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."

 

[cbwjm]

Yes, I know you do. But I don’t. I think the Halfling Titan is a awesome character concept, and I don’t want the rules telling me it can’t exist.

Ypur game world isn’t my game world. The rules should allow both worlds to exist.

Well you'll be happy to know that there is this great book called Tasha's cauldron of everything which allows exactly the thing that you want you can use the options in that book to move that +2 dex to +2 str and become the strongest halfling in the world.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

I think myself counts for qualifying the 30 feet.

Feature descriptions tend to be pretty explicit on who they target. Is there a feature or a spell that you can reference off the top of your head that would set a precedent for this?

When a spell or feature states that it affects creatures within n feet of a creature, it is effectively an "aura" (as opposed to an area of effect which would use a range out from a specific point) so I'd look to the paladin's own auras for guidance on wording, and they're pretty explicit in including "you", separate from "creatures within 10 feet of you".

Thus, an effect that only targets "creatures within n feet of you" without explicitly adding "you" to the mix would not actually affect the person using the effect.

 

[JEB]

On the contrary, the actual, practical impact on the product that Wizards releases will be pretty small. This design shift applies to future race options, and there really aren't going to be very many of those if the past 5+ years is any indication. And there really aren't any "OMG everyone wants to play this" race options left unpublished at this point so whatever we'll be getting will be pretty much setting-specific things like new races from whatever the next MtG crossover book is or something niche like an official grung option. The "core" races that most people play are still defaulted to the pre-Tasha's way of doing things.

If they're running out of new character race options that are likely to interest fans of 5E, and they now have a new and more inclusive framework for designing character races, why wouldn't they eventually go back and revisit the older character races, to reinvigorate interest? Certainly there will also be folks who look at newer races, and then look back at older races, and want them to be just as flexible as the new ones; why wouldn't Wizards respond to that interest?

And if you're going to do that, why not overhaul other places where 5E has hit a wall? Tasha's already demonstrated a lot of minor rethinks about classes, for example.

As pointed out upthread, we're also heading towards D&D's 50th birthday... why waste such a marketing opportunity for a new edition? Or at least a revision.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

Here's something I just realized: It's a bit hypothetical and what not since the example is gonna be the Planeshift: Ixalan/Zendrik vampire pc race , but still.

I don't recall the Lineage rules in this UA mentioning if certain Lineage can be applied or if there is limits. Example being: if the system does become an layer to apply, how would that work if you did a Dhampir Vampire? Does the Vampire suddenly become a Half-Half Vampire or something? Or a Half Dragon Dragonborn? Would there be certain guidelines like if it already has a Bite Attack or If it's a Fey than it is exempt from Oath of the Ancients Paladin or something? I know the options are supposed to be more open, but this thought just occurred to me.

I also guess 2:42 in the morning will do that to ya with thoughts as well.

The intent seems to be that at least the lineage options they provided are meant to be an alternative to the existing race options (and at least in the case of the dhampir and the reborn a "race" you can change to during the progression of the character if appropriate). Since there are no official playable races that are of the undead type and almost assuredly no plans to introduce a playable vampire race, it's very likely that Wizards saw no reason to clarify that "hey, you can't become a half-vampire if you're already a vampire". LOL

I'm going to go out on a limb to say that if they decide to officially offer "half-elf", "half-dragon", "half-dwarf", etc. lineages that can be used to create a wider array of hybrid races than the human-centric ones we have thus far, they'll be much more explicit about the rules around when these can be applied. I actually wonder whether these would be like the dhampir where maybe you could have been magically transformed from, say, a human to a half-elf or if it would follow the traditional "you were born to an elf parent and a human parent" route (in which case a lineage template for each individual hybrid wouldn't make as much sense as just coming up with a framework to combine two different races).

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

If they're running out of new character race options that are likely to interest fans of 5E, and they now have a new and more inclusive framework for designing character races, why wouldn't they eventually go back and revisit the older character races, to reinvigorate interest? Certainly there will also be folks who look at newer races, and then look back at older races, and want them to be just as flexible as the new ones; why wouldn't Wizards respond to that interest?

