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."

 

[JEB]

This doesn't track.

Volo's gave us a new baseline for Hobgoblin's, different from the core books. However, the Hobgoblin monsters in Volo's did not use the new baseline provided. The Githzerai had a new baseline in Mordenkainen's, however the Githzerai monsters in Mordenkainen's did not use that new baseline.

One thing I'm noticing in this discussion in general. You point to a NPC statblock for a PC race and say, there's a difference, a missing feature, that means there's no correlation between NPCs and PCs. I'm looking at a NPC statblock and saying, look, similarities, there are correlations between PCs and NPCs. You think exceptions prove rules; I don't. Maybe our philosophies are just too different to agree on this.

They are not subraces though. And, as I said, even if you think they are if you can see one statline covering all those different subraces without a problem, I don't see how doing the same exact thing with a different race would be a problem

Unless the species in question really is amorphous and has no stable traits, it would be inconsistent for them to suddenly declare that a species having subraces means the entire race has no floating ASI. They can certainly do that, but using that as a justification would sound much more like an excuse than a genuine, heartfelt belief that there's no possible way to describe a typical member of that race. There are lots of different breeds of cat, for example, but that doesn't mean there aren't some correlations between cats.

You mean they didn't mention it until it became abundantly clear there was massive confusion over it? I mean, you've been on an internet debate, how many times have you caught a fundamental misunderstanding of a basic principle of the topic mid-way and hundreds of pages later? It happens. It isn't like anyone was clamoring to know before hand.

As I said, you can believe what you want.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One thing I'm noticing in this discussion in general. You point to a NPC statblock for a PC race and say, there's a difference, a missing feature, that means there's no correlation between NPCs and PCs. I'm looking at a NPC statblock and saying, look, similarities, there are correlations between PCs and NPCs. You think exceptions prove rules; I don't. Maybe our philosophies are just too different to agree on this.

First of all, you are trying to prove a similarity. I am trying to prove a difference.

By pointing out the differences, I am proving that a difference exists. By dismissing those differences, as you have done repeatedly, you are making it seem like you don't really care what evidence I supply.

For example, if I go ahead and tell you that despite Hobgoblins in the DMG getting no modifiers, and the Hobgoblins in Volo's getting a +2 Con, +1 Int, that the stat array for the Hobgoblin in the MM is 13 / 12 / 12 / 10 / 10 / 9, making it so that their highest stat is strength and their second is either dex or con, and int wasn't a consideration, you will tell me that doesn't matter, because all that means is that the Designers redesigned.

And if I then look to the book where the designers redesigned the race, and I note that not only are their stats pretty wild (The wizard does get high INT and CON, shocking, but they also still have a 13 str, 12 dex, 13 wis, and 11 cha, giving them bonuses across the board, and the Monk has their highest stats as Con and Dex with an even higher 14 str, a 14 int, 15 wisdom, and 11 cha) then you will tell me that that is fairly meaningless actually because the NPC stats could have been anything and they could have added those race defining ASIs anyways.

And if I point out that Hobgoblins get Martial Training, allowing them to use two martial weapons and light armor, a feat half applied to the wizard who gets light armor, but that both the Monk and the Wizard are using inferior weapons, for no reason, you'll just tell me I'm focusing too much on the differences (which, pointing out the differences is kind of my point) and not the similarities... like them having darkvision? I mean I guess the wizard has a high intelligence, that proves... they wanted it to be a wizard?


I mean, what similarities are there? Darkvision, They can speak Goblin. They have a base speed of 30 ft (sort of, the monk is breaking all sorts of logic the more I look at it), the wizard can wear light armor.

You know who else can wear light armor, has darkvision, and can move 30 ft? Orcs. Gnolls. Bugbears. Chitines. Darklings. Kobolds.

So, the only similarities I can find, are the things they share in common with... most other humanoids. Heck, Darkvision and 30 ft movement is standard. So, where are these similarities that let us know "oh, these are hobgoblins, not something else"?

Unless the species in question really is amorphous and has no stable traits, it would be inconsistent for them to suddenly declare that a species having subraces means the entire race has no floating ASI. They can certainly do that, but using that as a justification would sound much more like an excuse than a genuine, heartfelt belief that there's no possible way to describe a typical member of that race. There are lots of different breeds of cat, for example, but that doesn't mean there aren't some correlations between cats.

Sure, there are lots of cats.

But if you are trying to encompass the Smilodon, the house cat, the Lynx, the lion, the Cheetah, the caracal and the tiger in one group, it is a bit harder to give them two precise stats that exemplify them.

