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."

 

[Lord Twig]

To continue on this thread, because I enjoy discussing D&D and I no longer have anyone to talk to about it, so this board is all I have for now, I would like to explain that my view point comes from a simulationist perspective. Now I don't want an absolute simulation, but I want a semblance of it.

For example, can a human punch through a steel plate? No! Of course not! At least, not without magic. A monk channeling Ki to punch through metal makes perfect sense! At least within the magical world of D&D it does. And there was an explanation given in somewhere that dragons can fly and giants can exist, despite the impossibility of them according to physics, because there is a "low-level pervasive magic" that is so universal that not even anti-magic zones effect them, that allows those creatures to exist the way they do. Great! I'll take it! That makes sense within the D&D world. Problem explained and solved enough to now ignore it.

It is the same for racial/species ASIs. Half-Orcs are stonger than everyone else because of course they are! They are just naturally bigger and stronger. But other races can get to be just as strong, including tiny halfling and gnomes, because of low-level pervasive magic. Good enough for me. And honestly I would be even more happy if every race species (it is going to be hard to switch to species after 40 years of using race) had a -2 somewhere as well. I think it adds more interest and role-playing possibilities, but that is just IMHO and I may be in the minority on that. So no need to tell me I am "wrong" and that it "punishes" people.

 

[Lord Twig]

(However, why is it not absurd to accept that, by RAW, a three-foot tall halfling is as strong as a six-and-a-half foot human or tiefling?)

It is absurd to accept that a three-foot tall halfling is as strong as a six-and-a-half foot tall human or tiefling. At least it is unless you make some further assumptions.

Previous version of the game reduced the carrying and lifting capacity of small sized characters to account for this and said that the actual strength score was not wholly dependent on how strong you were, but how strong you were relative to your size and how well you used that strength. Now this was an obvious attempt to explain away something that doesn't make sense, but it was enough of an excuse to use for a willing suspension of disbelief.

With that president set, 5e now describes strength as follows: "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force." So bodily power, that is to say, physical strength, is still a factor, but they are also using the abstract ideas of athleticism and effectively applying force to hand-wave physically smaller creatures being just as strong as larger ones.

Now I think it is fair to say that WotC did not remove the size adjustment for carrying capacity for small creatures because they believed small creatures are just as strong as medium sized creatures. They removed it because it was simpler to do so. 5th edition made playing D&D easy, and they removed a lot of simulationist rules that, while more reflective on the fantasy reality, didn't really add that much to the game. (I realize this and I like the simulationist rules!)

A new rule declaring all species ASIs are no longer static and now may be assigned as desired does not make things simpler, it makes it more complicated. And, in my opinion, less fun.

Edit: I am going to keep an eye on this thread to see if anyone else responds or to see if, once again, I have managed to kill a long running thread.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Oh for Pete's sake...

I am not saying that halflings as a race are as strong as or stronger than orcs as a race. I'm saying that there's no logical reason why you can't have one halfling, out of the thousands or millions of halflings in any given world, who's as strong as an orc when they start out. I'm reminding you that, according to the PH, the PCs are supposed to be extraordinary people.

I'm saying that players should have the opportunity to create the character they want. If you don't think a strong halfling is logical, then you can just put your ASI in any other stat. But the fact that you don't think a strong halfling is logical should have no bearing on whether or not I want to make a strong halfling--and a floating ASI allows for both of us to make the character we want.

I'm saying that having a floating ASI makes the game simpler. Having a racial ASI doesn't point you to a specific class and doesn't allow for a quick build, which some people here have claimed. You get a +2 Dex? Fine. Now, are you going to play a Dex-based warrior-type, a rogue, a monk, or a bladelock? See? It's not a quick build; instead, you nearly as many options as before. But with a floating ASI, you don't have to worry about where the bonus goes; it goes where you want it to. The only way it becomes more complicated is if you are incapable of coming up with an idea without the books telling you want to do.

