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."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

it's late edition, 2024 is probably 6E, so, there'll be some wonkiness on the way.

I will venmo you a dollar if there is a 6e in the next 10 years, and I'll venmo you 5 if it's as soon as 2024.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I still want to know how we're supposed to represent cultural traits in character creation going forward. You can't put everything into class, and expanding background to accommodate it creates two different kinds of backgrounds. Throwing it out entirely, as WotC seems to be doing, limits character concepts mechanically.

Cultural traits are way more of a potential minefield than racial ones.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think if WotC/Hasbro directed the RPG team to do that, they'd probably replace much of the RPG team.

Which would be incredibly risky. The last thing WotC want to do is dis-employ an entire team of developers who could make a 5E rival which was probably more in-tune with the RPG zeitgeist than anything WotC could do, and they'd get massive publicity from the whole affair, so could probably do something like a multi-million-dollar Kickstarter even if they couldn't get funding elsewhere.

Again even if it was a small success it could eat a really noticeable chunk of 5E's profits for WotC which currently seem to be very high (given WotC is making Hasbro like $400m+ in profit (not turnover or gross, profit) right now. If it was acrimonious enough, esp. if a 6E wasn't very compatible, the whole thing could snowball, Paizo-style, which would be particularly unfortunate.

So I think, weirdly, we're safe from any large-scale changes like that. They might try and do the same by stealth over the next three years, but I'd honestly be surprised if the attitude to D&D over there was anything but "Don't kill the golden goose!". Not an attitude anyone has really ever previously had to D&D - not even TSR.

I will venmo you a dollar if there is a 6e in the next 10 years, and I'll venmo you 5 if it's as soon as 2024.

Noted!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Cultural traits are way more of a potential minefield than racial ones.

Granted, but if my halfling was raised by elves, I want that to be more than a role-playing thing. If I grew up in a culture that prizes physical prowess, or magical knowledge, or martial training, I should be able to represent that on my character. I refuse to believe that the concept is so problematic that it needs to be tossed wholesale and replaced by...?

 

[JEB]

I think you're reading a lot into some lazy NPC design.

Actually, now I kind of want to do a comparison and figure out what baseline racial traits were common to the species generally, vs. "PC exclusive", vs. "NPC exclusive". Could be illuminating. But that's probably something for another thread.

I still want to know how we're supposed to represent cultural traits in character creation going forward. You can't put everything into class, and expanding background to accommodate it creates two different kinds of backgrounds. Throwing it out entirely, as WotC seems to be doing, limits character concepts mechanically.

The way I'd go about it for a 5.5E or a 6E would be to take the existing "subraces" and make them "cultures", and shuffle around the current traits accordingly so they're either on the species side (for stuff that really is part of the genetic baseline, emphasizing physical traits) or the culture side (for learned stuff, emphasizing but not exclusively mental traits).

I'd also require every core race to have at least two cultures. (And I might retire the half-elf or half-orc from the core, with regular orc replacing the latter.)

(This might be similar to how Ancestry and Culture handled it, but I haven't actually read it yet.)

IMO, the only existing problem with the new changes is how unplayable it makes Humans. It's like 5e has fully adopted the OSR aspects and made Humans outclassed by literally every other available option.

Yeah, that's one of the big questions they'll need to address whenever they revise the core races for the new paradigm. (I assume at least theoretical discussions have already happened, since this is a company full of game designers.) I suppose you could make the variant human the default human, but that requires making feats no longer optional, which changes some assumptions of the base game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Granted, but if my halfling was raised by elves, I want that to be more than a role-playing thing. If I grew up in a culture that prizes physical prowess, or magical knowledge, or martial training, I should be able to represent that on my character. I refuse to believe that the concept is so problematic that it needs to be tossed wholesale and replaced by...?

Indeed, and if the character's ability score distribution, skill, background and class choices, and attitude are insufficient, there are suggestions for the DM to swap around some stuff for the character in some books.

There is nothing wrong, per se about culture rules. However while D&D race rules have no (or shouldn't) have any reflection on human races, cultures do.
Frankly, just allowing a mix-and-match of skill choices and similar would probably be better than trying to codify different cultures and their attributes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed, and if the character's ability score distribution, skill, background and class choices, and attitude are insufficient, there are suggestions for the DM to swap around some stuff for the character in some books.

There is nothing wrong, per se about culture rules. However while D&D race rules have no (or shouldn't) have any reflection on human races, cultures do.
Frankly, just allowing a mix-and-match of skill choices and similar would probably be better than trying to codify different cultures and their attributes.

So are you saying that we should just abandon creating fantasy cultures, because it can't be done without referencing real cultures? We're getting dangerously close to waging war on fiction in general.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So are you saying that we should just abandon creating fantasy cultures, because it can't be done without referencing real cultures? We're getting dangerously close to waging war on fiction in general.

No, I'm pretty sure I did not say that.

I'm saying that assigning attributes to cultures is going to be tricky, because outside of "magic cultures", there will be parallels with real cultures.
Particularly if those attributes include set ability score bonuses.

And if they don't include set ability score bonuses, and are just skill and tool proficiences etc, why do they need to be codified? Rather than try to dictate what someone from a "merchant culture", "urban culture", "tribal culture" etcetera should get, why not just allow free choice from a list of options for players? That way, they can build their character as being from any culture, even one not listed.

Does that help?

 

[Zardnaar]

No, I'm pretty sure I did not say that.

I'm saying that assigning attributes to cultures is going to be tricky, because outside of "magic cultures", there will be parallels with real cultures.
Particularly if those attributes include set ability score bonuses.

And if they don't include set ability score bonuses, and are just skill and tool proficiences etc, why do they need to be codified? Rather than try to dictate what someone from a "merchant culture", "urban culture", "tribal culture" etcetera should get, why not just allow free choice from a list of options for players? That way, they can build their character as being from any culture, even one not listed.

Does that help?

More complications though.

Floating ability scores and backgrounds about the best you can hope for.

Pathfinder 2 has all sorts of feats, left me cold trying to make sense of it all and checked out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I'm pretty sure I did not say that.

I'm saying that assigning attributes to cultures is going to be tricky, because outside of "magic cultures", there will be parallels with real cultures.
Particularly if those attributes include set ability score bonuses.

And if they don't include set ability score bonuses, and are just skill and tool proficiences etc, why do they need to be codified? Rather than try to dictate what someone from a "merchant culture", "urban culture", "tribal culture" etcetera should get, why not just allow free choice from a list of options for players? That way, they can build their character as being from any culture, even one not listed.

Does that help?

But as soon as you do have fantasy cultures, which if you have dwarves, elves etc at all you have to, they have aspects of them that make then distinguishable from others, and therefore signposts indicating what proficiencies a member of that culture should have. I just want a mechanical option to add those proficiencies to my character, and the current direction of character creation is saying no.