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."

 

[Chaosmancer]

So @Chaosmancer I'm not sure I follow.

Do you believe that the intention was, at 5e release, for ASI to be tied to lineage?

I'm talking PHB, DMG, MM, the core 3.

Do you mean all High Elves even NPCs had +2 Dex and +1 Int?

No, I do not believe that was the intent. There are so many points where that falls apart, because they treated NPCs very different than players.

And, even if it were the original intent, the release of Volo's broke that so fundamentally that there isn't even a question any more. Nothing in Volo's monstrous races matches the MM or DMG. And if they had intended for them to match, then I don't think they would have made so many changes.

 

[Scribe]

Fair enough.

 

[Krachek]

The reason I posted this is not because a DM can't use the stats to represent both human and nonhuman, it is because they specifically state that you can modify these with racial ASIs. That means that racial ASIs are not only used for PCs. Not used for PCs means they are also generally applied - like to all halflings and all gnomes and all half-orcs.
So the logic follows that when they wrote this, they were using ASIs to be attribute bonuses for the race, not just the PCs. And then, later, they changed their mind.

As for racial traits, I have brought it up a half dozen times. Here is what I think of them:
1. I love them. I wish there were more.
2. I love how they make the races unique - separate from one another.
3. If I have a grudge against them, it is that if you remove ASIs as one way to differentiate the races, then racial feats must bear the bulk of the work. And I have not seen enough neutral diversity in them; most begin to lean class specific. And if they write more, but they are class specific, then we are at an ASI crossroads again.

I have asked for people to create lists of new ones, but inevitably what happens is they become very class specific. That's because there are only so many things on a character sheet that allow mechanics to be altered. That was one of the reasons ASIs were so clutch in differentiating the races (not that the logic behind the ASIs couldn't be shattered with a pebble). They were clutch because one ASI could alter many things: to hit, skill bonuses, HP, and AC. Basically all the rolling in the game.

If you are willing, I am more than open of going down the racial feat path with you. Let's see if we can turn the mechanical knob so to speak using racial feats. Here are a few off the top of my head for a halfing that is relatively neutral is:

Duck!
Your short stature is a boon when fighting medium or large creatures. You may use the Dodge action as a bonus action once per short rest.
Crouching Cover
When you squat your body is so small it makes its own cover. Once per short rest, you may use a free action at the end of your turn to squat and gain Half-Cover from ranged attacks.
Disarming Smile
Your sleight frame puts most people at ease. Once per day, you may use this to gain advantage on any persuasion or deception roll. This same advantage cannot be applied to the same person/creature twice and is negated if the creature has been threatened or harmed.

To me, those epitomize the halflings body and say: "Hey, if you are a halfling, you most likely have this because you are so small." There will always be exceptions to the rule, like Darksun halflings and disarming smile. But, that is why, IMO, you need to start with baselines if you are discussing races. But, even with those, I notice Disarming Smile lends towards the bard class and Crouching Cover lends itself to someone that tries to stay in ranged combat. Hence, neutral racial traits are difficult to make neutral.

Can is different from Must.
to be fair, if you build an encounter using the berserker Npc template, adding ASI or not won’t change a lot. Maybe a better strength meaning +1 to hit and damage, some hit points, and then what? your party will steam roll them anyway.
I don’t think any DM have made overnight shift to fix its world to make it follow the Tasha racial rules, and note that those rule are still completly optional.

 

[JEB]

This whole sub-sub-topic started trying to show that PCs and NPCs are treated differently, and that therefore a floating ASI for a PC has no bearing on how their species is treated.

Which could always have been true for your home campaign, and is what Wizards appears to be asserting as their default philosophy now, but isn't reflected in the core 5E rules... where ASIs are part of the racial traits for NPCs as well as PCs, and the ASIs for PC races in both cases are either identical or very, very similar. In short, they changed their mind.

 

[JEB]

Okay, but then which is it?

Can you depict a race without those Traits? Or do you absolutely need those Traits to depict that race?

Because now we have people arguing it both ways. That of course you can depict them without the Racial traits and ASIs, but that if you take away racial ASIs all of the NPCs are fundamentally changed as a race because those Racial ASIs helped depict them as they adjusted all of those blocks.

But if you didn't need to adjust the blocks, then their depiction hasn't actually changed.

Yes, you can depict a NPC of a particular race without the default racial traits. But under the core rules, if you wanted a NPC to reflect racial traits, you either applied the PHB traits (Monster Manual) or the traits in the NPC Features table (DMG).