I am saying that attributes are about 90% abstract anyway, so it shouldn't matter if one is higher than another. After all, a halfling with 16 Dex and an orc with 16 Strength have the same damage bonus. Literally the only time that attributes aren't abstract is when it comes to encumbrance. And "strong" races come with Powerful Build, and Small races can't use heavy weapons.

I am saying that having a floating ASI makes the game more fun, because you don't have to worry about a "bad" build if you are concerned about your stats. Instead, you can play the character you want to play. If you had your heart on playing a Strength-based warrior or a very Intelligent wizard, and you also wanted to play a halfling, you can without feeling like you're wasting a bonus on a stat you don't need. It means you can play a clumsy or inept halfling, if you want to. It also means you can play a typically Dexterous halfling because you're just a typical halfling. Or you can put your ASI in Constitution, or Wisdom, or Charisma, because it supports your character's backstory. That's why the floating ASI is good. You can use it to bump up any of your stats, not just one.

I am saying that giving races static bonuses and penalties does nothing more than lump them all into dull stereotypes. Halflings, orcs, dwarfs, elves should be treated as individuals, not forced into a brainless stereotype of "all halflings are weak but agile," or "all orcs are dumb but strong," or "all dwarfs are hardy but gruff," or all elves are "dexterous but fragile."

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Thanks Chaos. My point wasn't that they are flooding, just that I am not opposed. I don't mind them being in the game, I just felt like it ruined part of the consistency. I think this is pretty much always true when you have eight players. A big group can definitely complicate matters. Overall though, the game was still fun.

And that party of yours - multi-class fanatics! Very interesting.

 

[Lord Twig]

Oh for Pete's sake...

I am not saying that halflings as a race are as strong as or stronger than orcs as a race. I'm saying that there's no logical reason why you can't have one halfling, out of the thousands or millions of halflings in any given world, who's as strong as an orc when they start out. I'm reminding you that, according to the PH, the PCs are supposed to be extraordinary people.

I 100% agree! Halflings, as a general rule, being much smaller, should be physically weaker than orcs. But it is perfectly okay for a player character halfling to be the exception. Total agreement!

I'm saying that players should have the opportunity to create the character they want. If you don't think a strong halfling is logical, then you can just put your ASI in any other stat. But the fact that you don't think a strong halfling is logical should have no bearing on whether or not I want to make a strong halfling--and a floating ASI allows for both of us to make the character we want.

Yep! Agree again!

I'm saying that having a floating ASI makes the game simpler. Having a racial ASI doesn't point you to a specific class and doesn't allow for a quick build, which some people here have claimed. You get a +2 Dex? Fine. Now, are you going to play a Dex-based warrior-type, a rogue, a monk, or a bladelock? See? It's not a quick build; instead, you nearly as many options as before. But with a floating ASI, you don't have to worry about where the bonus goes; it goes where you want it to. The only way it becomes more complicated is if you are incapable of coming up with an idea without the books telling you want to do.

Here we disagree. Racial ASI doesn't point you to a single class, but it does narrow down the choices to a few optimal ones, while not excluding any of them if you want to play against type. And I believe the opposite of what you say is true when you say that putting the bonus where ever you want means "you don't have to worry about it". Telling you "it goes here" is not worrying about it. Telling you "where ever you want!" immediately leads to: "Well, where should I put it?" Now I have to worry if I put it in the right place! And finally, yes, some people do need the book to tell them what they should do, or at least make a suggestion. Especially new players that might have no idea of what to do when they first start playing.

I am saying that attributes are about 90% abstract anyway, so it shouldn't matter if one is higher than another. After all, a halfling with 16 Dex and an orc with 16 Strength have the same damage bonus. Literally the only time that attributes aren't abstract is when it comes to encumbrance. And "strong" races come with Powerful Build, and Small races can't use heavy weapons.

I agree with this.

