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.

 

[Faolyn]

Movies and books about horror often (but not always) make an association with a sexual element of some sort. No, actually, even horror folklore of times past made such association often enough.

Now, on the other hand, I think an awesome horror movie like The Thing is void of any sexual element whatsoever and it's still absolutely 100% horror, and a clever one too.
But then you have stuff like Alien which, too, had a lot of symbolic sexual symbolism. Some even argued the entire thing is an allegory of rape.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was even planning on referencing Alien before I went in a different direction.

But the point is, whether or not Alien an allegory of rape--and it's designed by Giger so of course it is--it's not actually on-screen rape. Nobody in the real world has ever had an acid-blooded alien entity implant eggs in them. But lots of people have been sexual abused, assaulted, or exploited.

By the way, -my- duergar/derro (I fused them in one single race, the derro are simply duergar that lost their mind entirely) clan doesn't do sex slaves, at all.
They just stab the brains of their prisoners to link them to some battlemachines (yep, you got it: the Penitent Engine).
Which, frankly, I think is about as horrific if not MORE than if I made the prisoners into sex slaves.

Yes, that is. It's loss of self, it's transhumanism gone wrong, it's turning people into things. It's many types of horror in one, and it's actually more mature than just the titillation of sex slaves.

 

[Bird Of Play]

@Scribe and @Faolyn , it looks like, despite having different preferences, we actually agree!

 

[Scott Christian]

I think you are describing the difference between a creature in the Monster Manual, and a playable race option in the Player's Handbook. A solitary creature in a swamp vs. a playable character.

It isn't a stretch for me to imagine rabbit people with villages, if there are lizard-men and snake-people with them as well. I guess I'm having trouble understanding why one is sillier than the other.

Sorry, but that is not what I am referring to. A creature in the monster manual, for example, and orc, can have tribes, cultures, kingdoms, etc. A creature that is unique, which was my description, is not a culture. It is something that can be worked into an adventure as interesting, but not playable. Eventually, every creature in the MM can be playable, even a succubus, given the encouragement from WotC.

 

[Scott Christian]

Anybody who doesn’t share my aesthetic preferences in a make-believe game about elves and dragons is obviously just a kid who is overly influenced by video games.

Amirite?

Maybe try to see the many sides of the argument.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Maybe try to see the many sides of the argument.

define it again as we might just have lost it over the pages.

@Scribe and @Faolyn , it looks like, despite having different preferences, we actually agree!

yes and no, horror yes but how you do it is the tricky bit, let us face it I have Grand Karcist Ionas an avatar so this fellow: Grand Karcist Ion

 

[CleverNickName]

Sorry, but that is not what I am referring to. A creature in the monster manual, for example, and orc, can have tribes, cultures, kingdoms, etc. A creature that is unique, which was my description, is not a culture. It is something that can be worked into an adventure as interesting, but not playable. Eventually, every creature in the MM can be playable, even a succubus, given the encouragement from WotC.

That's only part of my confusion. I'm still puzzled about anthropomorphic rabbits being considered silly or laughable, but anthropomorphic bulls, lizards, snakes, etc. aren't. I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

 

[Scribe]

That's only part of my confusion. I'm still puzzled about anthropomorphic rabbits being considered silly or laughable, but anthropomorphic bulls, lizards, snakes, etc. aren't. I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

Honestly I dont think its the Rabbits that are the issue. Its people who feel the need to spread their 'Rule 34 lite' interpretations of these anthropomorphic races around that lead to the most pushback.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

One thing that seems to happen when people talk about races, is one side takes a stance for inclusion, and the other exclusion. What is failed, is to see the perimeter. My guess is @Bird Of Play would have one of these as a creature that lives in a swamp or a strange cursed person that lives all alone in some mystical forest. That is the mythos you are referring to - they are unique. He is (again a guess) objecting to having villages and kingdoms full of rabbit folk, while also simultaneously supporting kingdoms, villages, hovels, towns, cities, etc. full of turtle people, bird people, etc.

But there isn't nuance here. There is literally none. @Bird Of Play was saying that they don't want Rabbitfolk in D&D because they don't like them, think that the people that do like them like childish things, and are taking too much inspiration from video games (and then judging those people based on their tastes in those video games). There's no nuance there. It's just clear, textbook gatekeeping of an element that one person may not prefer or enjoy, and then judging and pointing fingers because of their own personal biases. That is exactly what's happening. There is no nuance there.

And I don't think there's any evidence that "one of these creatures, in the source material, would live in a swamp or is a curse that lives all alone in some mystical forest". That's just plain made up, there's no support for that argument.

There's also no reason why Rabbitfolk couldn't have their own villages or even kingdoms. Why would Rabbitfolk be less inclined towards civilization building than any other race, especially the other animalfolk races? Why would a Tortle or Aarakocra be capable of building a village or kingdom, and not a Harengon? Wait a moment. Don't answer that, because I already have the answer: there is no reason or justification for this mindset. None.

And, finally, Harengon come from the Feywild. The world that they come from doesn't have to support civilizations of Tortles, Aarakocra, and every other type of animalfolk. Many of the official animalfolk races are setting-specific (Simic Hybrids, Leonins, etc), and the ones that would coexist in a generic fantasy world (like the Forgotten Realms) could easily do so without butting into each other or competing for land due to the existence of different Planes. Aarakocra come from the Elemental Plane of Air, Harengon and Satyrs come from the Feywild, Tritons come from the Elemental Plane of Water, and so on. There's no reason to say "it doesn't make sense for them to exist in the same setting, because they would compete for land!" in a world where there are literally different planes of existence (and demiplanes, like Domains of Dread and Delight).

 

[NaturalZero]

The issue with a lot of sexual or edgy content is that its often a lazy stand-in for compelling storytelling. Why put in effort to weave a nuanced plot that makes the audience consider mature topics when it's just easier to get a cringe reaction with overt torture or rape?

 

[Mecheon]

You think FFXIV does worldbuilding right? Of all games?? I meeeean, that explains why you'd like the bunnypeople. Again this proves my point, a mmorpg fan who likes a game with catboys/catgirls and stuff will of course like the bunnypeople.

Worldbuilding right, not race design. Just saying, there's a reason folks like to watch people go through the 14 main quest, and its not to look at the catgirls or catboys. Its because: Story actually surprisingly good, which is rare for an MMO

(also if you do like darkedgy stuff, boy does 14 surprisingly have the class for you that has a questline that is all about 'boy a hero in your position must be in a Bad State mentally huh?')

I like the rabbits because "Race of rabbit people" fits with Medieval-esque stuff better than like, 90% of things in D&D, fits with the vibe of the Feywild (Especially as spirits of movement and freedom who've become the form of rabbits and hares because, that's a thing we know rabbits and hares to do), and because D&D's inherantly a silly game where one of its most iconic creatures comes out of the phrase 'Eye of the beholder'