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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Rant zone below!

First of all, MY books of the 2nd edition don't have any of that rabbitfolks, catfolks, all-races-are-equal-even-if-one-is-2-meters-height-and-the-other-is-half-a-meter, crap.
Yes, everyone is humanoid somehow, but making other animals into humanoid too isn't solving the fact that everything from giants to feys to demons is human-shaped. How does adding rabbit-people make the game more fantasy or original?

Two different parts here.
1. Although I didn't play it, I am well aware that 2e definitely had animalfolk. Animalfolk are nothing new to D&D. Lupins, Rakasta, Thri-Kreen, and so on. Why the heck do those get to exist in D&D, but not rabbitfolk? Is it because you don't want the game to add things that younger players (including kids, who will be the next generation of gamers) want? Because that's how it seems to me.
2. Rabbitfolk are fantastical. They're a race of bunny-people. How is that not more "fantasy"? To me, this sounds like someone complaining that adding more chocolate to their chocolate cake doesn't make it more chocolately. Of course it does! It's quite literally in the definition of what you are doing! Rabbitfolk don't exist in the real world, are a fantasy, and are being added to a fantasy game. If that doesn't scream "fantasy" to you, you have a weird definition of "fantasy".

Don't even get me started on the sanitizing part. I remember the manual explicitly mentioned that the derro kept prisoners as sex slaves. Nowadays, I worry just mentioning this in this forum may get me a moderator warning (please don't!), as if mentioning something was akin to endorsing it.

Like I said above, the game needs to market to kids, because they're eventually going to end up replacing all of us in the hobby, once we all grow old and die. I'm just about to turn 20, but it will happen to me, too, even if I'm around a bit later than you will be. D&D has to have at least some parts of it that gear towards this younger generation, or else D&D will die. That means that things like Harengon, Owlins, Strixhaven, and similar options have to be available. This also means that the core of D&D shouldn't contain things that would turn them (or their parents) away from playing the game, like Derro Sex Slaves.

You can include whatever you want in your campaigns, but that doesn't mean that it should be included in the base game.

And shall I mention how the combat changed to make sure you keep hitting enemies and watch the number go up while you gulp down potions - just like you'd do in a videogame? Or how the prices changed so buying stuff feels more like it'd feel in a videogame (300 gold pieces for a armour, not 30) so you can stash loot.

Yeah, this is wrong. The video-gamey aspects of combat were almost definitely just purely coincidental. And there are a number of popular houserules to avoid this if you don't like it. No system is flawless, not even 5e, but that doesn't mean that WotC are trying to turn the game into a video game (that's one of the reasons why 4e failed).

So what happens when you remove any vague reference to heavy subjects, then add cute animal people, then turn the combat into a videogame combat?

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. "Heavy subjects" can exist in D&D. Ravenloft was literally just rebooted, and it contained a bunch of these "heavy subjects" and horrific monsters and adventures. D&D can cater towards multiple different groups and playstyles at once, it just has to make room for the future players of the game.

I apologize for the off topic. But c'mon. They saw the market and changed the game accordingly, over the years.

What else did you expect? They're gearing towards their audience and their future generations of players. That's literally how things are supposed to work. If they don't do that, D&D will eventually die. Do you want D&D to die, because I don't think that you do, even if you don't like the direction that D&D is going right now. Would you rather D&D die than stop catering towards you in order to survive?

 

[Azzy]

Rant zone below!

First of all, MY books of the 2nd edition don't have any of that rabbitfolks, catfolks,

Tabaxi and rakasta date back to 1e and B/X, respectively. Aaracokra, kenku, giff, lupin, yak-folk, crab-folk, hengeyoukai, etc. all existed in multiple editions. Animal folk have been there for decades

all-races-are-equal-even-if-one-is-2-meters-height-and-the-other-is-half-a-meter, crap.

Not in this edition, either.

Yes, everyone is humanoid somehow, but making other animals into humanoid too isn't solving the fact that everything from giants to feys to demons is human-shaped. How does adding rabbit-people make the game more fantasy or original?

Check out those medieval illustrations earlier. Rabbit-people apparently make the game more medeival European inspired.

Don't even get me started on the sanitizing part. I remember the manual explicitly mentioned that the derro kept prisoners as sex slaves.

Yeah, I've been playing since 1e and I have no recollection of that. And, if there, that can take a flying leap into the trash bin.

Nowadays, I worry just mentioning this in this forum may get me a moderator warning (please don't!), as if mentioning something was akin to endorsing it.


And shall I mention how the combat changed to make sure you keep hitting enemies and watch the number go up while you gulp down potions - just like you'd do in a videogame? Or how the prices changed so buying stuff feels more like it'd feel in a videogame (300 gold pieces for a armour, not 30) so you can stash loot.

Would you like to back up the math on 5e characters hitting more often? In 5e, the proficiency bonus goes up to +6 with ability score potentially inproving that by 5 at max. In 2e, fighters could go up to an equivalent of +19 (before ability score bonuses), wizards (in last place) could have a max of +6.

Ooh, prices went up. Even D&D suffers from inflation, apparently.

So what happens when you remove any vague reference to heavy subjects, then add cute animal people, then turn the combat into a videogame combat?

More people tune-in? Never mind that there are still heavy subjects, the animal people aren't necessarily cute (and most have been there in earlier editions), and combat isn't any more videogamey than earlier editions.

I apologize for the off topic. But c'mon. They saw the market and changed the game accordingly, over the years.

That's not a bad thing, though—evolve or die.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I said in a different thread: ability modifiers are stupid in a point buy system. It is just a tax you pay. You try to get good in your main stats anyway.
If you roll, +2 bonus to something can also meaningfully increase a very bad roll to okish.