I am saying that having a floating ASI makes the game more fun, because you don't have to worry about a "bad" build if you are concerned about your stats. Instead, you can play the character you want to play. If you had your heart on playing a Strength-based warrior or a very Intelligent wizard, and you also wanted to play a halfling, you can without feeling like you're wasting a bonus on a stat you don't need. It means you can play a clumsy or inept halfling, if you want to. It also means you can play a typically Dexterous halfling because you're just a typical halfling. Or you can put your ASI in Constitution, or Wisdom, or Charisma, because it supports your character's backstory. That's why the floating ASI is good. You can use it to bump up any of your stats, not just one.

And here I agree that it is a good rule, I just don't think there shouldn't be a default. I would even go so far as to say it shouldn't even be an optional rule! It should be a standard rule that you can ignore the racial ASI suggestion and put the racial bonus where ever you want if you don't like the default. BUT! There should be default stats for the racial ASIs.

I am saying that giving races static bonuses and penalties does nothing more than lump them all into dull stereotypes. Halflings, orcs, dwarfs, elves should be treated as individuals, not forced into a brainless stereotype of "all halflings are weak but agile," or "all orcs are dumb but strong," or "all dwarfs are hardy but gruff," or all elves are "dexterous but fragile."

They are dull stereotypes in your opinion. Not in my opinion, and not in many others. All races/species should indeed be individuals, and they should not be forced into "brainless stereotypes", but they never have been in 5e. Beverly Toegold the Fifth is a strength based halfling paladin and has been for years before Tasha's optional rules came out. Not getting a +2 to his Strength stat didn't stop him. He was not forced into being a Rogue. He is a paladin.

So really we agree quite a bit! It seems just a matter of degrees to where we diverge. I think racial default ASIs should exist, but can be ignored, and you think they shouldn't exist at all (I believe this is accurate, not trying to straw man). Between the two I think my solution is the more inclusive one.

 

[Scott Christian]

A new rule declaring all species ASIs are no longer static and now may be assigned as desired does not make things simpler, it makes it more complicated. And, in my opinion, less fun.

Actually, WotC could stop the entire debate by simply declaring no character can have above a 15 using point buy at first level, regardless of ASI bonuses. One sentence is all it would take.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Actually, WotC could stop the entire debate by simply declaring no character can have above a 15 using point buy at first level, regardless of ASI bonuses. One sentence is all it would take.

If that comes to pass: Cue the very angry power gamers...

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

But people aren't arguing that, are they? "Goliaths should be stronger because they are bigger" is the argument. I mean, if we want to say that everything is a different species and works on different rules, why can't the small races be like Stitch from Lilo and Stich? Small creature, ripping apart space ships. Or the Feegle from Discworld. Or Treecats from Honor Harrington. Romulans from Star Trek.

I mean "stronger than they appear" is literally a trope, so it is entirely possible. Especially since the it is already true with 3ft 50 lbs halflings being just as strong as Fiendishly Empowered Tieflings who can be double their height and four times their weight. Or as strong as the hulking Lizardfolk. Or as strong as the nearly 8 ft tall, 350 lb Loxodon elephant people (they get +2 Con, +1 Wisdom)

So, maybe Halflings, gnomes, goblins, and kobolds are a different species that are stronger than they appear. Especially since if he keep static ASIs, they are just as strong as creatures many times their size and weight already.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I find it so fascinating that you can believe that the Designers absolutely believe that the ASIs were meant to be archetypes in 5e, but that at the same time, the designers have to be wrong about what they believed to be true about their own design.

Believe what you want I guess, but in my opinion, if they believe they designed something with a specific intent... that is literally proof that they designed it with that intent. You can't have a different intent than you believed yourself to have, unless we are talking about unconcious biases, which.. I don't think can apply to this.

 

[Scott Christian]

Except that this affects the halfling PC, the orc PC, or the elf PC, not the entire halfling, orc, or elf race.

Of course I am discussing PCs. Why on earth would you think I am discussing the entire race? I have not stated nor ever implied that I was discussing an entire race.

Which seriously, you object to halflings being as strong as half-orcs because they're so much tinier than half-orcs, but halflings are canonically as strong as humans, even though humans can be as tall as, or even taller than, a half-orc.

