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."

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I see there is a clear distinction between genetic heritage and cultural legacy/roots. And this is more relevant in "transhuman" fiction as James Cameron's Avatar, Altered Carbone or Eclipse Phase RPG where mind uploading and digital immortality allows a character's memory to be downloaded to a different body, maybe from different ethnic or specie.

My suggestion is allowing "cultural legacy" to be modular or optional, for example racial combat/armor training to be replaced with a racial feat. This would allow for example a dwarf wizard who doesn't need armor. or a elf sorcerer who instead bow and arrows she chose to combine the catrip "mage's hand" with throwing knives.

Other option could be allowing to spend a daily racial spell for a different effect, like the sorcerers' spontaneus magic, for example a gnome druid spending "speak with animals" to heal wounds, or to purify water and food.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm still 15 pages behind, and leaving for work, so I'm sure the conversation has moved far beyond where I am at. But something has struck me about the discussion about having a more "traditional" option for these races. And that is... how would you even present it?

My only thought, would be something like this.

" When you determine your ability scores, increase one of those scores by 2, and increase a different one by 1. These increases can’t raise a score above 20. You follow this rule regardless of the method you use to determine the scores, such as rolling or point buy. If you are replacing your race with a lineage, replace any Ability Score Increases you previously had with these. The typical scores for the lineages are as follows: Dhampir +2 con, +1 any score, Hexblood +2 Cha, +1 any score, Reborn +2 con, +1 any score"


Now I followed in the vein of half-elves here, but I wonder if others are seeing the problem. All this is doing is giving a "recommended build" but, it is based almost entirely on my conception of the "traditional option" for each lineage.

For example, I think the Dhampir is amazingly cool... but not as a traditional vampire. Looking at their hungers, they could hunger for spinal fluid, or emotions, or color. Holy crap, I LOVE the Psychic vampire that feeds on emotions trope. That is one of my favorites. I also could see an individual who was a failed Ceremorphisis (the mind flayer thing) being a Dhampir that feeds on spinal fluid. Maybe instead of Undead I give them abomination, or maybe they are undead, having partially "died" in the process and are being kept sustained and alive by the parasite.

Those races wouldn't fit in the same scores as would a partial vampire.

Look at the Reborn, you could have been improperly brought back to life, you could be an undead who gained sentience, you could be possessed by a spirit, you could be a scarecrow given sentience, you could be a living doll, you could be someone who was petrified for hundreds of years until the petrification wore off.

Each of those could give different mods. Sure, a lot of them could get Con, but would all of them? So, I don't see how we could take such broad concepts and narrow them down into a static +2/+1. And even if we did, it would be a recommended build, something that the majority of people ignore anyways.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Looking at the actual mechanics of the races...

Am I the only one who thinks the Hexblood despite being super cool is one of the weakest?

Dhampir-> Speed increase, empowering bite, at-will spider climb
Reborn -> +1d6 to skills, adv death saves, can't sleep, trance, adv and res poison, no need to breath

Hexborn get advantage on charm (very useful), two spells 1/day which... disguise self can be good but 1/day is rough. Hex is solid. And then they get the charm, which sounds useful... but I'm not sure. The at-will sending within 10 miles is cool, but you can talk to them, they can't respond. And you can use it to see from... for a single minute once per day, and it is destroyed afterwards meaning you can no longer message.

I think it was a neat idea, but it is far too situational and near useless as written. I think it needs some alterations, at the very least allowing the person holding it to respond.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm coming around to a 4 array system

The Typical Array: 16 14 13 13 9 8 and you must take the suggested racial +2/+1 ASI
The Standard Array: 15 14 13 12 10 8 and you get to chose your +2/+1 ASI
The Elite Array: 17 15 14 12 10 8 and you get no ASIs nor feats
The Variant Array: 15 14 12 11 9 8 and and you get to chose your +2/+1 ASI and one feat

What amuses me the most about seeing you post this (and I give you props for it) is that this is exactly what you should be doing... deciding that what is in the books are not sufficient for your personal needs and coming up with your own alternate method. Which is exactly what everybody else should be doing as well.