There are way better methods to enforce strength: goliaths for example can lift twice as muchand gain atheltics for free.
They are also tough because of their racial ability.
So +2 strength and +1 con is not needed at all.
It just makes you a better great sword fighter. If you think, being big makes you better at fighting with great swords, then +2 strength is warranted.
I don't think, that is necessarily true.

A different possibility would also be just get rid of stat modifiers to weapon skills. Stats are mainly helping in secondary class skills or proficiencies. Then I could see keeping stats, as it would not be as penalizing to not have big prime stats.
(That does not mean, you can't play with lower prime stats already).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Rant zone below!

First of all, MY books of the 2nd edition don't have any of that rabbitfolks, catfolks, all-races-are-equal-even-if-one-is-2-meters-height-and-the-other-is-half-a-meter, crap.
Yes, everyone is humanoid somehow, but making other animals into humanoid too isn't solving the fact that everything from giants to feys to demons is human-shaped. How does adding rabbit-people make the game more fantasy or original?


Don't even get me started on the sanitizing part. I remember the manual explicitly mentioned that the derro kept prisoners as sex slaves. Nowadays, I worry just mentioning this in this forum may get me a moderator warning (please don't!), as if mentioning something was akin to endorsing it.


And shall I mention how the combat changed to make sure you keep hitting enemies and watch the number go up while you gulp down potions - just like you'd do in a videogame? Or how the prices changed so buying stuff feels more like it'd feel in a videogame (300 gold pieces for a armour, not 30) so you can stash loot.


So what happens when you remove any vague reference to heavy subjects, then add cute animal people, then turn the combat into a videogame combat?

I apologize for the off topic. But c'mon. They saw the market and changed the game accordingly, over the years.

/rant

yikes.

Laughing a bit at the idea that having rabbit people makes the game less serious or more cartoon-like.

The fact you think the game is worse for not having sex slaves as a published point of conflict is very…privileged.

 

[Bird Of Play]

To answer these points: the fact that medieval artworks sometimes depicts animal people (including rabbit people) doesn't really mean they'd make D&D more medieval. In fact, all they do is prove that we've always anthropomorphized animals. Also: keep in mind most of the times when they'd draw bunnypeople, they were meant to be satirical or comedical! Also, at this point, why stop at bunny, just take every mammal in the animal kingdom. Why make a specific subrace of BUNNIES? Is it because they know some players will reimagine them as cute anime people with bunny ears? You know which games have often a specific race of bunny people? MMORPG. C'mon. I used to play MMORPG too once, but I certainly don't want grindy generic anime hack'n'slash as the artistical inspiration of D&D.


As for the whole derro sex slaves (which, honestly, is what I remember of because I read that part -just- this week while preparing my duergar npc base), or whatever other controversial element is mentioned somewhere in old D&D lore..... yes, I guess it can be a privilege to be able to dwell in some subjects because they don't affect you directly. But, you know. Sanitizing every mention of darker themes just makes the whole thing feel censored and juvenile. They're called "mature" themes because adults are supposed to be able to deal with those tactfully and in the right narrative context (nevermind that it's actually more edgy teenagers than adults who enjoy said darker themes).
Stories can avoid any mention whatsoever of those dark&edgy themes and still be very intelligent and poignant (a lot of Pixar movies come to mind). It's not like they're fundamental. But I think removing them when they -previously- were in the setting, is not good. It'd be different if they never were in D&D to begin with. I realize "I totally want my tabletop rpg manual to mention sex slaves" is not a hill worth dying on, but I'd personally take derro sex slaves over bunnypeople, if you ask me which atmosphere is cooler. The first represents danger and evil and something that must be stopped; the second is bunnies.

As I said in a different thread: ability modifiers are stupid in a point buy system. It is just a tax you pay. You try to get good in your main stats anyway.
If you roll, +2 bonus to something can also meaningfully increase a very bad toll to okish.

There are way better methods to enforce strength: goliaths for example can lift twice as muchand gain atheltics for free.
They are also tough because of their racial ability.
So +2 strength and +1 con is not needed at all.
It just makes you a better great sword fighter. If you think, being big makes you better at fighting with great swords, then +2 strength is warranted.
I don't think, that is necessarily true.

A different possibility would also be just get rid of stat modifiers to weapon skills. Stats are mainly helping in secondary class skills or proficiencies. Then I could see keeping stats, as it would not be as penalizing to not have big prime stats.
(That does not mean, you can't play with lower prime stats already).

These ideas are not bad. I'll take anything that doesn't just ignore that a gnome and a orc aren't physically identical.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

the second is bunnies.

But this is a you thing. They’re not bunnies, they’re hare-people. Like, look at the actual art.

There is a long history of taking animal-folk seriously. I genuinely don’t understand why some folks find it so difficult.

 

[Demetrios1453]

But this is a you thing. They’re not bunnies, they’re hare-people. Like, look at the actual art.

There is a long history of taking animal-folk seriously. I genuinely don’t understand why some folks find it so difficult.

I'm more curious as to why for some this is a bridge too far, after all the other animal folk so far...

 

[J.Quondam]

I'm more curious as to why for some this is a bridge too far, after all the other animal folk so far...

40 years from now, Gen Z gamers will be reminiscing about the Bunny Rabbit Panic that gripped the D&D world the early 2020s.

 

[MarkB]

I'm more curious as to why for some this is a bridge too far, after all the other animal folk so far...

I just think it's hilarious that a person who's using an anthropomorphised bird as an avatar finds the introduction of an anthropomorphised animal race such a deal-breaker.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm more curious as to why for some this is a bridge too far, after all the other animal folk so far...

Yeah we have multiple birds, multiple cats, turtles, and way more in past editions.