And remember, we are talking about the Kreen as the group I gave for that example, a set of insectoid races that are bred for various traits, from being psionic master minds, fleet footed warriors or massive juggernauts. Yes, they might be able to treat them like shifters and just make the entire group subraces, but since they've indicated they are moving away from static ASIs it makes just as much sense to just let that genetic diversity apply as a floating ASI.

 

[Scribe]

Yep, you're correct.


No wonder the poll came out for that UA so fast.

Yeah, odds feedback was actually considered?

Approaching 0%.

 

[Faolyn]

Yeah, odds feedback was actually considered?

Approaching 0%.

Maybe there was more feedback that liked the stuff that you didn't.

 

[Scribe]

Maybe there was more feedback that liked the stuff that you didn't.

Maybe. Last I looked there was a total of 19 replies to the D&D Twitter post asking for Survey responses.

Even if all the feedback was completely favorable, the window for changes here sure feels small?

 

[Scott Christian]

I have repeatedly said, this is not our purpose with floating ASIs.

And I did show you a character with traits that couldn't be made with a racial ASI: an aarakocra wizard with a Charisma of 16. And then two other versions without stats above 15. And you ignored in favor of moving your goalposts.

The other two could have been clearly made with any race using point buy. The one with a 16 could not.

I can have an aarakocra with a 17 Charisma in point buy and racial ASIs? Show me how, oh wise one!

I have to think you are troll baiting now. You can't make it. It is my thesis. The only thing that can't be made is a 16. Which is why I say the only thing that matters is a 16 - +3.

Oh, that's right. You consider it bad for people to want a 16 in a stat. Even if its not a stat that's needed for their class. Because having a 16 or 17 is Having Fun Wrong, and that is something you can't allow.

You keep saying this - that I think it is bad. Where do you get that from? Is it one of these statements:

Bingo. I stated this in another comment prior to you commenting on this post. It varied by table. Since you already know this, then you should probably be in favor of the floating ASI as an optional rule - because it varies by table.

I bolded your excellent word choice. It is true, players will try to get that attribute as high as they can, be it a 15, 16, or 17. And if a table can't live with the 15, then they should have an optional rule in place for them to redistribute their ASI. (And they did implement the rule. And now, they made it the rule.)

I guess in the end, I find it difficult to believe that people truly can't play a game where they aren't exactly equal as the player next to them. In my personal belief, it seems a bit childish, to not be able to accept a small hinderance for a small gain elsewhere. And to complain about the "unfairness" just seems silly. But I know that is my opinion, and that opinion was formed a long time ago because the tables I have played at (and still do) come from a fun loving place where friends gather. If my experiences were different, I may be arguing from the other side.

Not at all what I said. I said two things:

• It would be fine for an optional rule to exist to make sure you get the same score
• Let's look at the effects as a whole character, and not just one stat

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

Yes, they do change. It is a good thing. But, it also should be backed up with text. Go read the descriptions of halflings in the PHB. D&D's 5e version of halflings never even hints at them being strong. When 6e comes out, they can rewrite the halfling as having thick tendons and years of working on the farm gives them "farm strength." It's all good with me.

So since you understand that D&D is a bit different for each table, then you will understand it isn't always the DM's choice. Which is why, and I will repeat yet again, floating ASIs as an optional rule is fine. You get to have your cake. And the others do too.

This is correct. We have said make floating ASIs an optional rule. I have given concrete reasons as to why. They are just my opinions on the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, a while back ago I argued for halflings to have other stat bonuses. I just think they should be subraces. Make the lonepalm halflings stranded on an island with nothing but the sea to provide for generations. Give them a +1 to wisdom. Make the skyhall halflings and give them a +1 intelligence. Make the bruteheart halflings that do nothing but fight and give them a +1 strength. I like it. Just give them a description and some lore. (And in the end, with point buy, a +1 is all you need to achieve the coveted 16.) I am not opposed to that. Just don't change the halflings that already have their lore in place.

Maybe we have been approaching this from the wrong angle? Maybe we should be adding a whole bunch of ASIs. +1 for average, +2 for above average and +3 for exceptional. And all six stats get a bonus. You could adjust the point buy or keep it the same.

And again, for the record, I am not dead-set against floating ASIs.

People should be able to play with floating ASIs.

The option of racial/culture ASIs should also exist.

No one here would forbid it. No one. That is because we specifically stated we were discussing point buy. If a table is willing to roll for stats, then that table will be willing to deal with quirks like this.

