D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Draconic Options

The latest Unearthed Arcana from WotC is called Draconic Options. It includes three variant Dragonborn races and a new kobold race, as well as a handful of new spells and feats. Dragonlance fans might do a double-take when they see Fizban's platinum shield (two Forgotten Realms dragons are referenced in the spells, too -- Icingdeath and Raulothim -- as is the FR god of fey dragons, Nathair).

Harness the power of dragons in this installment of Unearthed Arcana! This playtest document presents race, feat, and spell options related to dragons in Dungeons & Dragons.

First is a trio of draconic race options presented as an alternative to the dragonborn race in the Player’s Handbook, as well as a fresh look at the kobold race. Then comes a handful of feat options that reflect a connection to draconic power. Finally, an assortment of spells—many of them bearing the names of famous or infamous dragons—offer a variety of approaches to manifesting dragon magic.

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

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Just curious, what association would you make with kobolds, if you were forced to pick an extant "class" of animals:

Before WotC went all in on mini-dragon? Taking all the data points I would have said they're a monotreme fork that developed a canid like maw (rather than a bill or elongated snout), pangolin like scales (rather than a smooth pelt or spines), and a rat like tail (rather than a paddle-like or vestigial tail).

 

[BookTenTiger]

Only on ENworld would you find an argument about if kobold are fish!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Did you read the next sentence where I wrote:

"I realize scales =/= reptile, but it definitely gives me a suggestion of one."

It is not about biological ignorance, it is about biological association. I am not saying the creature having scales makes them a reptile, but I am saying that it gives a suggestion of a reptilian nature (also, birds and dinosaurs are reptiles, who is the biologically ignorant one here )

In typical internet fashion we have gone from arguing that they did not have to be reptiles to they had to not be reptiles (a position that no one was taking). A poster was suggesting that anyone who thought that they weren't definitely reptiles before 3e was objectively wrong. Myself and others were simply pointing out that it was reasonable to believe that they were not. Now you come along and suggest that we were saying that they couldn't have possibly been reptiles. NO ONE SAID THAT.

They could have been reptilian; or not, depending on what part of the description a reader chose to focus on.

 

[dave2008]

I wouldn't. No reason fantasy creatures should conform to any real world biological class.

I agree, but it was just for fun and discussion purposes. That was the only reason. If you don't find the discussion and intellectual pursuit fun and engaging then don't participate, no need to waste your time.

Kobolds having scales tells you on thing about them: they have scales. It would be foolish to try and infer anything else about them from that single piece of information.

I agree, but we have more than one piece of information (which I noted several times) with which to form an opinion. With all the information we have, we can begin to build a story about what they are or are not. It may not be accurate, but it can be interesting and engaging. I mean science is all about trial, error, testing, and informed speculation after all.

 

[dave2008]

Myself and others were simply pointing out that it was reasonable to believe that they were not. Now you come along and suggest that we were saying that they couldn't have possibly been reptiles. NO ONE SAID THAT.

Now your putting words in my mouth. I never suggested that someone said the couldn't possibly something other than reptiles (or at least that was not my intent). In fact I said that was a perfectly reasonable assumption. I have also stated that there is no need to classify them as anything other than kobolds.

They could have been reptilian; or not, depending on what part of the description a reader chose to focus on.

My point was that reptilian is a description, an adjective, not a classification of their type. They are kobolds, they are neither mammal or reptile or anything else (probably).

 

[dave2008]

Before WotC went all in on mini-dragon? Taking all the data points I would have said they're a monotreme fork that developed a canid like maw (rather than a bill or elongated snout), pangolin like scales (rather than a smooth pelt or spines), and a rat like tail (rather than a paddle-like or vestigial tail).

So #6 then. Interesting. What in the description or art leads you this direction? For this discussion I would say the 1e MM Kobold entry art and description.

 

[jmartkdr2]

In typical internet fashion we have gone from arguing that they did not have to be reptiles to they had to not be reptiles (a position that no one was taking). A poster was suggesting that anyone who thought that they weren't definitely reptiles before 3e was objectively wrong. Myself and others were simply pointing out that it was reasonable to believe that they were not. Now you come along and suggest that we were saying that they couldn't have possibly been reptiles. NO ONE SAID THAT.

They could have been reptilian; or not, depending on what part of the description a reader chose to focus on.

The classic internet argument:

1st poster: [Thing] isn't always true.

2nd poster: No, you are wrong. [Thing] is sometimes true.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My point was that reptilian is a description, an adjective, not a classification of their type. They are kobolds, they are neither mammal or reptile or anything else (probably).

Haw! That is exactly what Paul Farquhar was saying! (Edit: I mean the last sentence.)

 

[Dausuul]

Frankly the current definition is somewhat sketchy and more about conveniently choosing a point to split things, than anything with more meaning than that (that it includes birds/dinosaurs shows that). If you randomly sampled points through the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before) you'd find some rather different definitions.

The current definition isn't sketchy. It's an attempt to turn the traditional definition, which is sketchy, into a coherent one. "Reptilia" is the smallest clade that still includes everything we traditionally consider a reptile (crocodiles, snakes, turtles, lizards, tuataras).

As it turns out, however, if you want a clade that contains all those things, birds and dinosaurs* inevitably come with it. If you try to slice them off, they take crocodiles and turtles with them.

*Although "birds and dinosaurs" is redundant; dinosaurs include birds, for much the same reason that reptiles include dinosaurs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The current definition isn't sketchy. It's an attempt to turn the traditional definition, which is sketchy, into a coherent one. "Reptilia" is the smallest clade that still includes everything we traditionally consider a reptile (crocodiles, snakes, turtles, lizards, tuataras).

As it turns out, however, if you want a clade that contains all those things, birds and dinosaurs* inevitably come with it. If you try to slice them off, they take crocodiles and turtles with them.

*Although "birds and dinosaurs" is redundant; dinosaurs include birds, for much the same reason that reptiles include dinosaurs.

I'm not really sure just how scientific traditional taxonomic classification is. Once you start to look at the genes it turns out to be quite misleading. Biology's not my specialism though.

And it is curious that D&D's lizardfolk resemble crocodiles, which are not lizards.