Despite some other poster's protestations... WotC's books going forward do not actually have to include a secondary listing of a "default" choice of where the +2/+1 lies for those that feel like they need it (in addition to the new decision of choose any ability scores for them)... because they, as their own thinking DM, can just decide when setting up their next campaign to choose which ability scores get them for themselves and tell the players this is how it will be for this upcoming game.

This once again highlights something I've been trying to get across to everybody for years now... which is that the entire game is optional-- trying to insist on playing "Rules As Written" is unnecessary and a waste of time-- and none of you get brownie points or a pat on the back or a Good Job! from ANYONE if you try and do so. Nobody cares if you play RAW or don't play RAW. You are striving for some ideal that that only matters to yourself in this bizarre narrative you have written about how you should play D&D. But it doesn't matter. It never has. So by extension... getting so up in arms with WotC that they keep making new rules that will "force" you to NOT play RAW just so you can play the game with the rules you want is ridiculous.

Oh darn... you're going to have to tell your players that in this next campaign that if they want to play a Hexborn, that lineage gets a +2 CON / +1 CHA... despite the fact that in the written pages it says put them wherever your want. You've decide that for this upcoming game, it's CON/CHA.

And there you go. That's all you need to do. You get what you want, and you didn't need WotC to "write it down for you". Because WotC realizes just the like a lot of the rest of us that they don't need to write all these little micro-rules down because there's absolutely no reason to waste the ink when you as a player of D&D are meant to do this on your own if you really think it that important to your enjoyment of the game. So do it. And then have fun.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Forgotten Realms may be a generic fantasy setting, but it still has elements to it which are portrayed differently than Greyhawk -which is also a D&D setting considered to be a generic setting.

Indeed, and many of the subrace names (High Elf, Mountain Dwarf etc) in the PHB are the Greyhawk names, not the Forgotten Realms names (Moon Elf, Shield Dwarf).

 

[DEFCON 1]

As I mentioned before, these feel like D&D is losing part of its identity and is just becoming a framework. And this feels like the first step on a road that I don’t want to travel. I will naturally continue to play previous editions, and I so I am only joining this conversation because I find it intriguing more generally.

If you are already playing previous editions, why are you playing 5E at all? Because to get to here, you've already travelled the long road up from OD&D wherein the game has already lost SO MUCH of its various "identities" along the way. The "identity" of 5E D&D is much, much different than the original "identity" of the original Dungeons & Dragons of Basic or even AD&D. But if you are happily playing 5E D&D... that tells me that all these little micro-rules that keep getting changed over the last 40 years perhaps aren't as integral to the game's "identity" as you really want us to think.

I mean let's get real here... racial bonuses to ability scores CAN'T be integral to the identity of D&D, because they got ADDED to D&D several editions down the line. And if the changeover from demi-human ability score minimums and maximums INTO ability score bonuses/penalties didn't "kill" D&D identity... changing which bonuses demi-humans get most certainly won't either. And trying to claim otherwise is on its face ridiculous.

 

[Remathilis]

5e has no default setting. Homebrew is assumed unless the DM uses a setting book. The lore in the core rulebooks is for a generic fantasy setting, and Forgotten Realms is a generic fantasy setting.

Correct. Forgotten Realms is used in places as an example of how to do things, but it's not the default baked in setting. To whit:

The various race and class lore isn't a 1:1 match for FR lore. This is especially true with subraces not following FR naming (hill dwarf vs shield dwarf). Additionally, references are made to Dragonlance and Greyhawk in the racial areas as well.

Several pantheons, not just FR, are included.

The lore of certain races doesn't match FR lore, especially for races like yuan-ti.

As far as expansions go, we have two named after FR NPCs (Volo and Xanathar) and two after Greyhawk NPCs (Mordenkainen and Tasha).

The only place FR is default is when making an AP. Mostly so that AP writers aren't reinventing proper nouns for places every module.

Compare that to Golarion in Pathfinder or Aerth in DCC RPG. Golarion gnomes ARE Pathfinder gnomes. Weird bleaching and all. They only have one pantheon as the sample. Every lore book jives with Golarion lore. You can strip it out if you want, but Paizo feels no compulsion to make thier game support multiple settings at the same time. D&D does, and unless that changes, you're going to be forced to make broad generalizations or omit the lore.

