For those saying that these new Gothic lineages make no sense because they eliminate biological features of the original parentage:
You don't get crazy undead (or fey) superpowers for free.
A "template" method means the crazy undead superpowers have to be balanced out by outrageous drawbacks because the template has to be a net zero in terms of power gain. Retaining 100% of your original parentage's abilities whilst also adding a bunch of template abilities is the sort of thing the idjits who think the Tasha's rules are about nothing but powergaming should actually be worried about. Nor would 'outrageous drawbacks' even really work - when a player goes out of their way to try and play in such a way as to minimize those drawbacks (as any creature afflicted by them sensibly would, a'la only adventuring at night if one suffers from Sunlight Hypersensitivity), people will scream their asses off at that player for METAGAMING(!!!). It simply doesn't work for most games to attach random superpowers to the unmodified stat block of some other critter. If a player is truly interested in playing a dhampir, a hexblood, or a reborn for its own sake because they've got a cool idea they want to explore, then they'll have to pitch the abilities of their 'normal' lineage. Sacrifice is at the heart of each of these new gothic lineages - players wanting to both have and eat their cake are running so counter to the entire idea that I can't imagine any DM worth their salt letting it happen.
Besides. People yowling about a tortle getting bitten by a vampire and losing its shell when it turns into a dhampir are forgetting that getting bitten by a vampire is not at all how one produces a dhampir. That's just how you get vampire spawn. A dhampir, specifically, is a corruption of a corruption - the result of the vampirization process going wrong, usually in the womb. The dhampir lineage is not an excuse to make a deathless mutant ninja tortle, it's what happens when another species is corrupted at inception with vampiric blight or subjected to Dark Ritual: Plot Creation.
Not all rules can cover all edge cases. A player with a character concept for a dhampir-born tortle or aarakocra (i.e. the only two species anyone cares about) will have to work with the DM to create a mixed species block, likely by omitting the dhampir's integrated spider climb in favor of the shell or wings. It's regrettable but sometimes necessary, which is why more robust homebrewing guidelines and a system that doesn't actively fight against homebrew solutions at every turn would be much more helpful than the current 5e PHB system.
The problem with replacing spider climb with flying for an aarakocra(I think I spelled it right) is the beak with fangs.
I'm going off the Design note in the UA which says:
Following in that book’s footsteps, 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.
Bolded, which I assumed was referring to Natural Illusionist. If correct, that trait will stay no matter your lineage, where you put your ASI's, what languages you speak, etc...
My reading is.
The Players Handbook has the "race" mechanics include ability improvement, language, and alignment.
But from now on, "race" will no longer include these.
Instead, every character regardless of "race", will freely choose ability improvement, language, and alignment.
So for example, if someone is the "gnome lineage" AND uses the "gnome race" traits, then becoming the "dhampir lineage" will also replace the gnome race traits with new dhampir race traits. However, this dhampir appears to remain a member of the "gnome lineage" despite losing the "gnome race" mechanics.
In any case, when a player chooses ability improvement, language, and alignment, this is now part of the character generation process, and has nothing to do with race traits. It doesnt matter if the character is gnome or dhampir. Every player character must choose the ability improvement, language, and alignment.
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
At which point, Halfast, one has to ask why the character is playing the birbpir to begin with, if they don't want any of the dhampir's traits but all of the aarakocra's traits. If they want to be able to fly and don't want the vampiric bite, the heck is the point?
Again, these protests are ridiculous. The aarakocra 'dhampir' with no vampiric traits and the ability to fly is not a dhampir, it's just an aarakocra. The entire intent of these Gothic lineages is to appeal to players playing a gothic, dark fantasy game and who want these classic options from that genre as possibilities for their characters to explore. Yarping that one cannot have a flying illusion-casting heavily armored dhampir hexblooded ninja tortle assembled from the reborn pieces of elves, orcs, warforged, and at least one dragon is not an injunction against the Gothic lineages, it's a sign that a DM needs to have a sit-down with that player and discuss game themes.
I'm going off the Design note in the UA which says:
Following in that book’s footsteps, 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.
Bolded, which I assumed was referring to Natural Illusionist. If correct, that trait will stay no matter your lineage, where you put your ASI's, what languages you speak, etc...
