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.