 

[Remathilis]

Definitely agree that the racial sensitivity issue is a separate issue - why I said that I like to keep real world and imaginary world as separate as possible.

My issue is with making mechanical changes that I feel change what I see as part of the identity of D&D. There are plenty of fantasy RPGs (and many of those feel like a derivation of D&D) that can offer me a different way to play the game. But I liked the game, with its limitations, because it made it different. Of course any DM can house rule any changes/exceptions, but you had a starting point to quickly get into the game.

As I mentioned before, these feel like D&D is losing part of its identity and is just becoming a framework. And this feels like the first step on a road that I don’t want to travel. I will naturally continue to play previous editions, and I so I am only joining this conversation because I find it intriguing more generally.

Did you feel the same loss when dwarves could become wizards, gnomes could reach 20th level, half-orcs could have higher than a 14 Wisdom, and druids didn't have to fight other druids to advance in level? They were important parts of D&D lore for the first half of it's life and arguably more important than an elf having +1 Dex, -1 Con.

 

[TrickyDUK2]

If you are already playing previous editions, why are you playing 5E at all? Because to get to here, you've already travelled the long road up from OD&D wherein the game has already lost SO MUCH of its various "identities" along the way. The "identity" of 5E D&D is much, much different than the original "identity" of the original Dungeons & Dragons of Basic or even AD&D. But if you are happily playing 5E D&D... that tells me that all these little micro-rules that keep getting changed over the last 40 years perhaps aren't as integral to the game's "identity" as you really want us to think.

I mean let's get real here... racial bonuses to ability scores CAN'T be integral to the identity of D&D, because they got ADDED to D&D several editions down the line. And if the changeover from demi-human ability score minimums and maximums INTO ability score bonuses/penalties didn't "kill" D&D identity... changing which bonuses demi-humans get most certainly won't either. And trying to claim otherwise is on its face ridiculous.

Just to clarify, my ’D&D‘ of choice is Pathfinder. It was only the fact that a published campaign that really appealed to me was 5e that I decided to play 5e. My contribution to this discussion is more because I‘m intrigued by this topic rather than because I actually play 5e.

Further, I am now looking at Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and was impressed when I read a call out in the Rulebook about things not being fair (as in [equivalent] race/class restrictions exist) but also that the GM can overrule this if they want to.

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, my grievances with racial ASIs are at best tangentially related to my desire to separate race from culture. Yes, I acknowledge that different fantasy peoples could have different minds. I also don’t want different races to have different INT and WIS stats because I don’t want players who want to play, for example, dwarf wizards to be at a disadvantage compared to, say, elf wizards.

This is what the non-ASI side eventually boils down to. I don't think those on the other side ever really need to argue about how a thri-keen might have a different mind than a human. They do, and it is accepted.
But the non-ASI side, in the end and from my interpretation always boils down to - we want character attributes to be on even footing at the start of the game. (And there is nothing wrong with that.) I have seen it argued it literally ruins their game to see two fighters, one with an extra +5% (not you Charaquin).
To the ASI side this sounds like - I want it now. It also seems to disregards any racial feats that the weaker fighter might get. Here is an example:

Two fighters. One dwarf, one elf. The dwarf gets to start with an extra +1 in strength via PHB point buy. It is an advantage, except the elven fighter can regain all their hit points in four hours as opposed to eight. That too is an advantage. I feel certain people could debate which advantage is better.

As for disregarding the level argument:

This is not a compelling argument when the vast majority of games end by level 11.

It is still valid, and should be even more valid to you, since most campaigns do not go past level 6. That means you should really be arguing to start everyone out with a 20.

All characters of the same class get the same hit points, so this analogy doesn’t work.

Last one. I am confused by your comment. All classes that are the same get the same HP, correct. But we are discussing how different races start with different advantages. Therefore, I was making it analogous of how different classes start with different advantages. Different races, different classes.
Maybe I am missing something in your interpretation.

 

[Scott Christian]

The funny thing is, with ASIs you can put wherever you want you can still....are you sitting down?...you can still play an orc wizard with low Intelligence.

OMG.

Actually, the funny thing, according to the PHB, you can still have play your orc wizard with a high intelligence too. In fact, they can be as smart as any high elf wizard or gnome wizard out there. So there is no need to change anything.