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."

 

[Faolyn]

Because Wizards forgot that Tiefling had a negative 2. They really ruined Tiefling....

I really miss the tieflings from 2e Planescape, that were descendants of any type of fiend. I hope that if they bring Planescape/Manual of Planes back, they try to bring those back.

 

[Arial Black]

Sometimes. But not always. Not often, even. Elves are described as wise, diplomatic, and have centuries worth of knowledge, but their +2 is in Dex. Bugbears have many traits indicating they are sneaky and stealthy and are outright called lazy and shiftless, but their +2 is in Strength; ditto the githyanki, who get +2 Strength but are described as slender" And yet the firbolg, that are quite a bit larger then either of those, only get +1 in Strength. Gnomes are vivacious with big personalities but get +2 Int, while the tieflings, who see "mistrust and fear in every eye," get +2 Charisma.

The 'sometimes' means that you also believe that he racial ability bonuses are not random, which demonstrates my point.

The 'not always' demonstrates that game designers have to balance PC races against each other.

They chose to do away with the Level Adjustment mechanic from 3e, so they can no longer say that, say, half-celestials get Str +4 Dex +2 Con +4 Int +2 Wis +4 Cha +4, along with loads of other powerful goodies, and still be a balanced PC race by making them count as a PC 4 levels higher.

So without that level adjustment mechanic, what should be a Powerful Race gets nerfed to the same level as other PC races, and to do that they have to make choices about what to let go and what to keep.

But this doesn't mean that there is no longer any connection between the concept and the racial ability score bonuses. So while an elf in the One Ring game gets bonuses to nearly every ability score, elves in 5e could only get one +2 and one +1, even though conceptually they (Tolkien's elves, upon which D&D elves were based) are conceptually also smarter, wiser AND more charismatic on average. The devs had to choose which abilities BEST reflected their concept while still taking game balance into account.

But this in no way means there is no connection between the concept of the species and the racial bonuses to ability scores for that race.

 

[JEB]

If your point is that if you want to give them a dwarven trait in the PHB you have to use the PHB... well, duh. That is blatantly obvious and also beside the point.

But also, man some of those traits are legitimately pointless for an NPC. For Example, Stonecunning. You are considered to have expertise in history when it regards stonework, but in reality, since NPCs will likely never roll for history, especially a dwarf for stonework history, it isn't worth giving to a dwarven character. Just like I don't bother taking a commoner and giving them Sleight of Hand to represent a street urchin picking pockets.

But, sure, I will admit that if I want an NPC to have a PHB racial trait, I need to refer to the PHB Racials Traits. And if I want them to have a magical item from the DMG I refer to magical items from the DMG.

The real point is though, that I am not required to use those, if I don't want to.

Right, you don't have to do anything. But Wizards only provided guidelines for one approach at the beginning of 5E, which indicates their original assumption that for PHB races, PCs and NPCs had the same traits.

So, we are now at the point where those Racial ASIs are not relevant to NPC statblocks because they can have any numbers, and likely will just have the stats they need for both flavor and having the right attacks and DCs.

No, we are at the point where ASIs could have been applied to their scores, and simply not noticeable in a statblock that doesn't conveniently have all 10s.

And then you want to say that I can't use exceptions to prove rules, but what I am doing is showing that exceptions exist. By the way, look at the Hobgoblin and Hobgoblin Commander in the MM, also no Save Face Trait and "hobgoblin" is about as generic as we can get, since we don't have stats for "generic hobgoblin". Now, that was because Volos came out later, but again, if they didn't feel the need to update the Statblock, then are we really supposed to add these traits to generic hobgoblins? Or were they telling us that PCs and NPCs are different, by treating NPCs and PCs differently?

There is not a single Hobgoblin Statblock officially released that uses Save Face. Know what they do have almost exclusively? Martial Advantage. A trait that no PC Hobgoblin can access. Did you know that no NPC Bugbear statblock has a reach like a PC does? Did you know that they all have the Trait Brute, which a PC cannot access?

Or, when they examined these monsters for use as PC races, they re-evaluated what their traits should be, to balance them with the other PC races. It doesn't mean that they had suddenly decided PCs and NPCs were fundamentally different, only that they updated their idea of what the races were like at the baseline.

