Unearthed Arcana 1/26/21 - Gothic Lineages

[thoroughlyS]

The Tanarukk as both orc and demon listed as its subtypes.

Those aren't types, those are tags. Tanarukk's only have the fiend type.

I have to read everything very carefully first but remember that there are now options for better unarmed attacks like Simic Hybrid, Unarmed Fighting Style (d8 dice) and Path of the Beast (d6 magical damage +1 attack).

Weirdly, the Dhampyr bite is a simple melee weapon, not an unarmed strike.

[Sigreid]

Those aren't types, those are tags. Tanarukk's only have the fiend type.

Weirdly, the Dhampyr bite is a simple melee weapon, not an unarmed strike.

Thus a paladin could have a smite bite.

[OracleofWuffing]

My headcannon involves a Dhampir that craves Esoteric Humors, and sates it by scrying up internet memes.

[Lupine]

Shame it wouldn't work with sneak attack. Powerbiting people as a rogue is a funny image to me.

That would be EXTREMELY over powered. Rogues can easily do 26 damage at level 10, equating to a 52 damage swing, that you could do three times in a pinch.

The thing that strikes me odd about the dhampir is that they get standard 60 ft darkvision. It would be far more flavorful to give them 120 with sunlight sensativity, drow style. Really drive the “you are part vampire”

[Dienekes]

To me it seems more bizarre than interesting. What rationale, what physical mechanism, is supposed to be in play here? It's about as comprehensible as Cha-based movement rates or Str-based AC.

Their suck capacity, I’d wager.

[KorvinStarmast]

"You run away from yourself and have an existential crisis until you take a hit which snaps you back to the present"

Heh, that works too. And it's a bit funnier.

I would like to say that I don't hold myself as any kind of authority on this subject. I am glad that someone has adopted my guide so readily.

Each of the tools folks have come up has their strengths and weaknesses, to be sure. I certainly appreciate the work you have put in, and I really liked the two sheets that showed the across the board comparison and then the "here's how I'd try to level things a bit" - inexact, as a lot of balance efforts are, but worth considering as a balance consideration the next time someone says "what if we ..."

[Zevox]

Huh. Well, I don't mind this lineages idea itself, but I don't think any of these are for me, personally. Closest thing to one I'd consider playing is the Hexblood, and even then, I doubt it - I just at least understand why there might be appeal to playing a character with such a close connection to Hags (and the "Magic Token" ability in particular is legitimately a cool, flavorful way to portray that). I definitely wouldn't want to play a Dhampir, personally, and I don't even understand Reborn. Much like the Reborn Rogue subclass, they just seem like an odd mish-mash of strange concepts to me - the most coherent one being the elements clearly based on Frankenstein, while others like "you were resurrected with magic, but something went wrong" don't even make sense to me on a base level. What went wrong? How? Why? Why would this weird combination of maybe-undead-maybe-not traits and amnesia be the result? Why is this whole lineage being so vague about what it is and why it exists?* It's all just odd to me.

Still, these things don't need to appeal to me personally - Hexblood and Dhampir at least are fine. I just really don't get Reborn.

*Actually, that's a bit of a problem for all of them, I think. They're so vague that it takes a while to even figure out what the concept even is. Dhampir and Hexblood it just eventually becomes clear are basically Vampire Spawn and some kind of Hag child as the baseline, with a little wiggle room left for there being non-standard ways you might have ended up that way or slight variations in how your specific case works. Reborn just feels like it's so vague about what it is that it lacks even that much baseline to grab onto to understand it.

[Dark.Revenant]

I don't even understand Reborn. Much like the Reborn Rogue subclass, they just seem like an odd mish-mash of strange concepts to me - the most coherent one being the elements clearly based on Frankenstein, while others like "you were resurrected with magic, but something went wrong" don't even make sense to me on a base level. What went wrong? How? Why? Why would this weird combination of maybe-undead-maybe-not traits and amnesia be the result? Why is this whole lineage being so vague about what it is and why it exists?* It's all just odd to me.

I just really don't get Reborn.

*Reborn just feels like it's so vague about what it is that it lacks even that much baseline to grab onto to understand it.

