or not a 15 or 16 or even a 20 is "good enough." It's that the player should have the option of putting the +2 in the stat of their choice, no matter what that stat is.

Do you finally understand my point? Because I've said it probably a dozen times so far and I'm tired of repeating it.

The only answer that actually matters is, do you believe that people should have the right to play their characters the way they want? Or do you believe that people should play their characters the way you want?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The only answer that actually matters is, do you believe that people should have the right to play their characters the way they want? Or do you believe that people should play their characters the way you want?

I believe that in a splat based game a splat choice can and should have mechanical impact. Aarakocra can fly, wood elves run faster, warriors can use all weapons, wizards barely any, half-orcs are strong, halflings are small and nimble. Wanting your halfling to be as strong as an half-orc makes about as much sense to me than wanting your elf to have a breath weapon or wanting you wizard to be able to use plate armour.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

All PC races need their own personal list of strong and weak points to make difference. I would rather variety of traits avoiding boring homogeneity. (Only I can more optional flexivility to avoid typecasting with classes) Can you create a halfling with Str 17? yes, and also a wizard with Str17, but that is not the game spirit. If I want a shorter but strong fighter then the dwarf is better option. You could create a good halfling warrior, but not with Str as main focus.

* Could the ruathar ( = elves' friend) prestige class from "Races of the Wild" to become a bloodline?

 

[Faolyn]

I believe that in a splat based game a splat choice can and should have mechanical impact. Aarakocra can fly, wood elves run faster, warriors can use all weapons, wizards barely any, half-orcs are strong, halflings are small and nimble. Wanting your halfling to be as strong as an half-orc makes about as much sense to me than wanting your elf to have a breath weapon or wanting you wizard to be able to use plate armour.

Please answer my question.

Actually, never mind, you just did. You believe that people should play the way you want them to play. Your fun is right; everyone else's fun is wrong, and no individual can be good at something unusual because it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The only answer that actually matters is, do you believe that people should have the right to play their characters the way they want? Or do you believe that people should play their characters the way you want?

Very much this. If a player, within the rules outlined in session zero, wants to design and play the strong halfling barbarian or the smart half-orc wizard or the dexterous goliath monk, that's up to them, IMO. PCs are exceptions in the game world and players should have the final say in how they play their PCs. A strong halfling PC does not mean every halfling in the world is strong. IME as DM, if a player is excited about their character, it shows in game play and boosts the experience for everyone. If the strong halfling is fun and exciting for that player, great! Sure, a DM should feel free at session zero to limit the books or the races or whatever they want that goes into their campaign's character creation rules. But, personally, I don't see myself ever telling someone in our 5e game that they can't play the strong gnome or the charismatic lizard folk or whatever other "unconventional" race-ability pairing they want.