My reading is.
The Players Handbook has the "race" mechanics include ability improvement, language, and alignment.
But from now on, "race" will no longer include these.
Instead, every character regardless of "race", will freely choose ability improvement, language, and alignment.
So for example, if someone is the "gnome lineage" AND uses the "gnome race" traits, then becoming the "dhampir lineage" will also replace the gnome race traits with new dhampir race traits. However, this dhampir appears to remain a member of the "gnome lineage" despite losing the "gnome race" mechanics.
In any case, when a player chooses ability improvement, language, and alignment, this is now part of the character generation process, and has nothing to do with race traits. It doesnt matter if the character is gnome or dhampir. Every player character must choose the ability improvement, language, and alignment.
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
But that is true anyway! For example, you can definitely be wood-filled warforged that gets turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir.
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
But that is true anyway! For example, you can definitely be wood-filled warforged that gets turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir.
The implication is that it's pretty weird you'd remain a straw-filled deathless construct in the process, and that your straw-filled interior has any use for blood.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
But that is true anyway! For example, you can definitely be wood-filled warforged that gets turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir.
The implication is that it's pretty weird you'd remain a straw-filled deathless construct in the process, and that your straw-filled interior has any use for blood.
Likewise it is odd that the wood-filled warforged needs blood when becoming a dhampir. Yet it does.
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
But that is true anyway! For example, you can definitely be wood-filled warforged that gets turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir.
The implication is that it's pretty weird you'd remain a straw-filled deathless construct in the process, and that your straw-filled interior has any use for blood.
Likewise it is odd that the wood-filled warforged needs blood when becoming a dhampir. Yet it does.
Warforged are not wood-filled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
For those saying that these new Gothic lineages make no sense because they eliminate biological features of the original parentage:
You don't get crazy undead (or fey) superpowers for free.
A "template" method means the crazy undead superpowers have to be balanced out by outrageous drawbacks because the template has to be a net zero in terms of power gain. Retaining 100% of your original parentage's abilities whilst also adding a bunch of template abilities is the sort of thing the idjits who think the Tasha's rules are about nothing but powergaming should actually be worried about. Nor would 'outrageous drawbacks' even really work - when a player goes out of their way to try and play in such a way as to minimize those drawbacks (as any creature afflicted by them sensibly would, a'la only adventuring at night if one suffers from Sunlight Hypersensitivity), people will scream their asses off at that player for METAGAMING(!!!). It simply doesn't work for most games to attach random superpowers to the unmodified stat block of some other critter. If a player is truly interested in playing a dhampir, a hexblood, or a reborn for its own sake because they've got a cool idea they want to explore, then they'll have to pitch the abilities of their 'normal' lineage. Sacrifice is at the heart of each of these new gothic lineages - players wanting to both have and eat their cake are running so counter to the entire idea that I can't imagine any DM worth their salt letting it happen.
Besides. People yowling about a tortle getting bitten by a vampire and losing its shell when it turns into a dhampir are forgetting that getting bitten by a vampire is not at all how one produces a dhampir. That's just how you get vampire spawn. A dhampir, specifically, is a corruption of a corruption - the result of the vampirization process going wrong, usually in the womb. The dhampir lineage is not an excuse to make a deathless mutant ninja tortle, it's what happens when another species is corrupted at inception with vampiric blight or subjected to Dark Ritual: Plot Creation.
Not all rules can cover all edge cases. A player with a character concept for a dhampir-born tortle or aarakocra (i.e. the only two species anyone cares about) will have to work with the DM to create a mixed species block, likely by omitting the dhampir's integrated spider climb in favor of the shell or wings. It's regrettable but sometimes necessary, which is why more robust homebrewing guidelines and a system that doesn't actively fight against homebrew solutions at every turn would be much more helpful than the current 5e PHB system.
I don’t know if I’m one of the people you are responding to, I assume so since I’ve mentioned Tortle on a couple posts. To be honest I like the gothic lineages. However, I do think they bring up questions that need clarification.