So even in 2e NPCs and PCs were not meant to be identical?

Wait, we're talking about 2E now? That's a whole different ballgame. For starters, monsters didn't even have a full set of ability scores...

It seems like a stretch to try and claim a subrace when no subrace is labeled. Especially since, per the lore, Dragonborn don't have their abilities because of a "true breeding" of their bloodlines. It is all muddled up to the point where two black scaled dragonborn who breath ice could give birth to a red scaled dragonborn who breathes lightning (and actually they are majority brown scaled I've heard).

It seems to me that you are only trying to claim such, so you can say that "not all subraces give different ASIs, so you can't use subraces like you were trying to use them," when this would be the only example, and it is relabeling something that has not previously been labeled as such.

You're extrapolating way more from what I said than what was intended. All I pointed out is that you could see dragonborn of different colors as subraces, if you wanted to, and then you tried to use that to somehow prove that was an argument in favor of "subraces exist" justifying a floating ASI for the entire species, to which I said it really didn't.

I enjoy how you dismiss one of the strongest pieces of evidence I have as not supporting either side. The Lizardfolk Commoner is A) A commoner, letting them be a "generic member of the race", B) Officially printed and statted in an Official Product C) released after volo's and any changes to the Lizardfolk design that was entailed by Volo's and D) Completely unlike the PC version in Volo's. It does not have their iconic Hungry Jaws and it has a massively inflated strength score, despite Lizardfolk not giving a bonus to Strength. It meets all the criterion you have placed for what we should be looking for, and supports my postion that NPCs are not treated like PCs.

Actually, I went back and looked at the lizardfolk commoner. You're right, it doesn't reflect Volo's. But it is broadly consistent with the DMG NPC Features. Its highest stat is Strength, its lowest stat is Int, plus Hold Breath, +3 AC, swim 30 ft, and Draconic language. It could mean that they'd decided on PCs and NPCs as being different... in 2019. Or it could mean they just ignored Volo's for this book.

(Also, realistically, it's probably just designed to be a weaker version of the MM lizardfolk statblock, and it's not actually a commoner at all.)

It seems like all you are trying to do is prove that in 2014 they wanted all NPCs of a race to use PC abilities, based on the fact that they said if you want to use PC abilities for them you should use the PHB. Then acknowledge that in 2017 they had changed their mind on that, so that you can be upset in 2021 for them changing their mind YEARS ago.

I mean, I can concede that wizards intended in the beginning of the game that if you wanted to give a character hill dwarf traits that they wanted you to read the section on hill dwarf traits. That is the same as conceding that if you wanted to give them sneak attack they wanted you to read the section on sneak attack.

But, taking it that step further, and saying that if I wanted to have a dwarf NPC I was required to give them the PHB stats, ASIs and abilities and all? While at the same time acknowledging that the NPC monster blocks in the front of the book are specialized with their ASIs and may not reflect the generic member of that race? That is not only a bridge too far, but one that is unsupported since you immediately undermine it with exactly the point I keep making.

NPCs are not treated like PCs.

You weren't required to do anything for NPC design. But Wizards had a certain expectation at the beginning of 5E, that PCs and NPCs for PHB races were treated the same. Maybe that changed in 2016. Or 2018. Or 2019. But they never made any statement on the matter until 2020, in the leadup to Tasha's.

That means we have to go with the evidence of the books. In 2014, they very clearly weren't meant to be different, or at least not significantly different. From 2015-2019, the evidence is ambiguous and uneven at best, and could reflect changes in baseline expectations for the race, or adjustments made purely for player balance rather than a philosophical shift. Then in 2020, they finally made an official assertion that PCs are archetypes that don't reflect NPC members of the race.

Also, I'm not especially upset with them. I just think they're implying this was the idea all along, and quite simply, I don't think it was.

 

[Faolyn]

The 'sometimes' means that you also believe that he racial ability bonuses are not random, which demonstrates my point.

The 'not always' demonstrates that game designers have to balance PC races against each other.

And these two together, along with what else you wrote, strongly indicate that the ASIs don't do a great job of exemplifying the flavor text. They do sometimes, but also sometimes are there for balance reasons, as you note. Which means that the racial ASIs don't have a lot to do with the flavor.