I do not believe for a bit the rule would ever be in question were it not for getting that extra +1. And I have always insisted that they should have both. Yours should be the optional rule exactly as it was written in Tasha's.

You want your players to have a choice, which is why you want floating ASIs. That is awesome. I am happy for you that the choice is now the rule. That legitimately makes me happy. I want both rules static and floating ASIs supported because I want everyone to have a choice. That is the difference. I have never debated against floating ASIs.

And I have never once objected to halflings being as strong as half-orcs. Not once. Yet this is the third time you have accused me of this. All I said is, if you are using racial ASIs, they should start +1 behind, and that is only if the half-orc decides to place the 14 or 15 into strength. My half-orc wizard didn't. So your halfling fighter would have been stronger than him. The halfling can, and should, still reach a 20 strength. So please stop accusing me of stating something I have never said.

As I said many times, it all boils down to the extra +1. Mechanical benefits, stereotypical combinations and contribute to the party means I can start with a 16 instead of 15. Which really goes to show how important the ASI is to people - on both sides. Again, there is no right or wrong.

I would be for them getting rid of the ASIs and here is why. If they are floating then they mean absolutely nothing. Just increase the point and set the limit to 17.

I didn't even go that far back in the thread to find these. In almost every one, I say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you accuse me of.

Look, I am happy that you and your table now get to create the characters you want. But I am also sad; sad you do not see the other side of the argument. I guess that is where we'll just have to leave it. Good luck and may your dice rolls be above average.

 

[Arial Black]

No. Because by denying a PC a +2 in the stat of their choice, you're denying it across the board.

???

What does that mean?

Does it mean that if I (as DM) use set racial bonuses, it follows that because I don't allow halflings to move their +2 from Dex to Str...that I'm denying them +2 completely? Not even to Dex?

Try and re-frame it and I'll give you my honest opinion.

Which is unacceptable. It's a stupid, pointless restriction made by people who have since changed their mind, and enforced by people who mindlessly adhere to archaic rules.

You think it's stupid to have racial bonuses to match the concepts of that race, but I think it's sensible. My decision is not mindless, it is thoroughly thought through.

Except it's neither of those things, because it's a stat bonus that can be placed anywhere and that doesn't actually take away from the flavor of the race at all.

No, it can't be placed anywhere (per the PHB), and they are deliberately placed to reflect that race's concept in game mechanics.

Like they've done with each edition, and like they're doing now, since floating ASIs are the new rule.

An article in UA is not an errata. The rule is unchanged.

The rules say roll 4d6, drop the lowest, six times, with stat array being a useful quickbuild option... and point buy being nothing more than a variant, posted afterwards. So since the rules are the edict, guess you're rolling from now on, right? Ooh, sorry, you might just end up with halflings have 18s in Strength then.

Wait, you ignore the rules about 4d6 in favor of a variant? Huh, well then I guess the edict is up to you after all.

It's really funny that you prefer point buy, which specifically is designed to let you, quote, "build a character with a set of ability scores you choose individually" and yet are opposed to other people choosing their scores by deciding where to put the +2.

Actually, I much prefer rolling to either point-buy or array. Always have.

In fact, for years my main group just chose their six scores as if rolled on 3d6, and we trusted each other not to take the mickey.

If this results in a halfling with Str 18 or an orc with Int 18, I am totally okay with it!

But I would not be okay if they misused racial ability score bonuses to increase abilities not associated with that race!

It's not the final score that bothers me, it's the perverting of racial bonuses for things that are not about that part of character creation.

I would be just as horrified if a player created a 1st level fighter and swapped Fighting Style for Spellcasting. Just because they are both abilities available to 1st level PCs, it is not appropriate to claim that you get spellcasting because you are a fighter.

Example: the loxodon

Wanna explain that one?

I cannot. I don't have access to that race. What book is it from?

So yeah. ASIs should be so the player can customize their character, not so one race can have a pointless meta-advantage over another.

But racial bonuses are not there to customise your character, they are there to reflect the concepts of that race in game mechanics that apply because that's what that race gives you.

Where customisation comes in is when you choose your race, knowing the traits that choice gives your PC.

And since these traits are also designed with game balance in mind, there is no meta-advantage.

EXACTLY! That one particular halfling has a 16 Strength. Not halflings, as a race. That one guy, over there, the one with the muscles--he's one strong halfling dude.

Nobody has said all halflings are strong. I certainly haven't. I don't even like halflings as a species. What I've said is that there should be an option for someone who wants to make a really strong halfling.

