D&D 5E Preview Witchlight's New Rabbit People

You can take a look at the harengons, a rabbit-themed race in the upcoming Wild Beyond the Witchlight, over at D&D Beyond.

Harengons are medium or small humanoids with a bonus to initiative, Dexterity saving throws, and a 'rabbit hop' which lets them jump up to five times their proficiency bonus without provoking opportunity attacks.

Creature Type. You are a Humanoid.

Size. You are Medium or Small. You choose the size when you select this race.

Speed. Your walking speed is 30 feet.

Hare-Trigger. You can add your proficiency bonus to your initiative rolls.

Leporine Senses. You have proficiency in the Perception skill.

Lucky Footwork. When you fail a Dexterity saving throw, you can use your reaction to roll a d4 and add it to the save, potentially turning the failure into a success. You can’t use this reaction if you’re prone or your speed is 0.

Rabbit Hop. As a bonus action, you can jump a number of feet equal to five times your proficiency bonus, without provoking opportunity attacks. You can use this trait only if your speed is greater than 0. You can use it a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

When you create a harengon or fairy using the rules from The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, you can choose to increase one ability score by 2 and another by 1, or choose to increase three different scores by 1. Further, you know Common and will choose one other language to learn.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Honest question: where you ever persuaded to change an opinion by someone being snarky at you?

You're asking a different thing from what I'm talking about. The on-point question would be, have i ever changed my mind as a result of an argument or points made using social reproach?

And the answer is yes, and so has pretty much everyone else.

 

[MarkB]

You're asking a different thing from what I'm talking about. The on-point question would be, have i ever changed my mind as a result of an argument or points made using social reproach?

And the answer is yes, and so has pretty much everyone else.

Yep, can confirm. I've been in discussions where people started using social reproach instead of reasoned discussion, and found myself thinking "ugh, I don't want to be on these folks' side anymore."

 

[Bird Of Play]

actual animals aren't the same thing as a animal people.

Oh, don't play dumb. I'm certain you're well aware that anthropomorphic animals represent the characteristic of the animal but with humanlike intelligence or advantages (i.e. opposable thumbs).

I'm also convinced you know our primal brain sees a bunnylike face, sees a snakelike face, and has a very different instinctive response.

Doctorbadwolf doesn't have the same ring of doctorbadbunny.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Oh, don't play dumb. I'm certain you're well aware that anthropomorphic animals represent the characteristic of the animal but with humanlike intelligence or advantages (i.e. opposable thumbs).

I'm also convinced you know our primal brain sees a bunnylike face, sees a snakelike face, and has a very different instinctive response.

Doctorbadwolf doesn't have the same ring of doctorbadbunny.

but is the idea any lest stupid? no.
as all animal people are kinda dull ideas thus why do you care about one more? what would you want instead anyway?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yep, can confirm. I've been in discussions where people started using social reproach instead of reasoned discussion, and found myself thinking "ugh, I don't want to be on these folks' side anymore."

This is still speaking to the idea of someone's mind changing as a result of snark being used, which is irrelevant. If reproach is being used just to be a jerk, without making any point, it is generally ignored, at best. That doesn't mean it is inherently failed communication, it just means it can be.

But also, if you changed your mind about something because the people who were agreeing with you acted a way you don't like...that is...well, not rational, at the least.

"Well I did prefer rhyming meter over post-modern poetry, but this one time I was in a discussion where this guy who had the same preference as me was being a jerk, so now I prefer post-modern poetry, instead." I rather doubt it.

Oh, don't play dumb. I'm certain you're well aware that anthropomorphic animals represent the characteristic of the animal but with humanlike intelligence or advantages (i.e. opposable thumbs).

accusing people of playing dumb when they disagree with you is pretty bad form. You're also moving the goalposts.

I'm also convinced you know our primal brain sees a bunnylike face, sees a snakelike face, and has a very different instinctive response.

Doctorbadwolf doesn't have the same ring of doctorbadbunny.

All irrelevant. None of it means there is a tonal shift between a story with wolf-people and rabbit-people. The fact that you can only associate rabbits with cute little bunnies is your own hangup, not something universal or objective.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Don't put words into my mouth, thanks.

