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."

 

[TrickyDUK2]

I will admit up front that I am not 5e fan. The rules simplification went too far for me. But I can’t deny that game generally works well and is easy to get into. Added to the popular brand name makes 5e a great gateway into TTRPG.

(I am currently 40 weeks into a 5e campaign that I‘m DMing, but I chose it because I like the adventure more than the system, but it also allowed new players to join, which was a positive in the current world crisis).

However, I do wonder how a new player will see this change if it became the default approach. For years D&D has presented a system and a default setting. This approach helps people visualise, setting out some context, the world they are about to step into.

Now they have options (and maybe DM views) to navigate. This seems to me to make the game less accessible.

As a DM, I know ASIs are part of the D&D heritage (excepting OD&D) and that alone shouldn’t mean that they can’t be reviewed, but why not simply take this to next level and say classes can choose which Ability Score will be the key ability score. You can even say that each ‘race’ and ’class’ simply has to follow a framework and you can literally create any kind of character you want. This is not new, other games are this generic. But this does not feel like D&D to me; more a technical manual to build a D&D compatible game and requires more investment up front, again weakening the accessibility.

I get why they are doing it, but like (I think) others have said, this feels like a fundamental change in the underlying design principles that creates a new ’version’ of D&D. (And moves it even further down my list of favourite games)

 

[Scribe]

All I can say is "finally".

Why? Nothing was stopping you before, and Tasha's already gave you an option.

I'm not questioning your right to a conversation. But I am asking a purely logical question: how do you have both an 'Elf stronger than any Minotaur' and a 'Minotaur stronger than any Elf' in the same world without logical contradiction?

As far as at a mechanical level, looking only at Ability Score, you dont.

You then have to look at what other mechanics apply. Size? Race...errr no Lineage specific mechanics? Well what if (when) WotC deems those as 'cultural' and does away with 'Racial' feats? Because again, the issue here is the codification of what a race is. The prevailing line of thought is that to even do so at all is racist, and it will get to that point, and anyone looking around will see it.

It wont be good enough until a Dwarf can 'be' an Elf, and race is obliterated from the game, like Alignment which actually IS a cultural thing, oddly enough, at least until you realize that this is a setting with actual Gods, who actually created these distinct (for now) races, and imprinted on them a world view.

I mean honestly if one wishes to read those Wired articles, you can convince yourself that the entire foundation of Fantasy is fatally flawed, and needs to be wiped out, that LoTR is a treatise on fascism, and that while WE may not be racist (though its certainly been implied that those who dont like these changes are) that D&D foundationally is.

I dont buy it, but hey, I'm old enough to no longer be the target market, so what does my opinion matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's something of a problem with WotC's corporate culture, judging from a few testimonials that have popped up.

I hadn’t heard that statement about Crawford and Perkins before, but that is fascinating. It almost reads like hyper-vigilance in response to the trauma of the 4e backlash. These guys have seen how negatively a certain portion of the fan base responds to what they perceive as changing D&D, and they don’t want to risk stirring that wrath again. Any potential change has to be made to fit within the dogma of what “Feels like D&D,” lest they risk starting another edition holy war. And to be fair, this instinct probably saved D&D with 5e. But fortunately, 5e has been so successful at attracting new players, they just might be in a position where they can have that sacred barbecue and come out better for it, rather than nearly killing the brand. But their hyper-vigilance won’t let them take that chance.

 

[Remathilis]

It's not racist (or intentionally racist, depending on how wide a net you're casting with your definition of "racist", YMMV), but it's still setting an overly broad and calcified framework for what is expected of members of that race, both in terms of the stereotype and the expected "exceptional" ways to buck it. And the framework that they mandate might not be true in certain worlds, or cultures within those worlds at that.

I disagree that there has to be a "core cultural presentation" at all. In fact, I disagree that there should be well-defined ethnocultures at all, one to a (sub)race at all, except perhaps as historical footnotes. With that in mind, best leave the worldbuilding to the setting guides.

I don't see where that fixes the problem, just shifts the buck.

Tell me at what point the following sentences become acceptable:

All drow are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow in the Forgotten Realms are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow in Menzoberranzan are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow of House Baenre are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
Quenthel Baenre is a sadistic, evil spider-demon worshipper.

Is there any stage before the last that is a true statement that won't get pushback? At what point is the generalization specific enough to not be considered racist or at the very least offensive? Does it matter if it were limited it to a certain setting, region, city, or group?

 

[Weiley31]

Yes, but so are other players. If your strongest Halfling is stronger than the strongest Minotaur, then the player who wants to play the strongest Minotaur -- stronger than any Halfling -- does what?

You're avoiding answering the question.

We are talking to each other. And I'm asking: if you want to play an Elf that is 'stronger than the strongest Minotaur', what do I say to the guy who just rolled up a Minotaur and maxed his strength, hoping to be the strongest character?

You can't have it both ways. You can't have an Elf stronger than the strongest Minotaur in the same party or game world as a Minotaur that is stronger than the strongest Elf, unless you just don't care about logic.

Someone needs to be stronger, or they both need to be the same. I'm saying the Minotaur should be stronger; you seem to be saying they should both be the same. But if they're both the same, then Minotaurs are not stronger than Elves, despite the fact that they are described as especially big and strong in the racial descriptions ('large sized', over 6' tall, 'barrel-chested', with an 'imposing presence', etc.), and despite the fact that they were in fact stronger in earlier editions. The mechanics don't any longer match the description, the physiology, or the lore.

Watchout: some people on here might get hurt because you have an opinion.

 

[MGibster]

I guess we duel to the death then, since you reject the premise that I might have a conversation.

If Princess Bride has taught me anything it's that you should duel to the pain.

 

[Weiley31]

I don't see where that fixes the problem, just shifts the buck.

Tell me at what point the following sentences become acceptable:

All drow are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow in the Forgotten Realms are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow in Menzoberranzan are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow of House Baenre are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
Quenthel Baenre is a sadistic, evil spider-demon worshipper.

Is there any stage before the last that is a true statement that won't get pushback? At what point is the generalization specific enough to not be considered racist or at the very least offensive? Does it matter if it were limited it to a certain setting, region, city, or group?

In their defense, they pretty much got ruined by Lolth.

 

[MGibster]

We are talking to each other. And I'm asking: if you want to play an Elf that is 'stronger than the strongest Minotaur', what do I say to the guy who just rolled up a Minotaur and maxed his strength, hoping to be the strongest character?

Strictly speaking, this isn't really a rules problem. The same thing could happen if someone created a goliath or another minotaur with maximum strength. And what you do as players is talk to one another about your characters and decide how you want to proceed. It could be that both the minotaur and halfling player just need to accept their characters are equally strong.

 

[Morrus]

Watchout: some people on here might get hurt because you have an opinion.

I already warned you about this. I also told you not to post in the thread again, and looking back it appears you ignored me and continued to post anyway. So now I'll have to assist you. See you in a few days (but not in this thread).

 

[Scribe]

I don't see where that fixes the problem, just shifts the buck.

Tell me at what point the following sentences become acceptable:

All drow are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow in the Forgotten Realms are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow in Menzoberranzan are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
All drow of House Baenre are sadistic, evil spider-demon worshippers.
Quenthel Baenre is a sadistic, evil spider-demon worshipper.

Is there any stage before the last that is a true statement that won't get pushback? At what point is the generalization specific enough to not be considered racist or at the very least offensive? Does it matter if it were limited it to a certain setting, region, city, or group?

Only the last one will pass the public trial and passing of judgment.