The racial ASIs are also there, IMO, because they decide that a particular race is supposed to the <insert class here> race and thus should get a stat bonus that aligns with that (such as turning firbolgs into the druid race this edition and giving them +2 Wisdom; previously, they had been much more ranger-y).

Or because they want to differentiate various subraces, like elves or genasi. Are dark elves really more charismatic than high elves?

Or because they forget that a race used to either have no bonus or actually have a penalty on a stat. Like the tieflings. Maybe dark, edgy, brooding, fearful natures are charismatic now?

But this in no way means there is no connection between the concept of the species and the racial bonuses to ability scores for that race.

But it does show it's not really necessary for the racial ASIs to even exist in the first place, let alone be tied to the flavor text--or, for that matter, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any flavor text in the first place.

Basically, the flavor text provides a useful guideline for you, but don't force you to play your character in any one way, but the ASIs try to create a straightjacket that do try to force you play it in one way and hinder you if you don't.

Look at Chaosmancer's earlier post where they compare a gnome and orc wizard. The orc has to spend all of its ASIs just to catch up, and the smaller, weaker gnome can max out its Int early and then improve its Con and even Strength.

(Tolkien's elves, upon which D&D elves were based)

Not necessarily related, but elsewhere on these forums--I think it was on the thread about the old "leatherette" series from 2e--it's said that Gygax at least claimed he based his elves more on the Norse versions (i.e., using the same source material as Tolkien, but not using Tolkien himself as the source) but every other writer went straight for a LotR feel.

 

[Alzrius]

Not necessarily related, but elsewhere on these forums--I think it was on the thread about the old "leatherette" series from 2e--it's said that Gygax at least claimed he based his elves more on the Norse versions (i.e., using the same source material as Tolkien, but not using Tolkien himself as the source) but every other writer went straight for a LotR feel.

That would be in this post. Personally, I love that thread; the person who started it is clearly a genius and a scholar, and has really great hair to boot.

 

[Arial Black]

And these two together, along with what else you wrote, strongly indicate that the ASIs don't do a great job of exemplifying the flavor text. They do sometimes, but also sometimes are there for balance reasons, as you note. Which means that the racial ASIs don't have a lot to do with the flavor.

Just because they do an imperfect job, this doesn't mean that they aren't trying to do that job.

The racial ASIs are also there, IMO, because they decide that a particular race is supposed to the <insert class here> race and thus should get a stat bonus that aligns with that (such as turning firbolgs into the druid race this edition and giving them +2 Wisdom; previously, they had been much more ranger-y).

Or because they want to differentiate various subraces, like elves or genasi. Are dark elves really more charismatic than high elves?

Or because they forget that a race used to either have no bonus or actually have a penalty on a stat. Like the tieflings. Maybe dark, edgy, brooding, fearful natures are charismatic now?

I don't share your opinion.

I don't believe for a second that the designers chose racial ability score bonuses in order to steer a player's choice of class.

If anything, it's the other way around; they chose those abilities to reflect, as best they could bearing game balance in mind, the concepts of that race. THEN some players decided for themselves that the lack of a +3 modifier in a class' most important ability renders that class unplayable for that race!

So, yeah, it's all about that 16 at first level.

But it does show it's not really necessary for the racial ASIs to even exist in the first place, let alone be tied to the flavor text--or, for that matter, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any flavor text in the first place.

Basically, the flavor text provides a useful guideline for you, but don't force you to play your character in any one way, but the ASIs try to create a straightjacket that do try to force you play it in one way and hinder you if you don't.

Look at Chaosmancer's earlier post where they compare a gnome and orc wizard. The orc has to spend all of its ASIs just to catch up, and the smaller, weaker gnome can max out its Int early and then improve its Con and even Strength.

I think that a lot is lost by taking away racial ability score modifiers. Either there IS a species concept that the game utterly fails to model, or there is NO conceptual difference between species that could possibly be reflected in ability scores.

Either stance is absurd.

