Dragonlance DRAGONLANCE LIVES! Unearthed Arcana Explores Heroes of Krynn!

The latest Unearthed Arcana has arrived and the 6-page document contains rules for kender, lunar magic, Knights of Solamnia, and Mages of High Sorcery.

In today’s Unearthed Arcana, we explore character options from the Dragonlance setting. This playtest document presents the kender race, the Lunar Magic sorcerer subclass, the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery backgrounds, and a collection of new feats, all for use in Dungeons & Dragons.

Kender have a (surprisingly magical) ability to pull things out of a bag, and a supernatural taunt feature. This magical ability appears to replace the older 'kleptomania' description -- "Unknown to most mortals, a magical phenomenon surrounds a kender. Spurred by their curiosity and love for trinkets, curios, and keepsakes, a kender’s pouches or pockets will be magically filled with these objects. No one knows where these objects come from, not even the kender. This has led many kender to be mislabeled as thieves when they fish these items out of their pockets."

Lunar Magic is a sorcerer subclass which draws power from the moon(s); there are notes for using it in Eberron.

Also included are feats such as Adepts of the Black, White, and Red Robes, and Knights of the Sword, Rose, and Crown.

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

 

[Maxperson]

Which makes them a very dumb PC race. Not only is this forcing a player to act in a specific way in order for them to play their chosen race correctly, the way they have to act is detrimental to the party and very possibly the group of players as well!

That simply isn't true. I've seen one played well and not detrimentally. His Kender was very curious about the red dragon, but when the party said run, he ran with us, but said something like, "It was neat looking and we should go back and ask it blah blah blah." He played the curiosity and lack of fear, but not in a way that hurt the group. He would steal, but only when it wasn't going to be bad for us. If it was going to be bad for us, he roleplayed reaching for something and someone in the group "stopped" him.

It's also a bad explanation, because "chaos magic," by which I mean the writers, could have made them act in any other way they chose to. Instead, the writers picked "kleptomaniacal sociopath."

No. Kleptomaniacal curiositopath. They understand emotion and have empathy. They just can't understand the concept of personal property.

 

[Faolyn]

That simply isn't true. I've seen one played well and not detrimentally. His Kender was very curious about the red dragon, but when the party said run, he ran with us, but said something like, "It was neat looking and we should go back and ask it blah blah blah." He played the curiosity and lack of fear, but not in a way that hurt the group. He would steal, but only when it wasn't going to be bad for us. If it was going to be bad for us, he roleplayed reaching for something and someone in the group "stopped" him.

Anecdotes are meaningless. The race, as written, is badly-done and detrimental. That one player does not change the actual race's writeup.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So far (and my bet going forward) will be no chain mail bikini, no kender as stand in for gypsy, and no mentally challenged races played for laughs.

Mod note:

FYI, “gypsy” is considered a slur against Romani in some circles.

 

[Maxperson]

Anecdotes are meaningless. The race, as written, is badly-done and detrimental. That one player does not change the actual race's writeup.

Anecdotes are factual proof in this circumstance. You made that claim that the people playing Kender were forced to play in a way that was detrimental to the party. Even a single instance of that not being the case makes you wrong, anecdotal or not.

It's a fact that the race does not force you to play in a way that is detrimental. Whether the race was poorly written or not is opinion, and one which I happen to agree with. I just dispute the claim that the race forces people to play in a way that is detrimental to the group. They didn't have to and on the forum here I've heard stories of other Kender played well.

 

[Alzrius]

It's a fact that the race does not force you to play in a way that is detrimental.

Or even be written that way. Margaret Weis was the one who wrote Nightshade Pricklypear, after all.

 

[Maxperson]

Or even be written that way. Margaret Weis was the one who wrote Nightshade Pricklypear, after all.

Yeah. There are always exceptions. If there can be good demons, there can be Kender who know fear and/or don't klepto.

 

[Faolyn]

Anecdotes are factual proof in this circumstance. You made that claim that the people playing Kender were forced to play in a way that was detrimental to the party. Even a single instance of that not being the case makes you wrong, anecdotal or not.

No, it means that you have the exception that proves the rule.