I did not do so. What I said about your position is completely supported by your posts on the matter, as well as how you continue this very response to me.

@Scott Christian at least said "I THINK Bird Of Play is PROBABLY saying"...... and he was also right. He nailed it. I'm sorry, but a world with an entire civilization of rabbitfolks is silly to me. Suspension of disbelief is funny like this, you may think elves and dwarves are a-ok but somehow you draw the line at anthro-rabbits.

You? You didn't say "I think Bird Of Play"..... you decided what -I- wanted to say. And, guess what? You were wrong.

Yeah, yeah. I'm going to ignore this bit of semantics and get to the core: You like what @Scott Christian said about your position because they were backing you up. You don't like what I said because I was calling you out. I didn't have to say "I think this is what @Bird Of Play is saying", because that way of talking is almost always used by people who want to back up the other person. Common variants to this are "I'm not the original poster, but . . ." and "To be fair, this is what I think they're actually saying". It's almost never used in a non-satirical manner when arguing against someone's base premise.

Just because you don't like what I said doesn't mean that it was wrong.

I think rabbitfolks are dumb and ill-fitted to D&D. You know the thing about wererats/werewolves/werefoxes/weretigers etc.? They're not an entire race with towns and stuff, they're a special event.

Here you go again. You just said that my position that you were saying that you think Rabbitfolk are dumb and ill-fitted for D&D and are trying to gatekeep them out of the hobby is wrong, and then literally just said that very same thing you said was incorrect for me to say. You just called it "putting words in your mouth" because you don't like what I was saying and wanted to dismiss it out of hand, not because it actually wasn't your position. (Also, no, they're not a "special event" in the default lore of Harengon. They're just a race that lives in the Feywild. You run them, or exclude them, however you want, but don't say stuff like "Bunnypeople are a special event, it makes no sense for them to exist in a world that has Lizardfolk, Catfolk, and Poisonous-Dart-Frogfolk!".)

If we got wererabbits, I would be ok with it.

I don't get that at all. I don't understand why or how "Bunny Curse!" is somehow better than "Race of Feywild-Dwelling Anthropomorphic-Rabbits" to you.

You might reasonably say "but even old editions had lizardfolks and such!". Yep. But 1) what makes you think I ever used them in my campaigns?; 2) there's absolutely a tonal shift between lizardfolks and rabbitfolks, and let's not pretend we're not seeing it.

1) No one assumed that. They just said that they've existed for editions, so there's a long-running precedent for animalfolk in D&D (it's older than I am). We don't care if you use them, we just care if the premise was a thing that existed, and therefore nullify your claims that D&D doesn't have room for them (thematically or lorewise).
2) We never pretended that, and you're the one suddenly pretending as if the Lizardfolk are the only animalfolk in D&D. There are Catfolk in D&D 5e (in Volo's Guide to Monsters) that has a "Quirks" table that is basically every cat stereotype distilled into a d10 format. There's a race of Poisonous Dart Frog Humanoids that tie a flute-like-instrument to a string and flail it around in order to make a whistling noise to communicate across long-distances. There's a race of Birdfolk that can are mature when they're 3 years old, and have wacky suggested names like "Zeed", "Kleeck", and "Errk". There's even fish-people that have pet Seals and die if they aren't submerged in water every 4 hours.

If all of that ridiculousness (which I love) has a place in D&D, so do Harengon. And let's not for a moment pretend that there's so much of a thematic difference or "tonal shift" between those other types of Animalfolk and Rabbit/Harefolk. (I didn't even mention Kobolds, who are even more ridiculous than basically all of the other types of animalfolk. I mean, seriously, they're tiny lizard-dragon people that worship dragons as gods, are communists, and build elaborate traps and burrows to fool and kill adventurers because they're so physically weak.)

I don't want to go into this subject anymore. I just don't like rabbitfolks as a race in my D&D. I just don't like anime-themed mmorpg either. You can't police what I like, otherwise the one doing the gatekeeping is the one not accepting that some people might not like your stuff.

(Emphasis mine.)

