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

 

[Parmandur]

Nice! That predates my conversion to 5E.

I still think that, for the majority of D&D's existence, storm giants could be easily modeled by slapping some cleric or wizard levels on a cloud giant. I did see in Volo's that they've worked hard to give them strong cultural differentiation.

Giving a strong differentiation to every creature was a major goal in the D&D Next playtest, for sure.

 

[see]

I don't think that it's weird that you want to discuss it; that kind of thing is what these boards are for. I do, however, think that you're wrong. Prior to 3.x the books said that they were dog-like, with scaly skin.

And were hairless. And laid eggs.

I'm having a hard time believing anyone actually has made the claim, "Well, I knew that they were hairless, scaly, egg-layers, but I still didn't think they were supposed to be reptilian". I do know people back twenty years ago, upon asking "Wait, why are kobolds suddenly reptiles?" generally accepted my pointing out "See this Monstrous Compendium entry where it said they were scaly egg-layers back in 1989? And how they were hairless egg-layers drawn with scales back in 1977?" as definitively showing that they'd missed something along the way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And were hairless. And laid eggs.

Sure, they were weird. I think the problem you're going to have convincing anyone here is that you can't actually produce anything that actually says that they were "reptilian" or even "lizard-like". Nor were they drawn as such. Heck, I believe you that a description somewhere said that they were hairless (I don't remember it, but I'm sure you're right). But even so...

That thing clearly has whiskers.

At any rate, I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong for choosing to interpret the description as (at least partly) reptilian. It's a reasonable assumption. However, it's not one that everyone made, including artists like 2e's Tony Deterlizzi (TD) up there. (In fact, that is his most lizard-like kobold, his others look more like goblins). It's also not "correct", it's just an opinion.

They certainly are reptilian now, though!

 

[tetrasodium]

View attachment 135803

That thing clearly has whiskers.

so does a catfish They are draconic now though so maybe more bearded dragonish whiskers than catfish ones

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And were hairless. And laid eggs.

That also goes for fish. And I would be interested in seeing your source for "hairless" since it is possible to have scales and hair (birds have scales and feathers, pangolins have scales and fur) and I don't recall ever seeing it written down that they were hairless.

I'm having a hard time believing anyone actually has made the claim, "Well, I knew that they were hairless, scaly, egg-layers, but I still didn't think they were supposed to be reptilian". I do know people back twenty years ago, upon asking "Wait, why are kobolds suddenly reptiles?" generally accepted my pointing out "See this Monstrous Compendium entry where it said they were scaly egg-layers back in 1989? And how they were hairless egg-layers drawn with scales back in 1977?" as definitively showing that they'd missed something along the way.

The fact is there was no consistent description of kobolds up until 3rd edition. For some writers they where the slightly smaller goblins that Gygax first envisioned, for other writers, they saw the art and made them more reptilian (although never cold blooded). And no one at TSR cared about "canon". Obsession with canon was a nerd thing that came later.

 

[Mind of tempest]

so does a catfish They are draconic now though so maybe more bearded dragonish whiskers than catfish ones

cat fish dragons now there is an idea.

 

[cbwjm]

Sure, they were weird. I think the problem you're going to have convincing anyone here is that you can't actually produce anything that actually says that they were "reptilian" or even "lizard-like". Nor were they drawn as such. Heck, I believe you that a description somewhere said that they were hairless (I don't remember it, but I'm sure you're right). But even so...

View attachment 135803

That thing clearly has whiskers.

At any rate, I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong for choosing to interpret the description as (at least partly) reptilian. It's a reasonable assumption. However, it's not one that everyone made, including artists like 2e's Tony Deterlizzi (TD) up there. (In fact, that is his most lizard-like kobold, his others look more like goblins). It's also not "correct", it's just an opinion.

They certainly are reptilian now, though!

This is the image I most associated with kobolds. Combine that with the yip, yip, yipping kobolds of baldurs gate then the dragon like kobolds of 3e were a bit of a surprise. It didn't worry me though, I think I just went "okay" and moved on.

 

[Remathilis]

cat fish dragons now there is an idea.

They are just red dragons who live in frigid climates to convince adventurers they are white dragons so the adventurers show up armed with fire spells...

 

[darjr]

I dunno. I mean D&D is WEIRD. It’s one reason I love it so much.

 

[tetrasodium]

They are just red dragons who live in frigid climates to convince adventurers they are white dragons so the adventurers show up armed with fire spells...

Dont forget the phisher dragons who spend it using scry &message type spells to convince advertisers to come collect mountains of gold from a displaced noble trying to govern it away before the usurper can use it in unsavory ways against the poor peasants