And this is the circle. People point to the fact that this chart exists, and therefore PC ASIs must be applied to all NPCs of the same race. Then we point out that those ASIs don't match the PC ASIs, and that NPCs are not required to have those traits anyways, it was just a suggestion. Then the other side says that the fact that they don't match doesn't indicate that NPCs and PCs can be different, only that the designers redesigned every single race that had been released from the DMG version.

So the fact that the dwarf and gnome NPC Features have a small difference from the PHB version - one that's still broadly consistent with the PHB, we're talking exactly the same second ASI but a difference of +1 - indicates to you that they didn't think, in the core rules, that ASIs were reflective of the character race by default? Then explain why the other PHB races are consistent with the PHB. And explain why the Monster Manual, before that, just said to refer to the PHB traits. Heck, explain why they even pointed you to sources for racial traits, if you were expected to make up whatever you wanted, or use the NPC statblock as is?

The most I can see it meaning is that they did think dwarves and gnomes should get +2 to both stats, but decided to reduce the bonus to +2/+1 for gnomes and hill dwarves in the PHB, presumably to balance them with the other PC races. (Though they thought mountain dwarves should be an exception, for some reason.) That still isn't evidence that they thought there was zero correspondence between PCs and NPCs as far as ASIs, like they claim now; only that when push came to shove, game balance outranked "accuracy". (Something like that logic could have been behind the Volo's changes, as well, though I already granted that they could have been rethinking the idea of ASIs by then.)

EDIT: It also occurs to me that +2 for both stats for dwarves in the NPC Features might have just been a matter of convenience, since otherwise they'd have to separate out the two subraces; easier to just list +2 for both, since it's not a huge difference. Doesn't explain gnomes, admittedly.

Which, since they didn't redesign the Monster Manual, again actually leads credence to the fact that NPCs and PCs are treated differently. Because in every metric we can measure, they are different.

Of course NPCs and PCs are treated differently. That's why they provided NPC statblocks. But they only provide you one way to represent racial traits for NPCs in the Monster Manual, and another that's basically the same (except for having monstrous options) in the DMG. By the core rules, you can either represent racial traits, or not. And ASIs were part of racial traits for both approaches.

Or just a way to avoid a dozen subraces. I mean, let us not forget "Elf" here.

Elves get +2 Dex, then they could have a +1 to wisdom, intelligence, charisma or Constitution. That is literally any stat except strength, and if the Grugarch had been printed, they would have had +1 strength.

So, what is the typical "elf" in that world? +2 Dex and 1 stat of your choice.

That may be true by default for "elf", but not for "high elf" or "wood elf" or "drow", where they also get a recommended ASI at the subrace level. Under the core rules, of course - your campaign can be different.

Now take a race like the Kreen where these Tohr-Kreen



are the same race as these Thri-Kreen



And it gets easy to see how they might say that there is no "typical kreen" since they can vary so vastly.

That would require them to treat kreen subraces differently than they had other subraces up to this point, where subraces also had a recommended ASI. If they use "subraces exist" as an excuse to have floating ASI for the entire species, it would be inconsistent with how they treated every character race prior to this point. But sure, they can certainly do that; I just think it would be disingenuous.

 

[Krachek]

I don’t completely understand that wonder on racial traits.
It makes a mechanical difference a low level, become flavor at mid level, and at high level a half orc wizard, or a gnome barbarian are almost as effective as the optimal race for any build.

It is the same for NPC. You add racial trait for a guard, it makes an interesting difference for a level 1 encounter, if you fight an arch mage you don’t care which race he is. In fact you are more concern to know if the DM alter its spell list, than add a racial trait.

 

[JEB]

Nothing in Volo's monstrous races matches the MM or DMG.

DMG vs. Volo's:
Goblin: +2 Dex on both
Kenku: +2 Dex on both
Kobold: +2 Dex on both, both also have a Str penalty (-4 in DMG, -2 in Volo's)
Orc: +2 Str, -2 Int on both (Volo's just gives them +1 Con as well)

It is true that the hobgoblin and lizardfolk are completely different, however. (Though the DMG hobgoblin has no adjustments at all, so they might have just been concerned about leaving them at a disadvantage with other PC races. Balance issues over "accuracy", again.)

Nevertheless, I don't think you can say "nothing" matches, there are points of correspondence. And it's still consistent with a rethink on the baseline ASIs, rather than a suggestion ASIs were never meant to be a baseline trait for the species. (But I do grant that a shift to "PCs are special" could be indicated by Volo's as well.)