That's your problem right there. Referring to it as "your" D&D. Get the hint, dude. D&D isn't yours. You aren't the arbiter of what gets to and what doesn't get to exist in D&D. You don't get to say things are bad for D&D, because none of us are allowed to do that. It's not even "your" D&D at "your" table. It's the table's D&D. It's personal to the group. Do what you want and include what you want at the table, but don't for a moment pretend like others are wrong for running D&D campaigns that include rabbitfolk. It doesn't hurt you in any way. Just leave it alone and ignore it. You've made it pretty clear that you don't like them by now. You can just drop it.

And that's why I said "there's no nuance here". You don't like rabbitfolk, which is fine, no one is forcing you to include them or trying to make you like them, they're just trying to stop you from bagging on them and calling people wrong for using/liking them. There's no nuance to badwrongfun. It's just the same old same old.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

actual animals aren't the same thing as a animal people.

In another space I frequent, one of the posters had the idea that maybe D&D is doing it backwards. Potentially you come up with your character's personality, and then fit an animal look to match. That more aligns with media properties like Zootopia and Usagi Yojimbo and Blacksaad.

It's an intriguing switch from the D&D way of creating "peoples" based on animal characteristics, but the individuals themselves can have any sort of personality...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In another space I frequent, one of the posters had the idea that maybe D&D is doing it backwards. Potentially you come up with your character's personality, and then fit an animal look to match. That more aligns with media properties like Zootopia and Usagi Yojimbo and Blacksaad.

It's an intriguing switch from the D&D way of creating "peoples" based on animal characteristics, but the individuals themselves can have any sort of personality...

Does Usagi Yojimbo act like a rabbit? Also, part of the point of Zootopia is that while some aspects of a person's nature are, well, nature, the rest is individual and social. Foxes don't have to steal eggs and eat rabbits just because they're foxes. I'd say that's the opposite of what that poster posits, and much closer to how DnD does it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Both rules are relevent. Rabbit Hop is a specific rule. The word "jump" used in Bestial Soul is not a keyword.

I'm pretty sure that when it says "When you jump" it means when you jump. There's no twisting of words there. It literally just says you have to jump, and this ability lets you jump.

Yes, THEY can. Because they are not a specific special power. Jump spell and Bestial Soul are abilities that specifically modify those jumping rules.

"This ability can be modified because it can and this ability can't be modified because it can't" isn't a very persuasive (or sensical) argument.

Rabbit Hop is not "jumping".

So, when it says "you jump" it doesn't actually mean you jump? Got it.

It's rules are completely separate to the jumping rules. When a Harengan jumps it uses the rules for jumping. when it uses Rabbit Hop it uses the rules for Rabbit Hop. Harengan have no racial abilities that modify jumping.

It uses different rules for jumping. Just because there was/is a different way for doing it doesn't mean that the other way isn't jumping. It straight up, 100% clear says that you jump. It's not flavor, so don't pretend it is. It says you jump, so you jump. D&D 5e isn't a system that tries to trick you with its language. It's a clear-language system. If a feature or ability says you jump, you jump.

No it's not. If a rule is written after, the author would put in "this doesn't apply to X" when it doesn't apply to X. If it is written before "doesn't apply to X" is implied. In order to analyse text for authorial intent you need to know the context.

It is irrelevant. If the features weren't meant to stack, Rabbit Hop would say "this doesn't apply to X". Your own logic works against your argument. It doesn't matter if they were written at different times, because the ability that was written later is just as capable at doing the clarifications as the earlier ability.

I don't care, you can make up any rules you like, I'm just pointing out how the 5e rules work, since you seemed to be uncertain. Intuitively, it would make sense for the Jump spell to multiply the range of Rabbit Hop by three, and I would probably allow it, but that's called house rules.

Okay. I don't agree with you, and it certainly seemed like you cared, but it doesn't matter for most campaigns. (Jump uses the same language as Bestial Soul, so it would also stack if Bestial Soul stacks.) Maybe someone could as Jeremy Crawford for if this combo works RAI (and maybe RAW).

