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."

 

[Guest 6801328]

I believe that you are true when you say that you are tired of seeing the same class/race combination. But removing ASI you risk to throw away the baby with the dirt water. Until the game is based on some assumption, it is inevitable that goliath will be stronger than halfling. And to have more variance you sacrify logic? Is this I don't accept. Too much price to pay for me.

Once again, could you explain what logic you think is being sacrificed?

 

[Scribe]

Where did somebody say that?

The person I quoted. "I like the aesthetic..."

That absolutely is the case for the majority of people I have discussed this with in the modern framework of the game who want ASI removed from Race.

Which is fine! Again, every individual will have their reasons. I hate how they made Tieflings look, because I played them a long ass time ago and my memories dont fit with this new approach.

Paladin.

With a Hellish Rebuke.

How can you not love that.

Hey I'm all for it, thats just not what most folks I discuss things with these days are into tielfings for. My old 3e tiefling would have been all about it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Anybody else find it ironic that "people who pick their subrace for the stats are just dirty optimizers, and it's not that much of a bonus anyway" has now suddenly become "without racial ASIs on what basis are you going to pick your race? Looks? Hahahahahaha!"

 

[Guest 6801328]

The person I quoted. "I like the aesthetic..."

Oh! Well I think "the aesthetic" is a lot more than the appearance. It's the background, the roleplaying, the role in society, etc.

A well-designed ability accentuates the aesthetic. "Hellish Rebuke" being a good example.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The person I quoted. "I like the aesthetic..."

Just as point of fact, I was using 'aesthetic' in the sense of feel and flavor. Though teiflings are uncategorizably the most awesome looking race now that there are no devas.

 

[Scribe]

Fair enough folks, when I read aesthetic, I think 'concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.'

Aka: I like how they look.

Anybody else find it ironic that "people who pick their subrace for the stats are just optimizers, and it's not that much of a bonus anyway" has now suddenly become "without racial ASIs on what basis are you going to pick your race? Looks? Hahahahahaha!"

Who said that? You really seem to enjoy taking these leaps and assigning context and intent.

 

[Hurin70]

Coming from 3e, where there is no cap on ability scores, when I first read the 5e PHB where it said that the max score is 20, my first thought was, "Max of 20.....modified by racial bonuses, right? So max Str for half-orcs is 22, right?"

That would make sense. The strongest possible orc should be stronger than the strongest possible halfling, ignoring magic, because that makes sense.

I would be for such a change, but I'm stuck with a flat max 20 for every race.

The new approach, where all races are equally strong at 1st level, is the wrong direction. It moves away from coherence into a logical disconnect.

+1 from me.

This is what Rolemaster does too. Your stat gives you a bonus (say +2 for a 14), then your race gives you another bonus (say +1 for Strength), and you just add up the bonuses; the racial bonus isn't included in the cap. This means that an Orc can have a +6 max Strength (equivalent), while a Human could only have +5 maximum.

I'm not saying D&D has to do this, but this is what I would prefer. It ensures that the statement 'Orcs are strong' remains true.

 

[Minigiant]

Honestly, I'd up with removing darkvision entirely, except for truly subterranean species, like drow and duergar (not typical dwarfs) and some of the most magical species, like the dhampir and reborn from this UA

I'm up for the return of low light vision and the creation of elfsight and dwarfsight. Elfsight, dwarfsight, night vision, only allow darkvision when obscured by wood, stone, or the nightsky.

 

[ART!]

Or I could just want to play a tiefling paladin because I like the aesthetic and don't want to deal with the designer's idea of what is right and proper for me to play.

Half-jokingly: If you don't want to deal with the designer's idea of what is right and proper for you to play, I don't know what to tell you other than "design your own game".

People are going to have widely varying ideas about acceptable restrictions in a rules set, given the genre, setting, tone, etc. If you don't like the designer(s)'s choices, there are plenty of options - both within the game (probably) and beyond that game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

+1 from me.

This is what Rolemaster does too. Your stat gives you a bonus (say +2 for a 14), then your race gives you another bonus (say +1 for Strength), and you just add up the bonuses; the racial bonus isn't included in the cap. This means that an Orc can have a +6 max Strength (equivalent), while a Human could only have +5 maximum.

I'm not saying D&D has to do this, but this is what I would prefer. It ensures that the statement 'Orcs are strong' remains true.

An ability that, for example, let orcs suffer fewer penalties to being encumbered would also ensure the statement 'Orcs are strong' remains true, regardless of what their actual Str score is, without putting such a heavy thumb on the scale of race/class choice. It might even be of more benefit to low Strength characters. "I only have an 8 Str, but I can still hump a pack like a marine. Cause I'm an orc!"

Whereas +2 to Strength means that an orc wizard who put their 8 into Strength is till only Strength 10. Which does NOT support the thesis that "Orcs are strong".

EDIT:

AND if you take two characters, human and orc, both with 16 strength, the Orc is stronger because he can carry a heavier load.

EDIT 2:

If the arguments of the pro-racial-ASI crowd can be taken at face value, then I would expect them to actually PREFER abilities over ASIs. A halfling will always catch up to the goliath (if it wants to) on raw Strength score, but the halfling will never get the goliath's special abilities. So if, in fact, what you really care about is "being stronger than the strongest halfling", what you should want is special abilities, not ASIs.