You have me confused with someone else. Which I think has happened a lot. And the PC human gets a +1 across the board. So the average PC human is stronger than the halfling.
And I have never once objected to halflings being as strong as half-orcs. Not once. Yet this is the third time you have accused me of this. All I said is, if you are using racial ASIs, they should start +1 behind, and that is only if the half-orc decides to place the 14 or 15 into strength. My half-orc wizard didn't. So your halfling fighter would have been stronger than him. The halfling can, and should, still reach a 20 strength. So please stop accusing me of stating something I have never said.

Wrong.

Floating ASIs view it as giving players a choice. I know you tried to pretend you weren't explaining my own beliefs to me, but allow me to repeat myself: it's about allowing players to customize their characters.

I am curious. What about my statement declares it is not about allowing players to customize their characters.

"Floating ASIs view it through the window of race/class combinations. It will increase the number of halfling fighters, half-orc wizards and elven barbarians.
vs.
Racial ASIs view it through a race only window. They feel race and class are two separate components of the game."

I am honestly asking. How do this get read as you are not allowed to customize your characters? When I say it will increase the variety of race/class combinations, how does that mean you are not allowed to customize?

Your racial ASI only increases diversity in the most banal sense. You want to increase diversity between races? Try creating cultures for your races. Even the barest bones culture for a race is better and more interesting than "diversity" in the sense of where the +2 goes.

I have posed this question twice. Show me a list of racial feats that don't start to bend towards specific classes. We tried earlier. There were six listed that were neutral. After that, they started to lean, the same exact way Racial ASIs lean. So I asked again. Because writing and fleshing out a race's history, origins, trails and tribulations, migrations, religion, language accumulation, popular culture, holidays, food, songs, style of living, etc. is pretty par for the course for many on this board. But, attaching it to mechanics to make the culture feel unique and balanced compared to others is difficult. That is why I have asked. Please, if you re willing, I would love to see a list of traits for say, halfings (since they are the race to discuss apparently) and half-orcs. (By the way, I like the focus on diet for them. It is cool.)

And by having racial ASIs to create diversity, you are (A) turning each race into a monolithic Race of Hats,

No, by having racial ASIs you are stating PCs have a bonus in this ability. They still have the point buy variance. As you have stated many times, they don't have to place their +2 into their primary stat. Just as they do not have to choose a class whose primary stat is their ASI bonus.

(B) effectively saying that all halflings are not only the same, but all halflings, kobolds, and elves all have the same culture.

How do you come to that conclusion? Can't one culture reflect intelligence through book learning and another through mechanical aptitude? Can't one culture reflect strength by fighting and wrestling and feats of strength and another by swinging a pick axe all day?
But as you stated, attributes a vague. And it is very true.

I said:
"Why will the floating ASIs increase the diversity of race/class combinations?"

You said:

Because there are a lot of players who won't play certain combos if there's no mechanical benefits. Because there are a lot of players who are encouraged to only think in terms of stereotypical combinations. Because there are a lot of players who have DMs who can't fathom the idea of a halfling who has become something other than Dex-based or an orc that has become something other than Strength-based and so won't allow it.

Floating ASIs allow people to say "I've been wanting to play race X, and I've been wanting to play class Y, and now I won't be penalized for doing so. This means my character will be more interesting to me and better able to contribute better to the party."

As I said many times, it all boils down to the extra +1. Mechanical benefits, stereotypical combinations and contribute to the party means I can start with a 16 instead of 15. Which really goes to show how important the ASI is to people - on both sides. Again, there is no right or wrong. I feel that the move away is clunky and not well thought out. That's all.

I would be for them getting rid of the ASIs and here is why. If they are floating then they mean absolutely nothing. Just increase the point and set the limit to 17. It is the same exact thing. Of course, if they want to have the floating ASI as an optional rule to the standard they created when they wrote 5e, then I am all for that too. Either way, both sides get what they want.