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]

Of course it has a lot to do with ASIs, as those are just one type of racial trait and to which all these same considerations apply.

So again, you are comparing ASIs, to wings, to dwarven tool proficiency.

I compared swapping one ASI to another ASI to swapping some dwarf racial feature to flight. But yeah that's the deal with 'but PCs are special' thing, if a super strong halfling can be a special god-blessed halfling then a winged dwarf can also be a special blessed dwarf. And that's perfectly fine logic, it is just weird that people are willing to apply this 'specialness' to one area and want it to be baked in the default rules and still consider same logic applied to another area ridiculous. But ultimately if PCs are special and need not to conform limitations of their species and rules are only for creating PCs, then it is obviously pointless to have splat based lineages at all. Just have a list of traits and features people can choose from and then justify it how they see fit.

It is because of the rules man.

Gaining permanent flight is a major bonus that alters how you approach the entire game.

A Barbarian with a 16 strength is bog standard, incredibly common and mostly expected by the math of the game. Whether they are an Orc or a Gnome doesn't matter.

You are trying to conflate one of the most powerful abilities that is constantly banned at many tables to a small race reaching the expected norm for class power. IT would be like having someone say they want a spear that uses the longsword damage die and versatile feature, and you claiming that that is the exact same as asking for a rocket launcher.

No, you are basically just hitting par, compared to gaining something incredibly powerful that is highly limited.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wouldn't go that far. It seems more likely Wizards simply decided that fixed ASIs weren't worth the trouble, after the pushback they got for making Tasha's optional rather than default. I imagine their stance will be to leave the meaning of ASIs for individual players and DMs to decide. Note that in the sidebar they specifically addressed cultural traits, and alignment, and how they're not inborn, but the placement of ASIs as cultural vs. biological wasn't really addressed.

Of course, if they come out and definitively say that ASIs are no longer meant to be biological, that'd be different.

It seems more likely for them to claim that they never intended ASIs to be biological at all, judging from what we've heard from them. I have no problem with making changes to your game, but if you changed your mind about something, you should admit it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Really? It is problematic for me to assume that my overweight math professor isn't as strong as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?

Also, here is something fun. The Rock is strong right? Stronger than average at least. Vin Diesel is strong right? Stronger than average at least. And yet Vin Diesel is significantly shorter and lighter. By 5 inches and 35 lbs.

Are you curious about the difference between the Average Human and the Average half-Orc? 2 inches and 30 lbs. So, the difference between a +2 race and a +0 race is less than the difference between two very strong humans. Oh, and neither of them are the "strongest" as the current "strongest man in the world" is Oleksii Novikov who is 4 inches shorter than The Rock and about 30 lbs heavier.

And do you know what else I would say is funny? I bet you that Vin Diesel and The Rock both have better stage prescence than either the math teacher or Novikov. And that the Math teacher is likely better at calculating equations in their head than any of the others.

Because, it isn't "Biological Essentialism or Culutural Racism" as a binary choice. There is a third option. People are skilled at what they do. And yes, you can claim that that is represented by a 15 or by proficiency in a skill or any number of other things, but the hard truth is to be "good at what you do" in DnD, you need the stat and proficiency. It is just how the game is designed.

This is a complete non sequitur. All the people you mention are humans, and presumably fall within the variation of human species. Question is whether it problematic to have a sapient species that has different upper and lower limits on certain areas than the humans do. Like it is problematic that in Star Trek Vulcans tend to be stronger and smarter than humans?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So again, you are comparing ASIs, to wings, to dwarven tool proficiency.



It is because of the rules man.

Gaining permanent flight is a major bonus that alters how you approach the entire game.

A Barbarian with a 16 strength is bog standard, incredibly common and mostly expected by the math of the game. Whether they are an Orc or a Gnome doesn't matter.

You are trying to conflate one of the most powerful abilities that is constantly banned at many tables to a small race reaching the expected norm for class power. IT would be like having someone say they want a spear that uses the longsword damage die and versatile feature, and you claiming that that is the exact same as asking for a rocket launcher.

No, you are basically just hitting par, compared to gaining something incredibly powerful that is highly limited.

Look, change it to Dragonborn's decidedly lacklustre breathweapon then. It was not about power.

 

[Faolyn]

Except if it problematic to say that differnt species have differnt capabilities, it is problematic regardless of the method you use to mechanically represent it (i.e. ASIs or features) hell, it would be problematic even if it was not represented mechanically at all but merely present in the fluff.

Not really. The traits come in two parts:

The ASIs. You're still thinking of them as being racial bonuses, but they aren't anymore. The player would simply have a +2/+1 to put where they want. It's completely divorced from race.