Not necessarily related, but elsewhere on these forums--I think it was on the thread about the old "leatherette" series from 2e--it's said that Gygax at least claimed he based his elves more on the Norse versions (i.e., using the same source material as Tolkien, but not using Tolkien himself as the source) but every other writer went straight for a LotR feel.

And yet in the first iteration of D&D, halflings were called 'hobbits', a term which was invented by Tolkien, for a species that was invented by...Tolkien.

The different kinds of D&D elves (grey, high) reflected those concepts in Tolkien (Sindar, Noldor).

 

[Faolyn]

If anything, it's the other way around; they chose those abilities to reflect, as best they could bearing game balance in mind, the concepts of that race. THEN some players decided for themselves that the lack of a +3 modifier in a class' most important ability renders that class unplayable for that race!

So, yeah, it's all about that 16 at first level.

Nope. As I have pointed out numerous times, there are many reasons to want to move the +2 around. I made three different standard stat arrays to show it.

And let's say that it is just about getting a stat of 17 at first level. So what? Is that wrong? Are you claiming that players who want to be effective in their chosen class are bad roleplayers? Is their fun sp wrong, so anathema to you that you would forbid everyone from being able to be freer in their chargen?

I think that a lot is lost by taking away racial ability score modifiers. Either there IS a species concept that the game utterly fails to model, or there is NO conceptual difference between species that could possibly be reflected in ability scores.

Either stance is absurd.

Yes, because the reality is, there are species concepts, and they are reflected in racial traits and flavor text. Racial ASIs are only a small fraction of what differentiates species and can be a major hindrance to players who don't want to play whatever the species is designed to be.

I asked Scott Christian how he differentiates between (half)orcs and minotaurs, when he has said that racial traits aren't unique enough for him. Both (half)orcs and minotaurs have Strength +2, Constitution +1. So I'll ask you the same thing: do you believe that the conceptual difference between those species is reflected in their identical ASIs? Or do you think that their differences are reflected in their racial traits and flavor text.

After all, if the only thing, or the most important thing, that differentiats the races is their ASIs, then minotaurs and (half)orcs--and goliaths, longtooth shifters, and Ravenite dragonborn--are all redundant. Pick one, discard the rest. But I know I treat them as very different species. And that has nothing to do with their ASIs and has everything to do with their racial traits and their cultural flavor text.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The races with floating bonuses already-especially humans-get those floating bonuses because those races are famous for being...adaptable. That's their concept, just like being strong is part of the goliath concept, and NOT part of the halfling concept.

Racial bonuses to ability scores get you what they give you because of that race's concept. What the ASIs give has nothing to do with race at all. They represent training, perhaps (or perhaps not) combined with other concepts too.

But this has nothing to do with the point being discussed, which was that with a floating ASI the player had no guidance on what to pick.

Who cares if the ASI represents training? That doesn't change the fact that the player has no guidance to pick them, and yet that doesn't seem to be an issue, but choosing because of an adaptable race is, as long as it is a new race, older races were fine.

No, I'm telling you (and I'm astonished you didn't understand this!) that races give these things because they reflect the concept of that race. They make the rules reflect the concepts.

And so if the races concept includes adaptability there is no issue. You can't really argue against a future maybe on a rule, with no evidence.

And ASI's don't always do a great job with that matching to concept thing, ie Loxodon.

'Where you put the scores' is not part of racial traits, it's part of generating ability scores.

Choosing to assign great intelligence to your PC affects your individual PC, but does not change how your race affects your PC.

And you are ignoring the entire side debate we have been having.

Go look at the Lizardfolk Commoner from Ghosts of Saltmarsh and tell me how we are supposed to have every member of that race have no strength bonus (they have a str 15) and instead focus on Wisdom and Con (12 each I think) as their primary scores.

I think they also had an INT penalty, despite their racial scores not giving that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because Wizards forgot that Tiefling had a negative 2. They really ruined Tiefling....

I think "redesigned in 4e" is a little different than "forgot"

 

[Scribe]

I think "redesigned in 4e" is a little different than "forgot"

Well this goes back to the discussion on Attribute names and all that they abstractly represent but making the lineage that by description is near universally reviled on sight, also naturally Charismatic when they used to be the opposite...well it's a trash redesign I've hated for years.