D&D 5E (2014) 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

 

[dave2008]

Kobolds > Goblins > Orcs/Hobgoblins > Bugbears > Ogres

Maybe I have been away from such comparisons for to long, but think you have the greater / lesser than sign backwards. Shouldn't it be:

Kobolds < Goblins < Orcs/Hobgoblins < Bugbears < Ogres

i.e Ogres are greater than Bugbears, which are greater than Orcs, which...

EDIT: The internet agrees with me at least:

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I figured, even back then, that they were like platypus'.....

Egg laying, have venom, not a reptile. I mean I get your point, but different people view and conceive things differently.

 

[SkidAce]

I MEAN WEB FEET!!!!!!!




edit: time to create a giant venomized web footed platypus of death....

 

[SkidAce]

Maybe I have been away from such comparisons for to long, but think you have the greater / lesser than sign backwards. Shouldn't it be:

Kobolds < Goblins < Orcs/Hobgoblins < Bugbears < Ogres

i.e Ogres are greater than Bugbears, which are greater than Orcs, which...

EDIT: The internet agrees with me at least:

View attachment 135812
View attachment 135813

I think they might have mean the > as an arrow pointing, i.e. one leads to the other sequence. Instead of math and greater than.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe I have been away from such comparisons for to long, but think you have the greater / lesser than sign backwards. Shouldn't it be:

Kobolds < Goblins < Orcs/Hobgoblins < Bugbears < Ogres

i.e Ogres are greater than Bugbears, which are greater than Orcs, which...

EDIT: The internet agrees with me at least:

I was using them in the sense of arrows pointing from one to another, not as mathematical symbols. It's also a popular internet convention.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

cat fish dragons now there is an idea.

Catfish are terrifying murderbeasts. Making them bigger and magical is bad news for the rest of the world.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I literally showed you the actual passage from Moldvay's basic (that you originally cited) that does not say what you think it does, and yet you keep making these claims. I don't know what to tell you at this point. Of course it must seem like you're right when you ignore all the evidence that shows you're wrong. The weird thing is why you're so adamant to repeat false assumptions after the evidence shows the contrary. Also, it seems like you're bouncing your timelines all over the place. Citing 1989 as proof they were always that way when they weren't prior to that, then throwing in 1977 when it doesn't say what you're wanting it to say? I dunno, makes no coherent argument.

It's entirely reasonable for someone to look at a kobold, see it has nipples, and read the description, which says they are dog-like with scaly skin (not reptilian anywhere in that description), and think they are more mammal like than reptile. You didn't. Good for you. Entirely reasonable. But why you're so hard on telling others who did think that, that they are wrong, makes no sense when looking at how they were actually described.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let's look at how they are actually described in the books most people saw for the first two and a half decades of the game:

OD&D:
KOBOLDS: Treat these monsters as if they were Goblins except that they will
take from 1 - 3 hits (roll a six-sided die with a 1 or 3 equaling 1 hit, a 3 or 4
equaling 2 hits, etc.).

1e:
Description: The hide of kobolds runs from very dark rusty brawn to a rusty
black. They have no hair. Their eyes are reddish and their small horns are
tan to white. They favor red or orange garb (as an aside, when I first saw the image in the MM, I thought they were wearing mail armor, not scales, especially since the image of them fighting the green dragon in the DMG didn't have scales really at all, but were clearly mini dog men).

Moldvay Basic:

Mentzer Basic:

2e MM:
Barely clearing 3 feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white. Because of the kobolds' fondness for wearing raggedy garb of red and orange, their non-prehensile rat-like tails, and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping), these fell creatures are often not taken seriously.

Nothing about being reptilian. Nothing about laying eggs. But many comparisons to mammals (dogs)

edit the first real comparisons to reptiles were not kobolds per se, but urds, which are described as "distant relatives" of kobolds:

Urds are distant relatives of kobolds. Three feet tall, with short ivory horns, their bodies are frail and covered with mottled yellow to brick red scales. Their leathery, batlike wings span 8 feet

 

[Weiley31]

Deekin Scalesinger - who is very firmly connected to dragons.

Especially since he can take levels in Red Dragon Disciple.

 

[Faolyn]

These are other early kobold pictures:

Neither of which are seriously reptilian to me. The person who said Synopsids was probably a lot closer to the mark.