The other parts. The majority of them are things we can all agree are truly biological. A tabaxi is a feline; it has Cat's Claws. A dwarf has two livers and three kidneys; it has Poison Resistance. A goliath has stony muscles; it has Powerful Build. An aarakocra is a bird; it has Flight. A tiefling has the blood of fiends; it has Fire Resistance. This isn't problematic, as we can all agree these are biological in nature.

We can agree that these are biological in nature because we have actual nature to look at. Cats have claws, most birds have wings, there are real-life animals that can eat food that would be deadly toxins to humans, there are real-life animals that are incredibly strong for their size, and, well, we can imagine that a magical creature that lives in a fiery realm would be immune to fire and therefore might pass that trait down in some manner. We can say these are biological because, despite the word "race," humans, tabaxi, dwarves, goliaths, aarakocra, and tieflings are actually different species.

If there are bits that are problematic, such as possibly a halfling's Brave or an orc's Aggressive, then at some point they can be switched for something else, or possibly just renamed to something with less baggage. Maybe halflings aren't so much Brave as their minds are built in such a way that magical fear doesn't affect them as strongly, making them Fear-Resistant, which isn't any different than an elf being resistant to magical charms. Maybe orcs aren't overly violent but are prone to Adrenaline Rush (and their trait is changed to require them to move towards a creature, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a hostile one).

But of course we're not talking about these traits at the moment. We're talking about ASIs, and your continued inability to separate them from race.

So here's what it really is: Roll the dice or assign the stats, whatever. Those are your stats.

You also get a +2 to put in one of those stats and a +1 to put in another stat.

• You can put one in what you believe to be your race's prime stat,
• You can put one in what you believe to be your class's prime stat(s),
• You can put one in what you believe to your (game) background's prime stat,
• Or you can put one in what you believe to be your (written) background's best stat.

The end.

There is nothing absurd about this, beyond your continued inability to understand how the game works when it comes to racial write-ups, and your apparent inability figure out what those prime stats are without a book telling you.

The game has moved on, and so have the way ASIs work.

 

[Lord Twig]

It seems more likely for them to claim that they never intended ASIs to be biological at all, judging from what we've heard from them. I have no problem with making changes to your game, but if you changed your mind about something, you should admit it.

I don't believe for a second that ASIs were never intended to represent biological differences between the fantasy races (species) in D&D. And to say that they were never intended to in the past is blatantly false. To say, "This increase reflects an archetypal bit of excellence in the adventures of this kind in D&D's past" is not true. I won't say they are lying, because they may honestly believe it to be true, but they are certainly wrong.

Also, to say "This increase (of Con) doesn't apply to every dwarf, just to dwarf adventurers, and it exists to reinforce an archetype" is to re-write history. That has absolutely not been true in the past.

All that said... I like the ability to move racial (species?) ASIs around. I think it is a good optional rule that allows you to explain "a halfling that fell into a barrel of strength potion as a child" or "the sickly dwarf raised by elves" characters that can make for some great story telling. But don't try to change history to fit your own narrative. Learn from it and grow.

 

[Lord Twig]

Not really. The traits come in two parts:

The ASIs. You're still thinking of them as being racial bonuses, but they aren't anymore. The player would simply have a +2/+1 to put where they want. It's completely divorced from race.

The other parts. The majority of them are things we can all agree are truly biological. A tabaxi is a feline; it has Cat's Claws. A dwarf has two livers and three kidneys; it has Poison Resistance. A goliath has stony muscles; it has Powerful Build. An aarakocra is a bird; it has Flight. A tiefling has the blood of fiends; it has Fire Resistance. This isn't problematic, as we can all agree these are biological in nature.

We can agree that these are biological in nature because we have actual nature to look at. Cats have claws, most birds have wings, there are real-life animals that can eat food that would be deadly toxins to humans, there are real-life animals that are incredibly strong for their size, and, well, we can imagine that a magical creature that lives in a fiery realm would be immune to fire and therefore might pass that trait down in some manner. We can say these are biological because, despite the word "race," humans, tabaxi, dwarves, goliaths, aarakocra, and tieflings are actually different species.

If there are bits that are problematic, such as possibly a halfling's Brave or an orc's Aggressive, then at some point they can be switched for something else, or possibly just renamed to something with less baggage. Maybe halflings aren't so much Brave as their minds are built in such a way that magical fear doesn't affect them as strongly, making them Fear-Resistant, which isn't any different than an elf being resistant to magical charms. Maybe orcs aren't overly violent but are prone to Adrenaline Rush (and their trait is changed to require them to move towards a creature, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a hostile one).

But of course we're not talking about these traits at the moment. We're talking about ASIs, and your continued inability to separate them from race.

So here's what it really is: Roll the dice or assign the stats, whatever. Those are your stats.

