D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Draconic Options

The latest Unearthed Arcana from WotC is called Draconic Options. It includes three variant Dragonborn races and a new kobold race, as well as a handful of new spells and feats. Dragonlance fans might do a double-take when they see Fizban's platinum shield (two Forgotten Realms dragons are referenced in the spells, too -- Icingdeath and Raulothim -- as is the FR god of fey dragons, Nathair).

Harness the power of dragons in this installment of Unearthed Arcana! This playtest document presents race, feat, and spell options related to dragons in Dungeons & Dragons.

First is a trio of draconic race options presented as an alternative to the dragonborn race in the Player’s Handbook, as well as a fresh look at the kobold race. Then comes a handful of feat options that reflect a connection to draconic power. Finally, an assortment of spells—many of them bearing the names of famous or infamous dragons—offer a variety of approaches to manifesting dragon magic.

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

There aren't any "old school mammalian Kobold descriptions".

Original-booklet D&D doesn't describe them at all. They're hairless egg-layers drawn with scales in the 1e Monster Manual. They're explicitly hairless and scaly in Moldvay Basic. They're explicitly hairless and scaly in Mentzer Basic. They're scaly egg-layers in the 2e Monstrous Compendium Volume 1. They're hairless and scaly in the (original) Rules Cyclopedia. They're scaly egg-layers in the 2e Monstrous Manual. They're "reptilian" scaly egg-layers in the 3rd edition Monster Manual. They're reptilian scaly egg-layers in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

You can't "call back" to mammalian D&D kobolds, because there isn't any description of them being mammalian to call back to.

Well, in Moldvay, they were described as more dog-like than anything else (Not sure why you omitted the first sentence in the description):

"These small, evil dog-like men usually live underground. They have scaly rust-brown skin and no hair."

Then, about 15 years ago, @JeffB asked Gary on these very forums what kobolds should have looked like, and Gary said the original art was wrong, and they should have looked like this:

 

[Bacon Bits]

View attachment 135595
That's 2e. They have little whiskers, described as smelling like dogs and having rat-like tails. So while yes, they're reptilian and laid eggs, even then, it's not hard to see how they could be mistaken as mammalian.

I know I always did.

Yup, the most common response I remember when 3e explicitly linked Kobolds and dragons was, "I thought they were little dog men?"

 

[cbwjm]

No, they didn't. One of the Feats, the Gem Dragon one, is a half-Feat with a stat bump, but the base Races are +2 and +1, assign as you wish.

Yeah, I misread it, thought that was part of the dragonborn entry but I checked it this morning and saw that it was part of a generic, "creating your character" section.

 

[cbwjm]

Yup, the most common response I remember when 3e explicitly linked Kobolds and dragons was, "I thought they were little dog men?"

Probably because of the large amount of people who had played the Baldur's Gate CRPG wherein kobolds all sounded like dogs yipping at you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Probably because of the large amount of people who had played the Baldur's Gate CRPG wherein kobolds all sounded like dogs yipping at you.

Or all the people who played 1e and B/X where they are repeatedly described as dog-like. Or in KotBL, where kobold talk was similar to barking.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

View attachment 135595
That's 2e. They have little whiskers, described as smelling like dogs and having rat-like tails. So while yes, they're reptilian and laid eggs, even then, it's not hard to see how they could be mistaken as mammalian.

I know I always did.

So that's where Warcraft got their kobold ideas from...

 

[Demetrios1453]

So that's where Warcraft got their kobold ideas from...

View attachment 135602

I was literally about to say the same thing - those are definitely WoW kobold precursors, especially with the candles on the heads...

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, Kobold is just the German form of "Goblin."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, in Moldvay, they were described as more dog-like than anything else (Not sure why you omitted the first sentence in the description):

"These small, evil dog-like men usually live underground. They have scaly rust-brown skin and no hair."

Then, about 15 years ago, @JeffB asked Gary on these very forums what kobolds should have looked like, and Gary said the original art was wrong, and they should have looked like this:

View attachment 135600

That’s about what I’d expect for German mine/tunnel goblins, which is basically what Kobolds are.

In my own game, they’re a kind of Fey, and are more closely related to spirits than to mortals, and are related to goblins (which are pretty different from folk lore or D&D, more resembling a mix of Labyrinth and Neil Gaiman’s Graveyard Book ghouls) and tend to be helpful but must be repayed for their help if you don’t want to incur their wrath.
Edit: also, I like the dragon connection so I used it, but since dragons are much more mythical and are basically very elemental godlike/archfey/high djinn type beings that often slumber for centuries deep in the Earth, it fits that the very earth-based Kobold would have an association with them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I mean, Kobold is just the German form of "Goblin."

And trow were short, ugly, mischievous fairies, and hobgoblins were benevolent short creatures, yet here we are talking about drow racist overtones and legionnaire hobgoblins