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."

 

[NaturalZero]

Let me explain more clearly why the questions are not analogous.

I see you spending a lot of time spinning your wheels on this example. What you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with character building mechanics and everything to do with players wanting a thing that forces other people to submit.

What if two players want to be the world's only wizard?
What if two players want to be the world's shortest halfling?
What if two players want to be the world's strongest goliath?
What if the halfing player and the minotaur player want to be the strongest?
What if two players want to be the only character in the world who owns a green shirt?

None of these have any bearing at all on the mechanics of character building. It's completely a table issue.

Which is a mistake, IMO. Though I love the direction D&D is going based off of this UA, WotC broke their promise. They said Tasha's was going to be optional, and it was, until just a couple months later when they say that it is now going to be the base.

Of course it's still optional.

If you have a race with ability score increases, swapping them is optional. No promised broken, nothing changed. People in the thread are acting like WotC is coming to their house to rip the pages out of their books and replace them.

 

[TwoSix]

People claim that 4e wasn't D&D. 4e never made changes to the game for political reasons. Sure they focused 4e in a different, more tactical way, but it was more D&D than what 5e is turning into.

5e is not D&D anymore.

I disagree. I, personally, couldn’t care less about the supposedly "political" aspects of this change, they're irrelevant to me. I like the change because, as @Elfcrusher said, it makes more race-class combinations more appealing to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

But I believe that the race/class combinations, and the related mechanical elements, are part of what makes up D&D’s identity. If I want to play a game where I can create anything, then I would look at GURPS or Cypher System or Genesys.

Some of us like D&D, with its class system, distinct lore, exploratory play framework, etc. but merely don’t want combination of race and class to be restricted or penalized. There’s a lot of daylight between D&D without racial ASIs and GURPS, and I really don’t want to play GURPS.

But I guess WotC are free to take D&D in whatever direction they choose and will be expecting certain players to move away and new players to join.

Maybe, I’m just of a generation that liked a particular game for the game that it was, and chose to keep separate, real world issues (and not allow such issues to creep in under the disguise of fun) from my own little personal world of escapism with a few friends.

Again, the racial ASI thing is at best tangentially related to the racial/cultural sensitivity issue. I think both are important, but I think conflating them is muddying the discussion here.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Let me explain more clearly why the questions are not analogous.

The question of what to do when two players both ask to play ‘the smallest Halfling in the world’ is easily resolvable because they can in fact both be that at the same time. It is not an either/or question. I can inform them that the smallest Halfling currently in the world is 2’4”, and that if they want to be smaller they can choose to be 2’3”. Both of them can be that at the same time. They are now both literally ‘the smallest Halfling in the world’, in much the same way that if two sprinters just ran a 100m dash in 9.3 seconds, they would both share the title of ‘Fastest Man in the World’.

Ah, ok, now I see what you are saying. You are right: there is a very slight difference in language here.

So let me change it: Each player says "I want to be shorter* than any other halfling in the world." There, now it is impossible for them both to have what they want, even though what each of them wants aligns with the traditional conception of what it means to be a halfling.

*Or "more dextrous", if you feel it has to be mechanics based.

The other problem here (which I suspect is part of what Morrus was getting at) is that this is a totally contrived scenario.

First, who lets players define their "concept" as "I am the most X in the world"? The rules certainly don't support any such thing. Sure, the player is free to decide that their character's goal is to achieve X, or that their character believes X to be true. But that's different from actually granting it.

Second, even if you were to allow that, for another player to then say, "Well I want to play a character whose very existence invalidates your character concept" isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the people.

And, despite all that, the example of "more dextrous than any halfling in the world" demonstrates that whether or not the scenario is valid, it has nothing whatsoever to do with rules that allow races to break stereotype.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Maybe, I’m just of a generation that liked a particular game for the game that it was, and chose to keep separate, real world issues (and not allow such issues to creep in under the disguise of fun) from my own little personal world of escapism with a few friends.

So, I think this is pretty revealing. I honestly struggle to understand why people are so attached to racial ASIs, and so resistant to change, and the only reason I find persuasive is that it's just knee-jerk resistance to anything that smells of political correctness. Certainly none of the attempts at "logical" support for racial ASIs that I've read are very convincing.

Also, I don't think it's a "generational" difference. I can't be certain I'm older than you, but it's highly unlikely you're actually of an older generation. I agree with you: the reason I like 5e so much is that it's more like the game it used to be, compared to the intervening editions. But racial ability modifiers are not part of that feel; they are just cruft (like the requirement that Paladins are Lawful Good) that don't actually contribute to the game. Literally all they achieve is to give people a reason to not play unusual race/class combinations.

I swear, if the argument for getting rid of the "Weapon vs. Armor Type" table had included the word "race" I'm sure we would still be generating 100 page threads on the topic, with all kinds of rationales for why it is absolutely vital for immersion that Bohemian Ear Spoons get a +2 modifier vs. Splint Mail.

 

[Don Durito]

Even if the halfling and Golaith have equal Strength scores, the Goliath is still stronger by other metrics (eg a Strength contest to see how much they can lift) because he has Powerful Build.

This is the problem with size. You either represent it mechanically some way or you don't represent it all. And if you don't represent it at all, then you take away a lot of the fun of playing it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Even if the halfling and Golaith have equal Strength scores, the Goliath is still stronger by other metrics (eg a Strength contest to see how much they can lift) because he has Powerful Build.

This is the problem with size. You either represent it mechanically some way or you don't represent it all. And if you don't represent it at all, then you take away a lot of the fun of playing it.

Yes! A half-orc with Con 20 is tougher than a human with Con 20, because the half-orc has Relentless Endurance.

I would so much rather give the various races cool, unique abilities than boring ASIs.

 

[Scribe]

I don't know, personally I liked my Tiefling with a negative Charisma modifier, and a level adjustment and it certainly had nothing to do with anything to do with political correctness, but we can certainly continue to paint people who want this level of crunch with that brush...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Of course it's still optional.

If you have a race with ability score increases, swapping them is optional. No promised broken, nothing changed. People in the thread are acting like WotC is coming to their house to rip the pages out of their books and replace them.

It's not optional for future races/lineages. If they were "optional" like Tasha's is for the previous races, they'd give them alternative "automatic" racial ability score bonuses, not just automatic ones.

I'm one that loves this change and like the direction D&D is heading. However, I can see why people are upset that this is becoming less optional than TCoE's is.

 

[Dausuul]

It used to be, your race flat-out blocked you from certain classes. Want to play a dwarf wizard or an elf paladin? Nope. Denied.

If you don't want to see dwarf wizards in your game, that's the way to do it. But if a combination is allowed by the rules, it's silly to whack it with a mechanical penalty in an effort to make it unusual. PCs are unusual by definition. Either allow it or don't.