I’m not looking to have a Dhampir Tortle with the benefits of both, I agree that if you are Dhampir you are that and only that. I also believe this needs to be something chosen at character creation. But the fact that they explicitly state it can happen later in a campaign is what brings up these questions. You can be a 17th level half-orc and then be changed into one of the three gothic lineages it seems. Which just seems weird to me. Hence the questions. If they remove that sentence about happening later in a campaign then a lot of my questions go away.
Also, it’s getting confusing with keeping separate, Tasha’s customizing origin (you can place your ability mods wherever, you can swap skill, weapon, tool, language options), custom lineage (you get +2 to a stat and other options like a feat), gothic lineages (which gives its own “race” traits but can happen at any time during a campaign) and the lineage system (mentioned in the design notes of the UA which seem to be similar but different from Tasha’s but we don’t know exactly how it will be implemented)
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
But that is true anyway! For example, you can definitely be wood-filled warforged that gets turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir.
The implication is that it's pretty weird you'd remain a straw-filled deathless construct in the process, and that your straw-filled interior has any use for blood.
Likewise it is odd that the wood-filled warforged needs blood when becoming a dhampir. Yet it does.
Warforged are not wood-filled.
According to Wayfarers Guide to Eberron (p67):
"The first warforged were mindless automatons, ... steel soldiers. An unexpected breakthrough produced fully sentient soldiers, blending organic and inorganic materials. Warforged are made from wood and metal."
Warforged are understood as resembling a construct, somewhat like a golem, being an outer shell of steel filled with wood.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic an inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints. ... A juggernaut warrior is a massive brute with a heavy steel frame, while a skirmisher can be crafted from wood and light mithral. ... They're formed from stone and steel."
The warforge is wood and metal: skeleton is wood/metal/stone, wood muscles, metal outer shell.
My personal feeling lies in that more customization options are good for anyone wanting to get into the game, but I think that having a "suggested" selection, based on an existing setting culture, might also be a good idea as well. It's fine to change up the system a little, but creating races entirely separate from culture feels too mechanical to me from a standpoint of character creation, and especially as a new player. I like the ability to come up with whatever I want, but I still want a sort of "start" point of what I'm working with, or at least a general reference.
If they kept creating races like the old ones in 5e, but made notes of "suggested characteristics" replacing the standard ones, you could create a baseline for each one with a written culture as a starting point, but not restrict them from being altered as needed to fit other settings easily.
TL;DR - Keep changes, but give 'suggested' culture based stats/abilities as a baseline
All I think is that the system as published in Tasha's is not complete, they really need to tie it in with racial choice and that is based on the wording in this last UA. 1) I really think it should go you pick your race Gnome, Dwarf whatever granting you your size and base movement and any abilities based on the race darkvision and such as detailed in the UA. 2) Then you choose your lineage of the 3 from the UA or the custom one in Tasha's. 3) Then you add in your background this will give you your languages, skills, and bonus weapon proficiency's. 4) Then you pick your class apply your lineage ASI's to your choice. 5) Then you get your equipment in whatever manner you choose as presented in game now. Now what we need is a rework of the backgrounds in the game. I mean you choose soldier or mercenary but they don't grant you skill in a weapon or two. I do think they are really going in the right direction
All I think is that the system as published in Tasha's is not complete, they really need to tie it in with racial choice and that is based on the wording in this last UA. 1) I really think it should go you pick your race Gnome, Dwarf whatever granting you your size and base movement and any abilities based on the race darkvision and such as detailed in the UA. 2) Then you choose your lineage of the 3 from the UA or the custom one in Tasha's.
Both the Custom Lineage and the UA Gothic Lineages determine your size and your speed. Custom Lineage determines whether you have Darkvision or not, the Gothic Lineages specify you only get their racial traits and none of the traits your possible previous race had. What exactly is the purpose of your first step, given everything the lineages trump anyway?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
All I think is that the system as published in Tasha's is not complete, they really need to tie it in with racial choice and that is based on the wording in this last UA. 1) I really think it should go you pick your race Gnome, Dwarf whatever granting you your size and base movement and any abilities based on the race darkvision and such as detailed in the UA. 2) Then you choose your lineage of the 3 from the UA or the custom one in Tasha's.
