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]

You're working off the assumption, the opinion, that Wizards will make a point of avoiding complete character race builds whenever it's possible for them to turn that race into a variant of something already available. When that's not been their design philosophy for the overwhelming majority of new character races in 5E. When there are commercial reasons for them to do complete character race builds, as with the leonin.

The only thing Wizards has indicated will be changing is that future character race options won't have default ASIs. So until Wizards starts actually releasing products that studiously avoid full builds in favor of variant after variant... you'll forgive me if I'm going to expect them to follow previous patterns.

(There's also one more reason they would continue to do complete races or subraces: to continue the PHB+1 approach for Adventurers League. Telling you "this new race is kind of like kobolds, but change this" is useless if you can't also reference that other sourcebook. In fact, this may be another reason the leonin wasn't a tabaxi variant.)

The PHB + 1 Angle is one that I hadn't considered, and that actually makes a lot of sense to me as a potential reason.

Because while you keep saying that there design philosophy has been to make new races whenever possible, it really hasn't been. Pretty much every time they reference elves, dwarves, goblins, and orcs in a new setting, they wither reprint them or at most they give a variant.

And I think it is fair to look at the books like this as well.

PHB -> Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling, half-Orc, Human, Tielfing

Elemental Evil -> Goliath, Genasi, Aarcrockra

Volos -> Goliath (reprint), Aasimar, Bugbear, Firbolg, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kenku, Kobold, Lizardfolk, Orc, Tabaxi, Triton, Yuan-Ti

Ravnica -> Human (PHB), Elf (PHB), Goblin (Reprint), Centaur, Loxodon, Minotaur, Simic, Veldalken.

Eberron -> Dragonborn (PHB), Dwarves (PHB), Elves (PHB/Sidebar variant), Gnomes (PHB), Goblin (Reprint), Bugbear (Reprint), Hobgoblin (Reprint), Half-Elf (PHB), Hafling (PHB), Human (PHB), Half-Orc (PHB), Orc (Reprint), Tieflings (PHB) Changeling, Kalashtar, Shifters, Warforged

Theros -> Human (PHB), Centaur (Reprint), Minotaur (Reprint), Triton (Reprint), Leonin, Satyr

So, I think your hypothesis about the PHB + 1 is dead on. If you are in the PHB, you don't get a new write up usually. IF you were in Volos or Ravnica, you get a reprint. And then if you look back, they rarely repeat concepts after that. There is very little overlap in concept with any of these.

Which gets to my second point, and the one that is more a prediction and gut than anything I can back up with evidence. And that is, we've got them all. See, it is really easy to look at the PHB, see Volo's and go "aha, they will create more races, they did it here! And they did it in Eberron!"But the problem is, now that they have those races, they don't need to recreate them. I mean, if you wanted to make the Magic the Gathering Setting of Mirrodin, which is covered in constructs, do you make new races? Or do you adapt the Anvilwrought background, Warforged, and Reborn mechanics instead?

I find it very telling that in Theros they made the Anvilwrought a background choice, instead of a race. They could have made space for a new race there, but they went a different route. And I think going forward, since we have already covered so many different options, they are not going to be making as many new races.

Default ASIs only give you an "obvious decision" for the ASI for your character race. That's all. Not everyone is thinking about their race-class combo, or specific builds, or the like, when they make a character. Sometimes they pick their race, and then their class, and then their background, with only brief consideration, if any. They might choose their class because it's the archetype (elf wizard), they might choose it as an anti-archetype (elf melee fighter), or they might choose something because they just think it's neat (elf warlock). And quick builds are useful to folks like that, because they can just say, "I go with the default", and get to gaming. While that may not be the way you or others design characters, it works perfectly fine for some players.

Dude, I get that. What you aren't hearing is that if you say "I want to go with the default elf" then you still have to pick a class. You say Elf Wizard is the Archetype, but Elf Ranger is an archetype to. So is Elf Arcane Trickster. Elf Monk.

You have declared that Elf Wizard is the archetype, but nothing actually backs that up. That is what Faolyn was trying to get across to you, the guy who wants to play the "archetypical elf" but doesn't want to think about their ability score placement still has to think about their ability score placement.

Do you play a High Elf for +1 Int? Does that mean you play a Wizard or an Artificer?
Do you play a Wood Elf for +1 Wis? Does that mean you play a Ranger or a Monk?
Do you play Eladrin for +1 Cha? Does that mean you play a Warlock or a Bard or a Sorcerer?
Do you play a Sea Elf or a Shadar-Kai for +1 Con? Does that mean you want to play a ranged character, a rogue or something else?

It is actually almost hilarious to use elves for this example, because the only score you can't increase via elf is Strength.

And sure, maybe you pick you class first. You want to play a fighter.

Do you want to be melee or ranged?

