D&D 5E New Unearthed Arcana: Folk of the Feywild!

Wander into the magical realm of the Feywild with our latest Unearthed Arcana: Folk of the Feywild!

Your character can be a member of one of the new D&D races: fairy, hobgoblin of the Feywild, owlfolk, or rabbitfolk. Which will you choose?

Playtest now:

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

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Yes, but those are not big issues to me. Also, in 5e, most Large creatures have the same reach as Medium ones:

View attachment 134129

Their attack reach is the same, going into the next grid square, but by virtue of being a Large-sized creature they take up a 10' by 10' area on a grid, or four 5' by 5' squares, compared to Medium and Small creatures that only take up one 5' by 5' square. So Large creatures can threaten twelve grid squares around them, compared to Medium and Small creatures who can only threaten eight at a time.

 

[Tonguez]

It really comes down to reach and equipment. Weapons for large races do extra damage, while tiny-sized weapons do 1 point of damage (rarely, 1d4). Further, mundane gear is sized for mediums (and occasionally smalls) so rules for large/tiny armor, clothes, backpacks, etc. Lastly, the reach on large creatures OAs makes them superior in combat.

While it would make a lot of sense to have large minotaurs and tiny fairies, the game really isn't set up well to handle them.

While I can see why it may be an issue for large characters getting extra reach I think balancing the game around combat viability is bad design. When a player chooses a tiny race they are explicitly accepting that the race will be ineffective in direct combat and will instead be looking at other ways to engage - be it with use of spells/poison or using stealth and evasion. Its the challenge of exploring a world from a tiny perspective that appeals.

 

[tetrasodium]

While I can see why it may be an issue for large characters getting extra reach I think balancing the game around combat viability is bad design. When a player chooses a tiny race they are explicitly accepting that the race will be ineffective in direct combat and will instead be looking at other ways to engage - be it with use of spells/poison or using stealth and evasion. Its the challenge of exploring a world from a tiny perspective that appeals.

no it has another very valid reason. There are a number of ways that size can be adjusted

Spoiler: for example

A one minute concentration spell that adds +1d4 to attacks plus advantage on a virtually unused save is pretty bad. The concentration & short duration even makes sure you probably can't get much use out of aura spells that would leverage those extra adjacent squares while there are very few things a martial can even meaningfully do as a result of those extra squares without contrived situations that assume the otherwise poor spell got prepped for that contrived situation. Elemental weapon is one level higher & gives +1d+1 & +1 to attack for an hour

 

[Weiley31]

It's the Pluto and Goofy problem all over again, lol!

In the new Ducktales, they have Ducks AND ducks.

 

[Weiley31]

Also I second Humblewood: it is quite awesome.

Also I want to be very cruel and make a campaign where the main villains of said Humblewood campaign are the 5E Gnolls. 5E Lore and all.

 

[JEB]

I=My money's on them calling it the "Anniversary Edition" and it being just 5e with revisions.

That certainly sounds like a plausible spin on the revised 5E, yeah. Overhaul the core races to match the new approach, integrate the new Tasha's class features, de-emphasize or outright remove alignment, rewrite lore to delete any potentially objectionable content, and some other general adjustments here and there. Making it a celebratory edition also provides an excuse to move some non-core options into the core if they want (i.e. orcs). Then they can let the older core rulebooks, and any other rulebooks that strongly backed the old 5E paradigm (like Volo's), lapse out of print, where they no longer present a PR problem.

It really comes down to reach and equipment. Weapons for large races do extra damage, while tiny-sized weapons do 1 point of damage (rarely, 1d4). Further, mundane gear is sized for mediums (and occasionally smalls) so rules for large/tiny armor, clothes, backpacks, etc. Lastly, the reach on large creatures OAs makes them superior in combat.

While it would make a lot of sense to have large minotaurs and tiny fairies, the game really isn't set up well to handle them.

Funny enough, very early in 5E, they didn't seem to have an issue with different sizes for PC races: Mearls rattled off stats for a half-ogre race on Twitter, for example. My guess is when it came time to start implementing such stuff officially, and actually began playtesting, the results led them to conclude that it was too hard to balance any race that deviated too much from the core. Hence the various workarounds (stretchy bugbear arms, large races being compressed to a very tall medium for PC versions, etc.).

There were other ways they could have made it work, though, like those noted upthread (such as comparing to enlarge/reduce). They could have also given Tiny races some extra features to compensate for their innate weakness; for larger size creatures, they could have built more races like the deep gnome, with a weaker base creature and more powerful stuff (large size, increased ASIs for size) only available as feats.

It's just disappointing they never tried to go beyond medium/small, because it leaves some older-edition monstrous PC options, like pixies, giants, and dragons, firmly in the realm of unofficial or homebrew material.

 

[JEB]

While I can see why it may be an issue for large characters getting extra reach I think balancing the game around combat viability is bad design. When a player chooses a tiny race they are explicitly accepting that the race will be ineffective in direct combat and will instead be looking at other ways to engage - be it with use of spells/poison or using stealth and evasion. Its the challenge of exploring a world from a tiny perspective that appeals.

I think a balancing act like you suggest would be viable, but I don't think Wizards is in the business of giving playable races disadvantages anymore, balanced or not.

 

[oreofox]

I can’t follow multiple points without doing so. I’m not bothered if you want to reply all in one block, but I can’t meaningfully engage with your post without replying to each point I want to address individually.

I think maybe you quoting like this pings their alerts for each one? That might be Jasper's problem with your replies. I am not entirely sure as I haven't experienced such, but that would be my guess.


As for the topic at hand: Having a more fey hobgoblin might be great. Honestly, the base hobgoblin never sat well with me, and their "save face" ability was poorly named. Having it based on reciprocity, with the bonus being based on your helpful allies, it fits better for me.

I am meh on the fairy race.

The owl and rabbits I probably wouldn't use, as I already have a mashup kenku/arakkocra race, though I might tear the owl apart and mash it in with the other 2 birds (I named them Corvax, though they can appear as any bird, not just corvid birds). I also already have rat people, though at the moment they are just reskinned halflings with more rat flavoring. I might see about incorporating some of the rabbit's features into my rats.

I could see a group of PCs being 4 tortle monks with a rabbit fighter fighting humans in purple suits, with stronger leaders (a minotaur reskinned into a rhino, and possibly a giff turned into a warthog, though I never really looked into the giff. The giff was added into 5e, right? Even if just a monster?) I could see that as a fun minicampaign or one-shot if everyone involved was up for it.

 

[Mecheon]

Am I the only one not concerned about the flying? Let 'em have heavy armor, they're either owls (And therefore heavy fliers) or fairies, which are magical. Mind I've never been worried about flight historically

I personally do also love the whole bringing goblins back to their fey routes as I do love goblins being more fey. Also, rabbitfolk totally live on the moon. Its just, where they live.

 

[Weiley31]

Am I the only one not concerned about the flying? Let 'em have heavy armor, they're either owls (And therefore heavy fliers) or fairies, which are magical. Mind I've never been worried about flight historically

The Hsiao Fey Owls from Basic's Creature Crucible series has official art where its wearing armor that seems Medium or Heavy.

So Owls in Heavy Armor doesn't bother me one bit.