Both the Custom Lineage and the UA Gothic Lineages determine your size and your speed. Custom Lineage determines whether you have Darkvision or not, the Gothic Lineages specify you only get their racial traits and none of the traits your possible previous race had. What exactly is the purpose of your first step, given everything the lineages trump anyway?
I think it should go:
Lineage
Culture
Background
Class
Basically splitting Race into 2 parts (Lineage and Culture).
I also do not like the idea of "replacing" Lineage as that creates too many issues (see Gothic Lineage), however there could be templates that do the same thing that go on top of your current Lineage.
All I think is that the system as published in Tasha's is not complete, they really need to tie it in with racial choice and that is based on the wording in this last UA. 1) I really think it should go you pick your race Gnome, Dwarf whatever granting you your size and base movement and any abilities based on the race darkvision and such as detailed in the UA. 2) Then you choose your lineage of the 3 from the UA or the custom one in Tasha's.
Both the Custom Lineage and the UA Gothic Lineages determine your size and your speed. Custom Lineage determines whether you have Darkvision or not, the Gothic Lineages specify you only get their racial traits and none of the traits your possible previous race had. What exactly is the purpose of your first step, given everything the lineages trump anyway?
I think it should go:
Lineage
Culture
Background
Class
Basically splitting Race into 2 parts (Lineage and Culture).
I also do not like the idea of "replacing" Lineage as that creates too many issues (see Gothic Lineage), however there could be templates that do the same thing that go on top of your current Lineage.
I could live with that, I would also add Personality.
Even tho the class tends to be the first thing a player decides to play, the scores, lineage, culture, background, and personality, help flesh out how the character concept for that class.
The problem with replacing spider climb with flying for an aarakocra(I think I spelled it right) is the beak with fangs.
Fun fact for the day: There's species of birds, including the Vampire Finch, that have evolved to parasitically subsist off of other animals by feeding off their blood!
The problem with replacing spider climb with flying for an aarakocra(I think I spelled it right) is the beak with fangs.
Fun fact for the day: There's species of birds, including the Vampire Finch, that have evolved to parasitically subsist off of other animals by feeding off their blood!
I think the UA needs to be more explicit that it's the case (as I've said maybe here and definitely elsewhere this seems early drawing board at least in presentation), but I'm in agreement with those in the Tortle case that the UA as written means the Shell armor is lost in "the becoming" of a Gothline (portmanteau of Gothic and Lineage, it works, use it). Story wise it's not hard to claim the living vitality that grants the Tortle natural armor when in pure humanoid form is lost to whatever gives it undead vitality so while there may be some apparent shell to its appearance, the function is lost to undeath or Fey transformation in the case of the Hexblood. I'm not sure where Gnome illusions would land, but I could see in the case of the Reborn a stance being made that the Reborn is in itself a grand illusion of death appearing as life.
As for the what about race specific feats. Good question, lineages could free that up. Someone else I think Gvyari suggested feats based on nature (humanoid, undead, fiend, etc.). And that is a good intuitive move, though the present feat system doesn't have any feats that work like that yet, so as I've said, lots of work to be done. I can say I'm interested in where it's going though.
And again, at least in terms of a "reconciled" or "consolidated" ruleset merging PHB with Tasha's I think "both" would be the answer, with stock templates of PHB style races showing how lineages are usually expressed in FR or other published campaign worlds. I still think the level of customization being strived for isn't a universal appeal. Some new players I work with want to get into crunchy building, others prefer something closer to pre-gen where the choices are a bit simpler. I don't see any reason why the future of 5e can't or shouldn't support both.
I think potential controversy may be reconciling the presently declared future that it's "+2 and +1" (and maybe someone more knowledgeable to mechanic rationales can explain to me why we can't just have 3 +1s that can be done as such or +2 and +1) with legacy races that have +2 +2, etc. or +1 across the board humans. What I feel needs to be done is a calculus in the mechanics where x# of +1s = darkvision or natural armor, etc. But that's just because I like diverse options BUT also a level playing field.