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Were-lagomorph were canon in AD&D if my memory doesn't fail. At least they appeared in Dragon Magazine 156 (April 1990). I guess somebody may say it was an April's fool, like the unicow.

My wish is to can enjoy harengon version monster girl, a waif, but not only a cute girl with rabbit ears. Maybe in some game-live show podcast somebody with a very fun harengon bard could these to become very popular.

 

[Bolares]

I don't get why people think rabbitfolk are not in DnD's wheelhouse. If you don't like, fine. Play what you want. But DnD is pretty big for everyone play what they want, and has always been VERY silly (flail snails exist for example)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Were-lagomorph were canon in AD&D if my memory doesn't fail. At least they appeared in Dragon Magazine 156 (April 1990). I guess somebody may say it was an April's fool, like the unicow.

My wish is to can enjoy harengon version monster girl, a waif, but not only a cute girl with rabbit ears. Maybe in some game-live show podcast somebody with a very fun harengon bard could these to become very popular.

okay, so rabbit woman is something I am going to have to deal with in dnd going forward.

I don't get why people think rabbitfolk are not in DnD's wheelhouse. If you don't like, fine. Play what you want. But DnD is pretty big for everyone play what they want, and has always been VERY silly (flail snails exist for example)

standards are often arbitrary in my experience thus this was inevitable I wonder what the next big one will be?

 

[Bird Of Play]

I don't see any point getting into an argument over rabbitpeople.
I think they look really silly and kind of childish. They would look extremely out of place in my D&D setting. I also think they show how the newest editions of D&D are getting less and less interesting to me, which is why I keep using the older editions.

You like them and think they don't look goofy? Lucky you. Use them.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don't see any point getting into an argument over rabbitpeople.
I think they look really silly and kind of childish. They would look extremely out of place in my D&D setting. I also think they show how the newest editions of D&D are getting less and less interesting to me, which is why I keep using the older editions.

You like them and think they don't look goofy? Lucky you. Use them.

so the argument ends then yes? agree to disagree yes?

 

[Marandahir]

can you explain that in words people outside the game might know as I old know sufficient amounts to be confused and jocat has not made the DPS video yet?

Viera are a tribe of all-female rabbit-eared people from the nation/world of Ivalice, and appear in Ivalice Alliance-themed Final Fantasy titles (and an Ivalice-themed expansion to FFXIV Online). They make excellent rangers, druids, clerics, summoner wizards, bards, and swashbuckler rogues (in FF terms, Archer, Hunter, Green Mage, White Mage, Evoker, Red Mage, and Fencer).

The original two Ivalice Alliance games, Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story, both for the original Sony PlayStation, ONLY had humans. The third title in the setting, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, for the Game Boy Advance, brought back the series-mascot Moogles as a playable tribe (they show up in most other FF titles), and introduced the afformentioned Viera, as well as a handful of other non-human tribes: the warrior-like lizard-folk (but don't call them that to their face!) known as Bangaa and the dog-like wizardly Nu Mou. In that game, there were some jobs like White Mage or Black Mage that might be shared between tribes (Humans & Nu Mou can be both, Moogles can be black mages, Viera can be White Mages). But other jobs are very specific to tribes (Only Viera can be Red Mages, only Bangaa can be Dragoons, only Moogles can be Gunners, only Nu Mou can be Sages (aka Mystic Theurges)).

Later Ivalice games expanded on this setting with new tribes like the Gria (Tieflings), Seeq (Orcs), and Aegyl (Aarakocra/Aasimar). They also changed up some of the way the job system worked, in part because while FF Tactics, FF Tactics Advance , FFTA2: Grimoire of the Rift, FF Tactics: War of the Lion, and FF Tactics S are Tactical combat games similar to Fire Emblem or Shining Force, while Final Fantasy XII uses a more traditional Final Fantasy battle system (ADB - an evolution of earlier titles' ATB), and Vagrant Story features a singular protagonist in a dungeon crawl, more akin to something like "The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard." And FF XIV Online is an MMORPG, so Viera characters there are not restricted in the same way they are in FFTA, either.

