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.

Screen Shot 2021-01-26 at 5.46.36 PM.png



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."
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Faolyn

(she/her)
No it isn't!

My option has official restrictions, codified in an official printed product I paid for.

Floating doesn't cover that in the least.
Those options still exist and haven't been removed, and are very unlikely to be removed. It's doubtful they're going to produce an errata saying that the PH and Volo's and MtF's is no longer valid.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Scribe

Hero
I’m sure there will be a community of people here on enworld that will help come up with some ASI for anything new.

Yes, or I can do it myself.

The question remains, why do I need to lose my option, when both systems could co-exist? Thats the entire point behind this entire near 100 page thread.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
I'm not going to throw out a system that at a basic level allows for the mechanical expression of different humanoid biologically distinct species just because it breaks down.

'it doesn't work, accept that attributes are irrelevant between races' just isn't the answer to me.

It's simple, it's worked for decades.
In decades pasts, monsters (with very few exeptions) didn't even have listed Str scores. So, things have already changed.
 



Dausuul

Legend
The question remains, why do I need to lose my option, when both systems could co-exist? Thats the entire point behind this entire near 100 page thread.
Because your option is not a Spike or Johnny or Timmy option. It's a Bob option. Bob is a huge fan of banding and shadow and the untap symbol. He's been a sad Magic player for a long time.

Wizards supports Spike and Johnny and Timmy. Their preferences are general and can be satisfied in many ways. But it doesn't and won't support Bob, because what Bob wants is extremely specific and it's not wanted by enough other players to devote resources to it.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Because your option is not a Spike or Johnny or Timmy option. It's a Bob option. Bob is a huge fan of banding and shadow and the untap symbol. He's been a sad Magic player for a long time.

Wizards supports Spike and Johnny and Timmy. Their preferences are general and can be satisfied in many ways. But it doesn't and won't support Bob, because what Bob wants is extremely specific and it's not wanted by enough other players to devote resources to it.
can you translate the mtg analogies?
edit: maybe ELI5 since I never played it?
 

Dausuul

Legend
can you translate the mtg analogies?
Banding and shadow and the untap symbol are mechanics in Magic that were long ago abandoned by Wizards, because they had mechanical issues (banding is an insane rules mess, shadow makes combat less interesting, and untap turned out to be extremely unintuitive for players) and were not popular enough to keep around anyway.
 

Scribe

Hero
Because the game's moved on? In the same way we no longer have Strength limits for female characters, or level limits and class restrictions for nonhumans.
That's making the assumption that its remotely comparable to assigning limitation by sex, when racial distinction has been a defining feature for decades. Females exist. Elves, do not. And its a straw man comparison anyway.

Because your option is not a Spike or Johnny or Timmy option. It's a Bob option. Bob is a huge fan of banding and shadow and the untap symbol. He's been a sad Magic player for a long time.
That is not it at all though. In magic lingo, its as basic as 5 colours of magic. Bob would be a fan of negative modifiers (hi, i'm bob) but those have been gone for some time.

I mean what an absolutely disingenuous comparison. MToF was 2018. Its the same bloody edition (5e) and the system is being changed, not due to any mechanical limitation (do what you want at your own table) or even lack of an option provided by Wizards (Tasha's) so tell me, why?

It is absolutely not an issue in the rules.
It is absolutely not an issue at your tables.

So tell me why? Because there is only 1 reason that I can see whatsoever, and it has nothing to do with the game. So if thats it, I suppose fine, but I see no other reason.
 
Last edited:

It has nothing to do with "blurry". It has to do with propriety. To wit: Is it appropriate, proper, or ethical to make use of the cultural artifacts and traditions of people that your own culture has abused, taken advantage of, and/or have otherwise treated shabbily? And, what can one do to increase the appropriateness of use?

For the record, I'm on the side of, yes, you can use such artifacts, but it takes some work and sensitivity to do it properly.

I was responding to what seemed to be to be an effective abrogation of any need to consider if use was appropriate.
I completely agree. Everyone should be sensitive to real world cultures, and if fantasy cultures reflect those, they should also be sensitive. I also feel people should be aware of the window they are looking through.
 

Dausuul

Legend
In magic lingo, its as basic as 5 colours of magic.
Funny you should mention "basic," because Basic D&D had no stat mods at all. Which demonstrates that it's nothing like the 5 colors of Magic. It's one mechanic that isn't foundational to anything, and can easily be modified or eliminated entirely, and the game will keep right on ticking.
 

Scribe

Hero
Funny you should mention "basic," because Basic D&D had no stat mods at all. Which demonstrates that it's nothing like the 5 colors of Magic. It's one mechanic that isn't foundational to anything, and can easily be modified or eliminated entirely, and the game will keep right on ticking.
It can. No argument there.

They also could supply both an official 'recommendation' or option, in addition to Tasha's.

So why wont they?
 

You’d think. According to what I see on these forums, there are still some folks who use humanoids as kill on sight due to thier race.
This is a bit black and white, no?

The point of progress will be when a DM can have a race that is completely evil and describe them how they wish. And not be ridiculed. And the table next to him can have the same race as completely good, and describe them as they see fit, and not be ridiculed. And the table next to them has the race as neutral, some are good and some are evil, and describe them how they want, and not be ridiculed.

How people play is a matter of preference. D&D is a table based game. There is no right or wrong.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I'm not going to throw out a system that at a basic level allows for the mechanical expression of different humanoid biologically distinct species just because it breaks down.

'it doesn't work, accept that attributes are irrelevant between races' just isn't the answer to me.

It's simple, it's worked for decades.

It's like people who hate alignment. The 9 values of alignment have transcended the game but people want to throw it out for some reason.

Not saying that we throw it out for that.

But if you want to declare that strength is absolute, because mice can only drag 60 lbs while weighing less than a pound, and elephants can drag 660 lbs while weighing nearly 16,000 lbs... well, realism hasn't exactly been the game's strong suit in this regard, has it?
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
No it isn't!

My option has official restrictions, codified in an official printed product I paid for.

Floating doesn't cover that in the least.

Hey guess what.

The Player Handbook, Volo's Guide, Rising from the Last War, Ravnica, and Mordenkainens all have official restrictions, codified in an official print product that you paid for. All of the current ~40 races in the game are following your design preference to a T.

The only difference is that maybe the next book won't.

You have 5 books in your preference. Mind if we have one or two?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
This is a bit black and white, no?

The point of progress will be when a DM can have a race that is completely evil and describe them how they wish. And not be ridiculed. And the table next to him can have the same race as completely good, and describe them as they see fit, and not be ridiculed. And the table next to them has the race as neutral, some are good and some are evil, and describe them how they want, and not be ridiculed.

How people play is a matter of preference. D&D is a table based game. There is no right or wrong.
Nah.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
It can. No argument there.

They also could supply both an official 'recommendation' or option, in addition to Tasha's.

So why wont they?

They might give an official recommendation. Nothing about designing them with floating ASIs prevents this. They haven't gone on record saying they will never print a single "recommended build" ever.

You are assuming they won't, because... you want to assume they won't I guess. They very well might.
 


Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top