The problem with replacing spider climb with flying for an aarakocra(I think I spelled it right) is the beak with fangs.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
If characters retain lineages, this one could end up a gnome dhampir (including undead) hexblood (including fey) reborn construct.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
At which point, Halfast, one has to ask why the character is playing the birbpir to begin with, if they don't want any of the dhampir's traits but all of the aarakocra's traits. If they want to be able to fly and don't want the vampiric bite, the heck is the point?
Again, these protests are ridiculous. The aarakocra 'dhampir' with no vampiric traits and the ability to fly is not a dhampir, it's just an aarakocra. The entire intent of these Gothic lineages is to appeal to players playing a gothic, dark fantasy game and who want these classic options from that genre as possibilities for their characters to explore. Yarping that one cannot have a flying illusion-casting heavily armored dhampir hexblooded ninja tortle assembled from the reborn pieces of elves, orcs, warforged, and at least one dragon is not an injunction against the Gothic lineages, it's a sign that a DM needs to have a sit-down with that player and discuss game themes.
Please do not contact or message me.
Huh. I think you are right.
There can be a gnome, who survived a vampire attack becoming a dhampir, who later makes a bargain with a hag, then dies and becomes a reborn.
If so, only the reborn lineage defines the race traits that are available, despite retaining the other lineages.
Also, be careful of having too many tags, because tags make awesome flavor but also create vulnerabilities, such as a hostile cleric turning a character who has the undead creature type. Meanwhile, a sword that harms demons would affect a gnoll character who exhibits a fiend (demon) tag.
he / him
Well, I did say “if”. I’m not so sure that’s true.
edit: to expand on why I'm not so sure, 1) nothing actually says they do; 2) it would mean a straw-filled construct could get turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir; 3) it would mean the utterly dead corpse of a former undead gnome (which isn't anything anymore at that point, other than a corpse), can be turned into a golem-like construct and miraculously become undead again in the process (despite reborn characters normally having to be either undead or a construct, not both); 4) an undead construct hexblood could regrow missing parts of its body used as magic tokens.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But that is true anyway! For example, you can definitely be wood-filled warforged that gets turned into a blood-sucking undead dhampir.
he / him
The implication is that it's pretty weird you'd remain a straw-filled deathless construct in the process, and that your straw-filled interior has any use for blood.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Likewise it is odd that the wood-filled warforged needs blood when becoming a dhampir. Yet it does.
he / him
Warforged are not wood-filled.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don’t know if I’m one of the people you are responding to, I assume so since I’ve mentioned Tortle on a couple posts. To be honest I like the gothic lineages. However, I do think they bring up questions that need clarification.
I’m not looking to have a Dhampir Tortle with the benefits of both, I agree that if you are Dhampir you are that and only that. I also believe this needs to be something chosen at character creation. But the fact that they explicitly state it can happen later in a campaign is what brings up these questions. You can be a 17th level half-orc and then be changed into one of the three gothic lineages it seems. Which just seems weird to me. Hence the questions. If they remove that sentence about happening later in a campaign then a lot of my questions go away.
Also, it’s getting confusing with keeping separate, Tasha’s customizing origin (you can place your ability mods wherever, you can swap skill, weapon, tool, language options), custom lineage (you get +2 to a stat and other options like a feat), gothic lineages (which gives its own “race” traits but can happen at any time during a campaign) and the lineage system (mentioned in the design notes of the UA which seem to be similar but different from Tasha’s but we don’t know exactly how it will be implemented)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
According to Wayfarers Guide to Eberron (p67):
"The first warforged were mindless automatons, ... steel soldiers. An unexpected breakthrough produced fully sentient soldiers, blending organic and inorganic materials. Warforged are made from wood and metal."
Warforged are understood as resembling a construct, somewhat like a golem, being an outer shell of steel filled with wood.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic an inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints. ... A juggernaut warrior is a massive brute with a heavy steel frame, while a skirmisher can be crafted from wood and light mithral. ... They're formed from stone and steel."
The warforge is wood and metal: skeleton is wood/metal/stone, wood muscles, metal outer shell.
he / him
My personal feeling lies in that more customization options are good for anyone wanting to get into the game, but I think that having a "suggested" selection, based on an existing setting culture, might also be a good idea as well. It's fine to change up the system a little, but creating races entirely separate from culture feels too mechanical to me from a standpoint of character creation, and especially as a new player. I like the ability to come up with whatever I want, but I still want a sort of "start" point of what I'm working with, or at least a general reference.
