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."

 

[Vaalingrade]

They are suggesting that a race without a Str racial bonus, like halflings, are objectively less effective combat focussed PCs, and therefore set racial bonuses are unfair.

This is false.

Every race in the PHB can, even with static racial bonuses, get at least a +1 (and therefore a 16 in point-buy) in either Str or Dex. Both Dex-based AND Str-based combat focussed PCs are equally viable.

Moaning that its unfair that halflings don't get +2 Str, when they already get +2 Dex, is not a good enough complaint to justify throwing realism entirely from the game! And no, realism is not the same as simulationist.

'Combat' is not a monolith. There is ranged combat. There is melee combat. there is mobility combat.

Docking HP, as the original exchange was about make melee and a lot of mobility unfeasible for no actually good reason.

Just telling the player to choose a style they don't want to play is not justified by a demand for realism in a game where reality is the thing we should laugh at --and which half the classes do on a per-turn basis.

 

[Arial Black]

So let me get this straight: even when just about every Dwarf in the world that you encounter is strong and tough, your suspension of disbelief is shattered simply because when you roll a Dwarf PC, you are given the option of putting your +2/+1, for that one specific Dwarf, into any of the six attributes?

Wow. That sucks.

"No. Obviously not, and this comes off as a blatant mischaracterization of my position." : )

 

[ART!]

The entire argument against ASIs is a matter of starting out equally, yet turns a blind eye to all the other things that are not "equal" or added to the equation during character creation.

I know it's easier to denigrate something if you simplify it to ridiculous statements, but you seem smarter than that. I suppose some people in favor of floating initial ASIs might be turning a blind eye to how that approach affects other aspects of chargen, but to say the entire argument is focused on just one thing and completely ignores everything else...well, I know for a fact that's not the case.

I just want to avoid shoehorning things in to suit our arguments here.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's fine. But do you see how now the description in the books no longer matches the mechanic?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you ever answered my question of whether this bothers you in the description of elves:

elves appear hauntingly beautiful to humans and mem bers of many other races.

There's no mechanics to support that statement. And the book is full of such things.

The books say Dwarves are 'hardy'. But ordinary players now have to parse that to make it make sense. What the book is really saying is rather:

'Dwarven NPCs tend to be hardy. *

* Your Dwarven PC won't be any hardier than any other races though. Enjoy!

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb argument. If you put your 8 in Con, then add the +2 ASI, you get a 10 Con. So, no, not all Dwarves are "hardier than any other races" even with the current rules. Sure, they're hardier on average, but that's already true because of the NPC stat block. Players still have to make a choice to create an especially hardy dwarf, regardless of whether the +2 goes into Con automatically, or by preference.

EDIT: You seem to have changed the last sentence to:

* Your Dwarven PC won't be any hardier than any other races though, so if you picked Dwarf in order to be hardier than an Elf, you're SOL. Enjoy!

Again, if that's your goal, pick one of your higher stats, put your floating ASI into Con, and compare to the stat block for Elf: presto, you are hardier than an Elf.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"No. Obviously not, and this comes off as a blatant mischaracterization of my position." : )

I may have expressed it sarcastically, but I honestly can't tell why that mischaracterizes your position.

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem with ASIs in 5E is really simple and more extreme than previous editions. The likely majority of rolls you make in the game are to hit and damage (or people saving against your spells, which have a DC set by your primary stat, let's not overcomplicate this though), which your primary stat tends to apply to. So a small stat difference, can, in very real terms, have a impact over the course of an adventure.

People tend to think because it's only +1 or whatever, it doesn't matter, but that's obviously not true, and playing 5E shows it to be untrue. The more rolls you make, the more it matters. Eventually, if the campaign lasts long enough, you do catch up, quite likely, but having been behind for the majority of your levels, is going to have left you feeling a bit crummy.

I would really like to address this.
An extra +1 to hit and +1 damage at first level has some effect. Your group of two fighters is engaged with a darkmantle. AC 11, HP 22. The difference between a +4 to hit and a +5 to hit is the difference between rolling a 7 versus a 6. We will say the combat lasts four rounds. (Run simulator) In ten different, four round fights against a darkmantle, the amount of times the +5 fighter outpaces the +4 fighter is 2. So there are two rounds that the +5 fighter hits and the +4 fighter doesn't. In 40 rounds!
The difference in damage is even more minimal. As the +5 fighter will have done approximately 2 more points of damage than the +4 fighter. In 40 rounds! 2 points - 40 rounds.
And if we move them up to level 4 and have one take a feat and the other doesn't, well, there is no math for that. And that is point, everyone argues that the +1 is such a big deal. It isn't.
What it does do is it creates a clear path for people to see what they think is "better." For others, it creates a path for them to see beyond the +1, and focus on something different.

EDIT: I would like to add this doesn't even take into account initiative, which is dex based. So if your +4 fighter was a halfling, odds are they might be faster than the +5 fighter, thus getting to go first, and quite possible ending the round on their turn.

 

[ART!]

This is spot on. Of course, it hinges on the premise that +1 is greater than everything else. There are many in here that do not believe it is.

In the past couple of years with my own characters, I've really moved away from choosing ASIs when they come along, and instead focused on feats. Obviously raising my wizard's INT is a great idea, but AFAIC Keen Mind is freaking awesome. But that's just me - I feel like I get a more unique build with feats, and can better sculpt the character I want with them.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Rubbish!

This is an example of 'the perfect being the enemy of the good'.

Just because D&D cannot perfectly model the different effects from 30lbs versus 600lbs does not mean we shouldn't model it somehow!

The idea that a mouse is as strong as an elephant is absurd! The idea that the mouse's Str score is a result of their cultural preference for being weak is absurd. The idea that elephants are only strong because they have a culture of wanting to be strong is absurd.

The idea that a PC mouse should be stronger than a PC elephant if the mouse pumps iron and the elephant reads books is utterly absurd!

Yet that is the effect of allowing mouse PCs to have +2 Str and PC elephants to move their +2 Str bonus to Int.

UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN THE RULES.
This is the difference between REALISM (that nobody wants) and INTERNAL COHERENCE that we, accused to be against the change or conspirationist (not to say worst like racist, insensible etc) like to be preserved.

As I said: as long as you can put ASI where is logical and coherent to be placed, there is no problem in letting some other player put ASI in a incoherent way. This is a game and it's ok to be unlogical.
What cannot be done is to approve a rule that get the rid of internal coherence to reach what? Unlock class/race restrictions? If you want your halfling be the best weightlifter of faerun you certainly can, but you actually have to make more work than a goliath in trying to reaching this goal. This is internal coherence. As long as goliath are depicted like 3 meters giants and halfling as 1 meter guys.
BUT
If you say on page one: "physics law in this universe are twisted" ok, everything will become possible and there is no internal coherence issue.

 

[Scott Christian]

You're right. Getting rid of racial ASIs leads inevitably to communism. Why couldn't I see that before?

I don't know why you couldn't see it, maybe it is because you don't understand the argument.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again: these are PC creation rules. PCs are, to put it nicely: freaks.

There's no reason a halfling PC shouldn't be Swolecules, Halfling demigod of Buffness while statted halflings aren't.

Except because elephants and mice or something. Are there even statted mice in 5e?