And if you're going to do that, why not overhaul other places where 5E has hit a wall? Tasha's already demonstrated a lot of minor rethinks about classes, for example.

Wizards already responded... with Tasha's. If you want the flexibility, you buy that book. Wizards doesn't need to release a revision, let alone a whole new edition, just to codify the race and class flexibility from Tasha's.

As pointed out upthread, we're also heading towards D&D's 50th birthday... why waste such a marketing opportunity for a new edition? Or at least a revision.

Your post that I was replying to contended that what they stated was a significant design shift that foretells a near future release of a new edition of the game. I simply pointed out that the statement they made, taken literally, doesn't indicate anything that has a significant, practical impact on the current edition game in of itself, certainly not to any degree -- taken on its own -- to warrant even a ".5" version bump.

Whether there's something in the works for the game's 50th birthday is a wholly separate discussion, and I still maintain my position that unless there is a drastic shift in the financial success of 5th edition in the next year or so, we will not see any new edition or even a "half edition". They've been very clear in the past about not wanting to splinter the fanbase with rules that would be considered "required" beyond the core three books that millions of people have already purchased, and with the game continuing to grow by leaps and bounds there's really no sound financial reason why they'd risk anything.

There are plenty of other things they could do for the anniversary, although I do concur that a new edition would be spiritually a good way to celebrate that milestone, even if it's unlikely to be a sensible thing business-wise.

Assuming the game continues to grow through the next year or so, the most I could see happening is some "anniversary edition" of the PHB with a nice pretty cover where they roll stuff from Tasha's into it for ease... but even then I'm confident they would still label it as "optional" since, again, they've been very adamant about not making the PHBs that people bought 5 years ago obsolete.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

When a party cleric turns undead, does that turn the vampiric character?

RAW, yes. and as per these rules they are still turned even if they are only part undead.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, but it's only PB uses each long rest. It's not insignificant, but it's not going to break a level 17+ campaign.

I suspect it's the advantage on half health that is more likely to be broken in practice. But I do feel the bite needs very close scrutiny, especially with regards to monks. We don't want a situation where anything other than dhampir monk is considered a trap option.

Personally, I would be inclined to change it so that it was an unarmed strike, the healing was reduced to equal your CON bonus, the attack bonus option was ditched, but it could be used an unlimited number of times per day.

Possibly add the option to choose damage type at character creation too. Psychic and Necrotic would fit some of the fluff options better. In which case, flag it as magical piercing damage.

 

[teitan]

They've also explicitly said there were two products with Vistani coming soon. It seems like the deluxe Strahd boxed set was number one, but a book that has Ravenloft material (even if it's not a Ravenloft setting book per se) seems likely as well, with this UA.

Van Richten's Guide to Spirits maybe? It was hinted at in Dragon Heist!

 

[JEB]

Your post that I was replying to contended that what they stated was a significant design shift that foretells a near future release of a new edition of the game. I simply pointed out that the statement they made, taken literally, doesn't indicate anything that has a significant, practical impact on the current edition game in of itself, certainly not to any degree -- taken on its own -- to warrant even a ".5" version bump.

Assuming these rules make it out of playtest, any PC created using a race in a subsequent sourcebook can put their +2/+1 anywhere they like, and choose Common and another starting language. Whereas any 5E race before this has their ability score adjustments locked to two (or fewer) stats, and (in most cases) only specific languages available. But in your view, having two sets of PC races operating under two different premises, one of which is now explicitly obsolete, would represent no significant or practical change to the game? What would you consider significant or practical, then?

 

[dave2008]

As pointed out upthread, we're also heading towards D&D's 50th birthday... why waste such a marketing opportunity for a new edition? Or at least a revision.

They have suggested a few times that they would like 5e to be legacy edition. In addition, the changes you are talking about don't warrant a new edition. I expect a 50th Anniversary Dungeons and Dragons, but it will likely be backwards compatible, consolidate existing content, and have a few tweaks. Not enough to be considered a new edition IMO