Ranged fighters can be archetypical for elves, halflings, goblins, kobolds, bugbears, tabaxi, human, half-elf, changeling, warforged, air genasi, satyrs

Melee fighters can be archetypical for Orcs, half-orc, human, dragonborn, minotaur, goliath, firbolg, warforged, half-elf, changeling, earth genasi, leonin,


I'm not trying to say you are wrong that some people don't care and just pick things, but you are also trying to sell that they don't care and pick things, while simultaneously finding it too much work to just pick ASIs, because they want to play for or against type without having to choose. And I think it is fair to question that assertion when you remember that the ASIs alone have overlap with multiple classes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The campaign before last this was the make-up of our group:

• yuan-ti sorcerer/rogue
• drow paladin
• gnome artificer
• halfling monk
• elven druid
• variant human fighter
• elven ranger
• human cleric

All this, despite warnings from out GM that drow and yuan-ti are considered evil in the game. Yuan-ti are literally relegated to an island where they pirate people to use as slaves. Drow relegated to the underdark where they visit the surface only to steal or take slaves.

What happened? It was a big deal for the first session. Then was ignored because it was a pain to deal with that and the quest we were on. (And this is a GREAT DM.) Then it reprised at level seven or eight, but seemed random. Then it disappeared again forever.

Did it ruin the other players' game? No. We are there to have fun. Did it crash my immersion (and another player's)? Yes. My DM world-building sensibilities just couldn't get past it, even though the DM and player did a good job of playing the "there are grey areas of people's nature."

Perhaps you were not in the conversation in another thread. But I am not opposed to any race, even when they are deliberately being used to min/max. But I do like consistency in the DM's world, but also understand that if you have everything open, that consistency sometimes has to take a backseat to the overarching story.

Most recent campaign I am in has had these characters.

Genasi (homebrew) Psion
Human Fighter/Barbarian
Human Warlock/Artificer
Aasimar Bard/Sorcerer
Half Orc Cleric/Ranger
Elf Twilight Cleric (Subclass to prove that Tasha's exists for this group)
Human Wizard

I have been the only person in any group I've been in play a Yuan-Ti. Never had anyone play a Drow (sunlight sensitivity is too big of a downside). Never seen a Satyr, a Mountain Dwarf Wizard, pretty much none of it.

So, I'm sorry you had expeirence where two players wanted to play something and the DM couldn't make it work, but that doesn't counter the point that for the majority of us, these combos have not suddenly started flooding into every game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

dwarf and gnome make no sense as that is not logically possible.

And yet, @Crimson Longinus as claimed that a dwarves weapon training is just as innate to them as an Aacrockra's wings.

If we are going to take the route that all racial traits must be biologically based, and inborn, to the point where strength, weapon training and wings are all treated equally, then this is what we come up with.

For record, I think that is silly. Like you noted, it really doesn't make much sense. And yet, here we are.

 

[Mind of tempest]

And yet, @Crimson Longinus as claimed that a dwarves weapon training is just as innate to them as an Aacrockra's wings.

If we are going to take the route that all racial traits must be biologically based, and inborn, to the point where strength, weapon training and wings are all treated equally, then this is what we come up with.

For record, I think that is silly. Like you noted, it really doesn't make much sense. And yet, here we are.

we know of no such thing as instinctual advanced tool knowledge thus we must split the flesh from the ornaments of culture.

 

[Aldarc]

I know, just playing around. This threads on a loop at this point. I don't expect limits, restrictions, or caps to be a thing tied to lineage in an eventual 6e.

If limits, restrictions, minuses, or caps are likely not going to be tied to lineage in a future 6e, how might you envision lineage in way that could potentially address some of your primary concerns? Would you like, for example, more active abilities that a lineage may provide? More interesting lineage abilities?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And yet, @Crimson Longinus as claimed that a dwarves weapon training is just as innate to them as an Aacrockra's wings.

If we are going to take the route that all racial traits must be biologically based, and inborn, to the point where strength, weapon training and wings are all treated equally, then this is what we come up with.

For record, I think that is silly. Like you noted, it really doesn't make much sense. And yet, here we are.

I did not. The ASIs are equally innate, the proficiencies generally aren't. Though sometimes even they seem to be, like in the case of elves' keen senses. Problem is that the game doesn't really differentiate these things, they all just come in one package. Generally I wouldn't mind expanding backgrounds and moving cultural elements there. ASIs just aren't among those.

 

[JEB]

The PHB + 1 Angle is one that I hadn't considered, and that actually makes a lot of sense to me as a potential reason.

I hadn't thought of it until then either, but it seems kind of obvious in hindsight. (This could be part of why Wildemount is so packed full of reprints, too.)

Which gets to my second point, and the one that is more a prediction and gut than anything I can back up with evidence. And that is, we've got them all. See, it is really easy to look at the PHB, see Volo's and go "aha, they will create more races, they did it here! And they did it in Eberron!"But the problem is, now that they have those races, they don't need to recreate them. I mean, if you wanted to make the Magic the Gathering Setting of Mirrodin, which is covered in constructs, do you make new races? Or do you adapt the Anvilwrought background, Warforged, and Reborn mechanics instead?