The Monster (Frankenstein)
Alphonse Elric (Fullmetal Alchemist)
Duane Adelier (Unsounded)
The Returned, e.g. Lightsong (Warbreaker)
V/Johnny Silverhand (Cyberpunk 2077)

[KorvinStarmast]

The Monster (Frankenstein)

All we now need is minion rules to allow for a mob to follow it around with pitchforks and torches. (I alluded to that up thread, but being an old AD&D 1e and Original player, minions and henchmen are kinda hard wired into my feel for the game ...

[Zevox]

The Monster (Frankenstein)
Alphonse Elric (Fullmetal Alchemist)
Duane Adelier (Unsounded)
The Returned, e.g. Lightsong (Warbreaker)
V/Johnny Silverhand (Cyberpunk 2077)

Then perhaps part of the issue is that the only one of those I'm at all familiar with is Frankenstein. I've heard of Fullmetal Alchemist and Cyberpunk as series, but have never had any interest in them and know very little about them, including not having heard those characters' names before. And I haven't even heard of the other two.

Do any of those possess enough similarities to Frankenstein's monster to warrant mashing the concepts together like this? Because it really feels like they're trying to mash together some rather disparate things that may not belong together, at least to my perspective.

[Dark.Revenant]

Then perhaps part of the issue is that the only one of those I'm at all familiar with is Frankenstein. I've heard of Fullmetal Alchemist and Cyberpunk as series, but have never had any interest in them and know very little about them, including not having heard those characters' names before. And I haven't even heard of the other two.

Do any of those possess enough similarities to Frankenstein's monster to warrant mashing the concepts together like this? Because it really feels like they're trying to mash together some rather disparate things that may not belong together, at least to my perspective.

I listed those five mostly because they're the ones I'm most familiar with, and that they're from a wide variety of media types.

We all know about Frankenstein's Monster.

Alphonse Elric, one of the two main characters of Fullmetal Alchemist, died in an alchemy accident and was—miraculously—brought back to "life" when his brother (the other protagonist) sacrificed another of his own limbs to shove Al's soul into a nearby suit of armor. Essentially, Alphonse became an animated suit of armor.

Duane Adelier, one of the two main characters of Unsounded (webcomic), was assassinated and then brought back to "life" by turning him into a novel type of zombie, maintaining his mind, magic powers, and free will but trapped in his own rotting corpse. He's practically a lich.

The Returned are explored in Warbreaker (modern novel). They are people who have died but thereafter spontaneously returned to life with divinely perfect ageless bodies that lack pesky mortal constraints like the need to eat or drink, although they do have to periodically consume energy in the form of "breaths", which is basically a magical currency that everyone is born with exactly one of.

V and Johnny Silverhand both die, but V is brought back to life with the extra baggage of Johnny Silverhand's pseudo-AI copy (he's also long-dead) floating around in his head. Both of their memories and mannerisms start to blend together, causing a great deal of drama.

[Arkhios]

Thus a paladin could have a smite bite.

Long Death Monk could make good use of their bite!

Simple Weapons are monk weapons!

[Waterdeep Merch]

Since it's very likely these were created with Ravenloft specifically in mind, the Reborn covers archetypes that could be common in Lamordia or Nova Vaasa (sentient flesh golems) or Barovia, Darkon, or Har'Akir (necromancy), and likely many other domains that I've forgotten about. It's also useful for applying post-mortem to a player after befalling a terrible fate (what I'm presently considering it for).

If I have a core issue, it's the same one I have with the Hexblood- it's covering too much. It seems like Reborn should work like subraces traditionally have, with two variants based on whether you're a mad science experiment or a zombie. That way you're not left with overly generic abilities that try to cover concepts that could have a lot of room for more interesting things.

[msfnc]

I just want to point out that vampires can’t procreate through traditional conception methods. Canonically, they must have permission to come inside.


I’m so ashamed of myself...

[micahaphone]

I just want to point out that vampires can’t procreate through traditional conception methods. Canonically, they must have permission to come inside.


I’m so ashamed of myself...

that's absolutely terrible you should be proud of that one.

But with how people are reacting to the new resident evil trailer, I think some people might create characters with their lineage along a different route.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You're the one who called us imagination gatekeepers.

In some ways this describes the Muses.😃

Actually, this quote is inspiring me to make a Vampire like "Gatekeeper of Imagination". Instead of a Charm power,(or addition to), the creature has an aura similar to the Slow spell, which reflects it's being the gatekeeper to the plane of imagination.

Sounds perfect for my reimagining/conversion of Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth.