So each game genre warrants its own take on the job system, and thus while my cheeky comment was due to my love of FFTA and TA2, it's not particularly as restrictive a lore as I originally made it out to be.

FF14 Viera can be!

Also they're technically the future of the Ivalice ones but then there's also the FF12 crossover and. The mess that is 'okay so FF12 and Tactics are somehow canon to 14' is a thing.

Fair enough!

I'm mostly played FFTA and TA2: Grimoires of the Rift, where some jobs are tribe-exclusive.

Yeah honestly while I know Freya from FF9 isn’t a rabbit lady (and also maybe not technically a Dragoon? I don’t remember), she is the character inspiration I’d go for.

It tends to suck on Internet forums unless there is a strong enough sense of community that people genuinely feel bad when their peers get mad at them, though.

In D&D terms, Freya's a Nezumi, actually (Burmecian). She IS a Dragoon by all definitions of the term, though. The game does call her a Dragon Knight sometimes, but that's because of inconsistent translation. In Japan, Dragoons are called Dragon Knights. Dragon Knight didn't fit the character limit for early FF games in the west, hence the creation of the Dragoon class name.

That's horrible?!?!

I always set up Fran as a Dragoon/Ulhan in my games back in the day (heavy armors and lance/poles, offset by Fran natural speed)!

The main Command of the class is Jump, how is that not a rabbit-themed class!?

/jk

PS: I've been campaigning for years now to have Ivalice as a campaign setting. Or a more general D&D: Legends of the Crystals, with stats for races/magic items across the different FF settings. Now's the time!

In official artwork and guest appearances, Fran is an Archer. For example, in FFXII: Revenant Wings, she only uses bows.

But yeah, FFXII's job system is different and doesn't follow the Ivalice lore previously established. It IS worth noting that while FFT and its remake War of the Lions lack the Dragoon job, they do imply that FFTA and TA2's tribe-restricted jobs are not as tightly locked away in other nations of Ivalice…

I do agree that Jump seems perfect for a rabbit person. They don't mesh as well with the OTHER Dragoon abilities - i.e., flying on the back of a wyvern, breathing fire/ice/lightning, etc. There's a reason that Bangaa got the job: Lizardfolk make better stand-ins for Dragonborn than Haregons do.

 

[bedir than]

okay, so rabbit woman is something I am going to have to deal with in dnd going forward

Again, nothing about the official presentation of rabbitfolk has anything to do with the sexy girl rabbits presented by several users here.

While those tropes are completely valid for players to choose, they are as related to Harengon as any sexy girl character is to a human.

There's real art, real lore, in a real book that is pretty clear about what Harengon are.

 

[Dire Bare]

Again, nothing about the official presentation of rabbitfolk has anything to do with the sexy girl rabbits presented by several users here.

While those tropes are completely valid for players to choose, they are as related to Harengon as any sexy girl character is to a human.

There's real art, real lore, in a real book that is pretty clear about what Harengon are.

Indeed. If you're not careful, you'll find "sexy girl" versions of every D&D race out on the internet somewhere, with a passionate fan base. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Dire Bare]

We don't have Bear people yet.

Not officially, but Kobold Press has a pretty good bear-folk race in their Midgard line of books. And WotC has used werefolk to stand-in somewhat for animal-people, with a werebear druid in Rime of the Frostmaiden that spends most of their time in bear-person form.

If you CAN shift into human or bear form, but spend most of your time in bear-person form . . . . you're a bear-person!

 

[Dire Bare]

The only thing that annoys me about the Haregon is that they aren't Fey. Despite the fact they were first introduced to 5E via a UA that was called Folks of the Feywild.

Other than that, I'm cool with them.

D&D has a long tradition of not classifying all feywild/faerie natives as "fey". Part of the problem is overlapping monster categories . . . . if you're humanoid-shaped, native to the feywild, and undead . . . what is your "type" in the game rules (you can only pick one)? It's best not to equate a monsters type in the game rules with it's provenance in the game world, it doesn't always match up.

 

[Richards]

have you tried apathy toward the rabbit folk like I am towards the halflings?

I was going to try apathy once...but I didn't really care enough to give it a try.

Johnathan