I find it very telling that in Theros they made the Anvilwrought a background choice, instead of a race. They could have made space for a new race there, but they went a different route. And I think going forward, since we have already covered so many different options, they are not going to be making as many new races.

Yeah, I'll grant you that we might not see as many new races from this point on in 5E. But I think we can be assured there will be at least a few more complete character races, and not just the lineages like we saw in this UA. (A lot also depends on how much longer 5E will be running, and how many more campaign settings we see, since those are the primary sources for new races.)

I'm not trying to say you are wrong that some people don't care and just pick things, but you are also trying to sell that they don't care and pick things, while simultaneously finding it too much work to just pick ASIs, because they want to play for or against type without having to choose. And I think it is fair to question that assertion when you remember that the ASIs alone have overlap with multiple classes.

Sorry, I'm not actually seeing the contradiction here. Someone can be perfectly capable of not wanting to bother thinking beyond defaults, and yet also be aware of appropriate or inappropriate archetypes once they pick their race.

Someone could choose to be an elf ranged fighter because they noticed that default elves have a +2 to Dex; someone could also choose to be an elf ranged fighter (or ranger) because, now that they chose elf, they remember the Lord of the Rings movies and want to be Legolas.

Someone could also see that +2 to Dex, and decide, you know, I think it'd be more interesting to see how a melee elf fighter would work with those defaults; someone could also choose to be an elf melee fighter just because they specifically DON'T want to be Legolas, without once glancing at the ASI.

Someone could ignore all of that and want to be an elf warlock because the elves in the PHB look cool, and then they think warlocks sound awesomely wicked. (Those are also the players who often need to be reminded repeatedly of the rules while playing, but I don't begrudge them their fun.)

There are many paths to the same results, but what those share in common is that they're more concerned with other things than aiming for a particular race-class combo; they just want to put together a character and get to rolling dice.

 

[Don Durito]

But here is the problem. If most of them are rubbish, then losing most of them isn't a big deal.

Well no. That would seem to be an obvious corollary of the fact that most of them are rubbish wouldn't it.

And yet @Crimson Longinus has put forth that they are obvious biological facts of these races which must be preserved to keep the game functioning on a narrative level.

What the rubbish ones? Or the ones that are not rubbish? What has another posters' opinions got to do with me anway?

People have described losing the +2 difference between a big race like goliath, orc, dragonborn or minotaur and a small race like halfling, gnome or goblin as "farcical" the example of the elephant and the mouse was a real example put forth as undeniable proof of how ridiculous removing that distinction is.

Really? Somehow I expect you're exagerrating. In any case you're replying to me. What do I care what 'people' think.

And yet, shift the conversation to the similarities between those races, a similarity that is a little harder to justify, and now the conversation shifts into "well we don't want to make a bad system worse" or "most of them are rubbish anyways, so why does it matter"

If you're arguing for the removal of something that serves a purpose without replacing it with anything with anything at all then you then you need to do better than argue that the thing you are removing doesn't serve it's purpose all that well.

Because, however, badly ASI serves their purpose right now, replacing them with nothing will serve that less. You don't get to argue from both sides at the same time.

But, then you sneak back in that some of them have to be obvious.

But you spotted it hey. I tried to be really sneaky by writing it in plain English prose as part of my reply, but you spotted it anyway even though it was plainly hidden in plain sight.

After all, a goliath being stronger than most other races is just like an Aarcrockra being born with wings, or a Dwarf being born knowing how to swing a battleaxe or a gnome being born knowing how to construct a music box or a tabaxi being born knowing how to hide and sneak.

Is it. That seems a bizarre line of argument. Some of those things seem obviously different.

Or is this part of parcel of your argument that ASIs need to be made more stringent and restrictive? Are you now looking to lead this thread into some kind of avante garde phase where you argue both sides at the same time and even within the same post?

 

[Scribe]

If limits, restrictions, minuses, or caps are likely not going to be tied to lineage in a future 6e, how might you envision lineage in way that could potentially address some of your primary concerns? Would you like, for example, more active abilities that a lineage may provide? More interesting lineage abilities?

First I would move most of the ASI out of lineage (not all), then have more passive benefits and add in Paragon type features that further differentiate a lineage.

I'd still lean on the expected tropes, and I'd probably add more mechanical difference between size.

 

[Faolyn]

I did not. The ASIs are equally innate, the proficiencies generally aren't. Though sometimes even they seem to be, like in the case of elves' keen senses. Problem is that the game doesn't really differentiate these things, they all just come in one package. Generally I wouldn't mind expanding backgrounds and moving cultural elements there. ASIs just aren't among those.

Since the UA has said it's not going to include ASIs as part of the racial package anymore, I think it's clear that WotC intends for the +2/+1 to not be biological in nature. While a 3pp, the Ancestrys and Cultures trio of books also puts those ASIs as purely cultural as well.