Thanks Unoriginal! My players should hate it🖖

[Greywander]

Didn't read the whole thread, but I wanted to throw my thoughts out there, specifically regarding how the dual-typing is handled: I don't like it.

I've worked on an undead race/template, including dual-typed humanoid/undead. Cure Wounds (and such) specifically state that it does not work on undead. Because a humanoid/undead is undead, Cure Wounds should not work on them. Basically, they way they're handling it is that all effects have a set of creature types that they effect. Because Cure Wounds affects humanoids, they're saying a humanoid/undead can benefit from Cure Wounds. That's not how I see it. Every ability either (a) only affects specific creature types (e.g. Turn Undead only affecting undead), or (b) affects everyone except certain creature types (e.g. Cure Wounds not affecting undead and constructs). Charm Person is type (a), and thus affects a humanoid/undead because they are a humanoid. Cure Wounds is type (b), and thus does not affect a humanoid/undead, because they have one of the banned creature types.

Also, I made a generic undead template. You can apply it on top of an existing race. By my estimates, it's mostly power neutral: you get some benefits like immunity to poison, darkvision, and not needing to eat or sleep, but being undead just by itself is actually a huge downside. You're susceptible to Turn Undead, Protection from Evil and Good, Detect Evil and Good, smites do more damage to you, and most (but not all) healing and resurrection spells don't work on you. If you want to play an undead without losing out on a race and without becoming stronger than your party members, this is probably the best way to do it.

In my mind, part of the reason to play an undead is to embrace all the challenges that come with it; having to hide your true nature, suffering affects that don't harm the living, and having to work around the lack of healing.

[JackPhoenix]

So what happens if a Cleric takes one of these lineages with the undead tag? What direction will Turn Undead make you run?

You explode, as your particles try to get as far away from each other as possible. Roll a new character.

To me it seems more bizarre than interesting. What rationale, what physical mechanism, is supposed to be in play here? It's about as comprehensible as Cha-based movement rates or Str-based AC.

More constitution allows you to suck harder and longer?

Snip

As someone who decided to skip CP2077 until the bugs are fixed, thanks for the spoiler.

[micahaphone]

if it's any consolation, that cyberpunk spoiler is in the game trailers, some real opening setup stuff.

[MoiMagnus]

To me it seems more bizarre than interesting. What rationale, what physical mechanism, is supposed to be in play here? It's about as comprehensible as Cha-based movement rates or Str-based AC.

Con attacks works reasonably well to represent "blood magic", though they make much more sense when it is abilities that cost you HP, not grand you additional HP, so I don't think that's what they went with here.

Having "primal instincts" be based on Con instead of Wis (which I think is the default in RAW) is something I've done in a lot of homebrews, and I think that's what they're going with. You even get advantage when at low HP, probably to represent the fact that your survival instincts take precedence over your normal behaviour.

[AdAstra]

The execution and specific concept don't have any draw for me, but this is pretty much exactly what I wanted in terms of design philosophy looking at the changes in Tashas and what they could mean going forwards, so that's cool.

[Hannibal78]

College of Whispers Bard can be interesting to play with Psychic Blades and Dhampir Bite.
Especially if you choose the Psychic Vampire origin with Psychic energy Dhampir Hungers.
From the Bard spell list, you can have, use, a lot of Vampire characteristic :)

[Azuresun]

But looking through them, Vampires, Witches, and Zombies but no Werewolf? Disappointing.

The Shifter from Eberron is already perfect for a "semi-lycanthrope" character.

Excellent, now I can use this UA and the Shifter race from eberron to make my sonic OC. His name is Noctis, he's the edgier twin of shadow

Remember to pick up Misty Step, so he can teleport behind people before attacking.

[Willie the Duck]

Huh. Well, I don't mind this lineages idea itself, but I don't think any of these are for me, personally.

Kind of where I am as well. It is annoying -- it looks like they are making the 'crib-swapped by fey' concept be a vestigial add-on to Hexblood, which is too bad (as I think that's honestly at least as interesting a concept as being hag-adjacent, and deserving of its own write-up.

[KorvinStarmast]

I listed those five mostly because they're the ones I'm most familiar with, and that they're from a wide variety of media types.

We all know about Frankenstein's Monster.

Alphonse Elric, {snip}

Duane Adelier, {snip}.