If they kept creating races like the old ones in 5e, but made notes of "suggested characteristics" replacing the standard ones, you could create a baseline for each one with a written culture as a starting point, but not restrict them from being altered as needed to fit other settings easily.
TL;DR - Keep changes, but give 'suggested' culture based stats/abilities as a baseline
All I think is that the system as published in Tasha's is not complete, they really need to tie it in with racial choice and that is based on the wording in this last UA.
1) I really think it should go you pick your race Gnome, Dwarf whatever granting you your size and base movement and any abilities based on the race darkvision and such as detailed in the UA.
2) Then you choose your lineage of the 3 from the UA or the custom one in Tasha's.
3) Then you add in your background this will give you your languages, skills, and bonus weapon proficiency's.
4) Then you pick your class apply your lineage ASI's to your choice.
5) Then you get your equipment in whatever manner you choose as presented in game now.
Now what we need is a rework of the backgrounds in the game. I mean you choose soldier or mercenary but they don't grant you skill in a weapon or two. I do think they are really going in the right direction
Both the Custom Lineage and the UA Gothic Lineages determine your size and your speed. Custom Lineage determines whether you have Darkvision or not, the Gothic Lineages specify you only get their racial traits and none of the traits your possible previous race had. What exactly is the purpose of your first step, given everything the lineages trump anyway?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it should go:
Basically splitting Race into 2 parts (Lineage and Culture).
I also do not like the idea of "replacing" Lineage as that creates too many issues (see Gothic Lineage), however there could be templates that do the same thing that go on top of your current Lineage.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I could live with that, I would also add Personality.
• Ability Scores
• Lineage
• Culture (including language)
• Background
• Personality (including alignment, ideal, bond, and quirk)
• Class
Even tho the class tends to be the first thing a player decides to play, the scores, lineage, culture, background, and personality, help flesh out how the character concept for that class.
he / him
Fun fact for the day: There's species of birds, including the Vampire Finch, that have evolved to parasitically subsist off of other animals by feeding off their blood!
I love Aarakocra, thanks for the character idea.
*snerk* Okay, you made my day with this one.
I think the UA needs to be more explicit that it's the case (as I've said maybe here and definitely elsewhere this seems early drawing board at least in presentation), but I'm in agreement with those in the Tortle case that the UA as written means the Shell armor is lost in "the becoming" of a Gothline (portmanteau of Gothic and Lineage, it works, use it). Story wise it's not hard to claim the living vitality that grants the Tortle natural armor when in pure humanoid form is lost to whatever gives it undead vitality so while there may be some apparent shell to its appearance, the function is lost to undeath or Fey transformation in the case of the Hexblood. I'm not sure where Gnome illusions would land, but I could see in the case of the Reborn a stance being made that the Reborn is in itself a grand illusion of death appearing as life.
As for the what about race specific feats. Good question, lineages could free that up. Someone else I think Gvyari suggested feats based on nature (humanoid, undead, fiend, etc.). And that is a good intuitive move, though the present feat system doesn't have any feats that work like that yet, so as I've said, lots of work to be done. I can say I'm interested in where it's going though.
And again, at least in terms of a "reconciled" or "consolidated" ruleset merging PHB with Tasha's I think "both" would be the answer, with stock templates of PHB style races showing how lineages are usually expressed in FR or other published campaign worlds. I still think the level of customization being strived for isn't a universal appeal. Some new players I work with want to get into crunchy building, others prefer something closer to pre-gen where the choices are a bit simpler. I don't see any reason why the future of 5e can't or shouldn't support both.
I think potential controversy may be reconciling the presently declared future that it's "+2 and +1" (and maybe someone more knowledgeable to mechanic rationales can explain to me why we can't just have 3 +1s that can be done as such or +2 and +1) with legacy races that have +2 +2, etc. or +1 across the board humans. What I feel needs to be done is a calculus in the mechanics where x# of +1s = darkvision or natural armor, etc. But that's just because I like diverse options BUT also a level playing field.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.