Also, I never said that every single person was forced to play in a certain way. See the bolded bit below.

It's a fact that the race does not force you to play in a way that is detrimental. Whether the race was poorly written or not is opinion, and one which I happen to agree with. I just dispute the claim that the race forces people to play in a way that is detrimental to the group. They didn't have to and on the forum here I've heard stories of other Kender played well.

Sure, there are going to be people who play kender "well." How many of those people were actually playing them as sociopathic kleptomaniacs? (The fact that kender truly can't understand that that other people feel differently about "handling" shows that they, in fact, do not have full empathy--and in real life, sociopaths actually can have empathy towards people, but it's harder for them.*) I'm going to bet that a lot of people weren't playing them the way that they're written. Which means that many, even most, of those people were being good players, not good kender. There is a difference here. But what if that player was in a different party, with a player who wasn't willing to say "stop" but instead got angry that they were being stolen from or that they had to police another PC again?

If every single player is on board with the PC playing the kender in a kenderish way and with their shenanigans, and the kender's player is trying to maintain party cohesiveness and not just be a chaotic stupid jerk, then that's one thing. But I'm pretty sure that that combination is far outweighed by the number of tables where that isn't the case.


(*They actually fit six of the seven criteria for antisocial personality disorder, according to the DSM-V. They only miss out on being particularly aggressive and irritable--although their taunt ability makes me wonder.)

 

[Maxperson]

No, it means that you have the exception that proves the rule.

There have been a LOT of exceptions then. Enough that they aren't exceptions.

Also, I never said that every single person was forced to play in a certain way. See the bolded bit below.


Sure, there are going to be people who play kender "well." How many of those people were actually playing them as sociopathic kleptomaniacs? (The fact that kender truly can't understand that that other people feel differently about "handling" shows that they, in fact, do not have full empathy--and in real life, sociopaths actually can have empathy towards people, but it's harder for them.*) I'm going to bet that a lot of people weren't playing them the way that they're written. Which means that many, even most, of those people were being good players, not good kender. There is a difference here. But what if that player was in a different party, with a player who wasn't willing to say "stop" but instead got angry that they were being stolen from or that they had to police another PC again?

No one was. Not one person was forced by the Kender write up to play in a certain way. None. Every last one of them that acted like a jerk made the choice to play that way. See, Kender didn't make them act that way, their personalities did. Jerks tended to be drawn to Kender. If it wasn't Kender, it would have been CN or some other excuse.

The rest of the people who played Kender were the "exceptions."

If every single player is on board with the PC playing the kender in a kenderish way and with their shenanigans, and the kender's player is trying to maintain party cohesiveness and not just be a chaotic stupid jerk, then that's one thing. But I'm pretty sure that that combination is far outweighed by the number of tables where that isn't the case.

Then those tables should get rid of the problem players.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

In the 5th Ed orcs, drows, kobolds and other monster humanoids aren't going to be only evil never more. Then we can guess not always the kenders are "borrowing". Really kenders are too good to steal knowing they can cause economic damage against families who need that money. But their concept of propierty is too collective, too used to shared everything. They don't mind if you get their things, but when it is something with a sentimental value. It is a fantasy world, where the villages have to build barricades in the towns against the possible raids by the hobgoblins. And the traveler kenders are single, because when you are father of four children (and this is only the beginning) you are too busy to think about tourism. In the other side you will never find a kender show off his wealth, but maybe his house is very beatiful.

If kenders can get coins with the trait "kender ace" then this means they can understand the concept of trade, and "you only can get when you have paid for it, or found in the forest".

My father told my a forgotten saying: "The mule owned by everybody is eaten by the wolves" (because nobody worried enough about look after it). Any time a group bought together a bottle with a common funds but anybody drank more than the rest, or faster than if he had paid the bottle with his own money?

I Sigil some evil traders would use magic traps for kenders, knowing they are going to "borrow" them.

Here there is a thin line between funny and annoying, and as the character of Steve Urkel, with his merits and flaws, they can be loved by ones and hated by others.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, it means that you have the exception that proves the rule.

Exceptions never prove the rule; they break them. Breaking rules is the inherent nature of exceptions.