 

[Krachek]

Making retro analysis of monster to evaluate racial trait is like doing some research on old alchemical text in hope to find a hidden treasure.
Race made for players are balanced on the players point of view, to make balanced choice to create player characters. That’s it, and that’s all. Fine if some want to use it for world building base, but that’s not mandatory.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But this also shows that WotC didn't feel that giving these nameless NPCs a racial ASI was too important.

I’d guess most of us who would prefer to continue to have the lineage writeup tell us things about NPCs as well as about PCs view that as a bad decision.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, you can depict a NPC of a particular race without the default racial traits. But under the core rules, if you wanted a NPC to reflect racial traits, you either applied the PHB traits (Monster Manual) or the traits in the NPC Features table (DMG).

"If you wanted" is the key phrase though, isn't it? That is what tells us that, well, if you want them to use it, then you can reference those stats. But, since it requires a desire to apply, then it is not the default state of those NPCs.

Yes, if you want to apply racial features, you can, but it is optional.

So the fact that the dwarf and gnome NPC Features have a small difference from the PHB version - one that's still broadly consistent with the PHB, we're talking exactly the same second ASI but a difference of +1 - indicates to you that they didn't think, in the core rules, that ASIs were reflective of the character race by default? Then explain why the other PHB races are consistent with the PHB. And explain why the Monster Manual, before that, just said to refer to the PHB traits. Heck, explain why they even pointed you to sources for racial traits, if you were expected to make up whatever you wanted, or use the NPC statblock as is?

The most I can see it meaning is that they did think dwarves and gnomes should get +2 to both stats, but decided to reduce the bonus to +2/+1 for gnomes and hill dwarves in the PHB, presumably to balance them with the other PC races. (Though they thought mountain dwarves should be an exception, for some reason.) That still isn't evidence that they thought there was zero correspondence between PCs and NPCs as far as ASIs, like they claim now; only that when push came to shove, game balance outranked "accuracy". (Something like that logic could have been behind the Volo's changes, as well, though I already granted that they could have been rethinking the idea of ASIs by then.)

EDIT: It also occurs to me that +2 for both stats for dwarves in the NPC Features might have just been a matter of convenience, since otherwise they'd have to separate out the two subraces; easier to just list +2 for both, since it's not a huge difference. Doesn't explain gnomes, admittedly.

I never said "zero correspondence"

But, let's start with the back end. If Volo's was when they "changed their mind" because nothing in the Volo's matches the DMG. Then that was back in 2016. So, five years ago. So, no matter what we want to say about anything else, do we agree that 5 years ago represents a change in the game?

And, no I'm not saying that the DMG chart alone shows that NPCs don't use the ASIs. But add in the MM showing us that we don't need to change them, the DMG no longer being accurate to pretty much anything. It really starts showing that the NPCs are treated differently.

Of course NPCs and PCs are treated differently. That's why they provided NPC statblocks. But they only provide you one way to represent racial traits for NPCs in the Monster Manual, and another that's basically the same (except for having monstrous options) in the DMG. By the core rules, you can either represent racial traits, or not. And ASIs were part of racial traits for both approaches.

Yes, but "If you want to do this, here is how" is vastly different than "Every NPC of this race must have these traits."

That may be true by default for "elf", but not for "high elf" or "wood elf" or "drow", where they also get a recommended ASI at the subrace level. Under the core rules, of course - your campaign can be different.

Yes, I know there are for high elf, wood elf, Drow, Eladrin, Shadar-Kai and Eladrin. That wasn't the point. You seem to think being a "true race" is going to lead to obvious ASI's, but if we didn't have all of these elf subraces, then "elf" would have floating ASIs.

So, yeah, note that they rarely if ever give subraces and if a race is as versatile as Elves, then it becomes a case of either making six subraces, or having a floating ASI. And since they rarely make subraces....

That would require them to treat kreen subraces differently than they had other subraces up to this point, where subraces also had a recommended ASI. If they use "subraces exist" as an excuse to have floating ASI for the entire species, it would be inconsistent with how they treated every character race prior to this point. But sure, they can certainly do that; I just think it would be disingenuous.

Disingenuous really?

There are no Subraces for:

Dragonborn
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Leonin
Satyr
Aarckrokra
Goliath
Bugbear
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Firbolg
Kenku
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Orc
Tabaxi
Triton
Yuan-Ti
Tortle
Changeling
Kalashatar
Warforged
Centaur
Loxodon
Simic Hybrid
Minotaur
Vedalken

And, in past editions, there were subraces for these types of creatures. So, would it really be disingenuous to treat them without a subrace, when the majority of races in the game don't have subraces?