That's my opinion too!

Use the character creation process, and do what it says. You can customise the bits that let you choose (where to place which roll, which race-and its traits-to choose, which class-and its features-to choose, which background to choose.

But there are things that are not customisable. There is a menu of classes, but there is no menu of individual features that you can mix and match, although some features do involve a choice (like Fighting Style). There is a menu of races to choose from, and you get the traits of that race, including ability score bonuses, but you cannot mix and match traits from different races except where they say you can.

That the game. That's how it works.

What's really funny is that all the "strong" races get Powerful Build, and halflings and the other small races don't, and small races take a penalty if they try to use Heavy Weapons. So the strong races are already stronger than halflings no matter their Strength. And what's extra funny is beyond that, Dex and Strength give the exact same attack and damage bonuses, so a halfling with Dex 16 and a short sword is going to inflict exactly as much damage as an orc with Strength 16 and a short sword.

What this means is that every one of your arguments about Strength versus Dexterity either already has an answer or is already moot.

Right! It's moot because the +2 to Dex that halflings get is just as good as the +2 to Str that goliaths get! So, no, there is no meta-advantage to races that get +2 Str, just like you just said!

And you might want to check yourself, because in the real world, the only people who talk about "cancel culture" like that are the people who gleefully try to "cancel" others and then whine when their own bad actions are called out.

My politics are slightly left of centre (at least in UK terms), and I believe that it's not only okay to debate ideas, I think it is essential for a healthy democracy. The idea that if you dare to even discuss certain subjects you should be punished is abhorrent. If an idea is awful, it should be exposed as awful by reasoned debate, not cancelled by either extreme of the political spectrum.

There. I've checked myself, and I'm fine, thank you very much!

 

[Arial Black]

And yet they just did it three times.

And if they keep making lineages who could have been any race, but are now something else, then their design going forward makes sense. You have nothing to base your complaints upon except a fear that some new lineage is going to be designed that was a race with static ASIs. And I can't respond to "but what about if" based solely on fear of the future in anyway except to tell you that the thing you fear, is likely not going to come to pass.

If they present a future race whose concept is that they used to be a different race, or that is famous for being adaptable, no problem!

But I find it unconvincing that every future race will have that concept.

I hope it doesn't come to pass, but remember this fear didn't spring out of nothing, it sprang from the words they wrote which strongly implied that future races would not have set racial bonuses.

Actually, it is entirely possible that they will create a sidebar that will cater to people who want to be told exactly what racial ability score modifiers to give their character, as a consequence of choosing that race.

If they do that, I will be entirely content. Fingers crossed! : )

 

[Chaosmancer]

If they present a future race whose concept is that they used to be a different race, or that is famous for being adaptable, no problem!

But I find it unconvincing that every future race will have that concept.

I hope it doesn't come to pass, but remember this fear didn't spring out of nothing, it sprang from the words they wrote which strongly implied that future races would not have set racial bonuses.

If they do that, I will be entirely content. Fingers crossed! : )

Firstly, if you are going to edit my post in the quote, mention it and own it. Don't just alter my words without acknowledging that you are doing so.

Secondly, I am curious why you decided to ignore the question about the lizardfolk statblocks.

But, really, I think that your position is fairly untenable, because you went through a lot of effort to tell Faolyn this

That's my opinion too!

Use the character creation process, and do what it says. You can customize the bits that let you choose (where to place which roll, which race-and its traits-to choose, which class-and its features-to choose, which background to choose.

But there are things that are not customisable. There is a menu of classes, but there is no menu of individual features that you can mix and match, although some features do involve a choice (like Fighting Style). There is a menu of races to choose from, and you get the traits of that race, including ability score bonuses, but you cannot mix and match traits from different races except where they say you can.

That the game. That's how it works.

See, because this is our opinion. Use the rules presented to you by the race or lineage. Customize what it lets you customize. Nothing more. The thing is though, the rules have changed. What these new lineages will allow you to choose has widened. These options, on the menu, have floating ability scores.

If your position is "we must follow the rules of the races and lineages as they are written in the books" then when those options are written, then you simply follow those rules. You aren't convinced that every future lineage will work for this system? Then when you find one that doesn't, challenge that lineage. But challenging the entire system because you don't believe they can work in the design space? That's on you, and no one else is required to believe that working in this space is impossible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, odds feedback was actually considered?

Approaching 0%.

More like 100%, and it just mattered if people where generally positive about them or not.