The Returned are explored in Warbreaker (modern novel). {snip}

V and Johnny Silverhand both die, but V {snip}

And Doc Bruce Banner should have been killed when that experiment went wrong, but he didin't, so we get The Hulk.

Only Frank seems a very close fit, genre wise, to the D&D schtick, though it's a little bit of a reach. Flesh Golems fit into Frank; there's a manual for that.

[PhantomSoul]

Didn't read the whole thread, but I wanted to throw my thoughts out there, specifically regarding how the dual-typing is handled: I don't like it.

I've worked on an undead race/template, including dual-typed humanoid/undead. Cure Wounds (and such) specifically state that it does not work on undead. Because a humanoid/undead is undead, Cure Wounds should not work on them. Basically, they way they're handling it is that all effects have a set of creature types that they effect. Because Cure Wounds affects humanoids, they're saying a humanoid/undead can benefit from Cure Wounds. That's not how I see it. Every ability either (a) only affects specific creature types (e.g. Turn Undead only affecting undead), or (b) affects everyone except certain creature types (e.g. Cure Wounds not affecting undead and constructs). Charm Person is type (a), and thus affects a humanoid/undead because they are a humanoid. Cure Wounds is type (b), and thus does not affect a humanoid/undead, because they have one of the banned creature types.

Also, I made a generic undead template. You can apply it on top of an existing race. By my estimates, it's mostly power neutral: you get some benefits like immunity to poison, darkvision, and not needing to eat or sleep, but being undead just by itself is actually a huge downside. You're susceptible to Turn Undead, Protection from Evil and Good, Detect Evil and Good, smites do more damage to you, and most (but not all) healing and resurrection spells don't work on you. If you want to play an undead without losing out on a race and without becoming stronger than your party members, this is probably the best way to do it.

In my mind, part of the reason to play an undead is to embrace all the challenges that come with it; having to hide your true nature, suffering affects that don't harm the living, and having to work around the lack of healing.

Agreed for dual-typing being possible to do well and being better to do exactly how they didn't do it (I've had it in a game for a few years, alongside subtypes for which you're more resistant to things that only affect your subtype and to which you're not explicitly immune/unaffected). We've also had an undead character and playing around what happened to the actual character was part of the fun and forced us to think of different tactics. Removing it being relevant to the character just makes it pointless fluff (with even the narrative potential being hamstrung because it's clearly not doing anything).

[jojosskul]

So, for the Dhampyr specifically, I think this UA version of the dual creature type actually works. I guess I'm envisioning them as a Blade type half-blood vampire. The point isn't that you're full on undead, you're both undead and humanoid AT THE SAME TIME. This gives you certain benefits of both types, in this case always on spider climb and being able to be affected by healing spells, and certain drawbacks, such being affected by Protection From Evil and Good and Hold/Charm Person.

Depending on the type of Dhampyr character, I feel like this instance of dual typing works narratively almost across the board. I have a bit more issue with it on the Reborn side of things. One of the examples they give is of a formerly controlled undead minion gaining sentience/free will. Biologically, wouldn't they still be undead with that origin? By giving that as an example it sends mixed signals.

There are certain characters who this DOES work for: Botched resurrections, flesh golem (Frankenstein's monster) types, cyborgs, revenents, The Nameless One. But a common zombie suddenly becoming both undead and humanoid just because they gain sentience doesn't sit right with me. There are PLENTY of sentient undead that aren't "humanoid" already, as well as other monsters.

[Scarytincan]

Ya I kind of feel like the time to address dual creature types /non humanoids was when they made warforged. Should those not be constructs, or at least dual as well? Ehhh.....

[KorvinStarmast]

Ya I kind of feel like the time to address dual creature types /non humanoids was when they made warforged. Should those not be constructs, or at least dual as well? Ehhh.....

They are gonna violate the KISS principle all over the place if they deviate from "each creature has a type" model that is in both the MM and the PHB(humanoid). The Satyr as Fey is already problematic for a least one reason ... and they didn't have to do that. Aasimar are humanoid, why did they decide to make satyr's fey in Theors?

[Damon_Tor]

I'm strongly considering turning my Gnome battlesmith into a Construct Returned. He's already "merged" with his defender, the two of them acting like a single creature for most purposes, this would take it to the next level, replacing his body with a clockwork replica, maybe his brain floating in a briny tank. Mechanically, he would lose the excellent gnomish save advantage, but he would gain the ability to be healed by the defender as an action.