You also get a +2 to put in one of those stats and a +1 to put in another stat.

• You can put one in what you believe to be your race's prime stat,
• You can put one in what you believe to be your class's prime stat(s),
• You can put one in what you believe to your (game) background's prime stat,
• Or you can put one in what you believe to be your (written) background's best stat.

The end.

There is nothing absurd about this, beyond your continued inability to understand how the game works when it comes to racial write-ups, and your apparent inability figure out what those prime stats are without a book telling you.

The game has moved on, and so have the way ASIs work.

Wow. That's insulting. I think everyone here understands the new rule of putting your +2 and +1 in whatever stat you want. That is not the problem. The problem is that a great many of us think that is a bad way to set as the default. Leave it as an optional rule, it's great! (in my opinion) But don't get rid of default species ASIs to... I don't even know that to say here. What IS the purpose of getting rid of default species ASIs? Certainly it is not insulting to say a quick and nimble species gets a default +2 Dex? Or a willowy and graceful species to get +2 Dex? Or a big and powerful species to get a +2 Str? Or a sturdy and resilient species to get a +2 Con. Is it insulting to say that one species is stronger than the other (on average!) when one is 7 feet tall and the other is 3 feet tall?

And the game already allows the 3 foot species to get to the same maximum of 20 Str! Or a 20 in any stat! They just start 2 points, or one +1 or 5%, behind the stronger species. And they added an optional rule so they don't even need to be behind at all anymore!

Another thing to consider is that it is fine to let people play "whatever they want", but if you have absolutely no limits, you are not playing a game anymore. So obviously WotC can make a rule that says, "You can make your stats whatever you want, have as many or as few racial features as you want, and can make up your own racial features to fit your character concept" as at that point you are just playing the storytelling game of "Let's Pretend". Which is great if that is what you want to do! But it is no longer D&D.

 

[Faolyn]

Wow. That's insulting. I think everyone here understands the new rule of putting your +2 and +1 in whatever stat you want. That is not the problem. The problem is that a great many of us think that is a bad way to set as the default. Leave it as an optional rule, it's great! (in my opinion) But don't get rid of default species ASIs to... I don't even know that to say here. What IS the purpose of getting rid of default species ASIs? Certainly it is not insulting to say a quick and nimble species gets a default +2 Dex? Or a willowy and graceful species to get +2 Dex? Or a big and powerful species to get a +2 Str? Or a sturdy and resilient species to get a +2 Con. Is it insulting to say that one species is stronger than the other (on average!) when one is 7 feet tall and the other is 3 feet tall?

And the game already allows the 3 foot species to get to the same maximum of 20 Str! Or a 20 in any stat! They just start 2 points, or one +1 or 5%, behind the stronger species. And they added an optional rule so they don't even need to be behind at all anymore!

Another thing to consider is that it is fine to let people play "whatever they want", but if you have absolutely no limits, you are not playing a game anymore. So obviously WotC can make a rule that says, "You can make your stats whatever you want, have as many or as few racial features as you want, and can make up your own racial features to fit your character concept" as at that point you are just playing the storytelling game of "Let's Pretend". Which is great if that is what you want to do! But it is no longer D&D.

You know, I've answered every single one of these things many times already. Have you read any of my previous posts on the subject? Please do so.

 

[Lord Twig]

You know, I've answered every single one of these things many times already. Have you read any of my previous posts on the subject? Please do so.

I will not pretend to have read the entirety of this (extremely) long thread, but I have read quite a bit, and I have seen your answers, but I don't think they actually answer what I (and others) are asking. But you don't need to post them again (and I'm sure you don't want to ) at this point I think people are talking past each other.

So why did I post? I don't think I will change any minds, but this is a subject that I have an opinion on and do care about* and I wanted to let people know that there is support for default ASIs. If I, and others with a similar opinion, simply remained silent it would falsely suggest that the default floating species ASIs are universally approved of, which is certainly not the case.

So obviously people have different opinions on this. The question now is how does WotC move forward while keeping the vast majority of their fans (and paying customers) happy? Remember, D&D is a business. It doesn't matter how morally correct they are if they lose customers. Hasbro will shut them down and move on, and companies like Paizo (which I think has a fantastic way of handling ancestry and backgrounds btw) will be ready to take their place, just like they did the last time D&D lost their way.

*Obviously there are a great many issues that I care about that are far more important in the grand scheme of things, but I do D&D for fun, and I post on this board for fun. So... [shrug]

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even saying some races are healthier than others is problematic for the exact same reasons.

No, it isn’t.

And if the majority of D&D players disagree, then the only way to fix it is to get rid of race as a game element with mechanical impact.

Half-Orcs and dwarves are healthier than other races, with or without ASIs.