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

 

[dave2008]

No, it doesn't. Fish, birds, dinosaurs and even a couple of mammals have scales. I'm sorry, but scales=reptiles seems like biological ignorance to me.

Did you read the next sentence where I wrote:

"I realize scales =/= reptile, but it definitely gives me a suggestion of one."

It is not about biological ignorance, it is about biological association. I am not saying the creature having scales makes them a reptile, but I am saying that it gives a suggestion of a reptilian nature (also, birds and dinosaurs are reptiles, who is the biologically ignorant one here )

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Did you read the next sentence where I wrote:

"I realize scales =/= reptile, but it definitely gives me a suggestion of one."

It is not about biological ignorance, it is about biological association. I am not saying the creature having scales makes them a reptile, but I am saying that it gives a suggestion of a reptilian nature (also, birds and dinosaurs are reptiles, who is the biologically ignorant one here )

I did. And it is an association born out of ignorance. As a science teacher, it is not an association I would make.

 

[dave2008]

I did. And it is an association born out of ignorance. As a science teacher, it is not an association I would make.

Ignorance of what? Fantasy monsters? I just want to be clear that describing something as reptilian does not mean you are stating it is a reptile. I mean the vast majority of extant animals that lay eggs, have scales, and walk on land are reptiles (lizards, birds [dinosauria], snakes, turtles, tuatara - I think those are the remaining ones). It is hardly ignorance that leads one to the conclusion that Kobolds might be some fantasy reptilian creature, it is a decent hypothesis based on the evidence.

So I would say, with regard to Kobolds (and that is all I am talking about), it is an association born out of experience and education, not ignorance. If you are presented with an animal that is scaled, breaths air, has four limbs, a tail, and lays eggs. I think that evidence (without other evidence) points to something like a reptile more than anything else - don't you?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ignorance of what? Fantasy monsters? I just want to be clear that describing something as reptilian does not mean you are stating it is a reptile. I mean the vast majority of extant animals that lay eggs, have scales, and walk on land are reptiles (lizards, birds [dinosauria], snakes, turtles, tuatara - I think those are the remaining ones). It is hardly ignorance that leads one to the conclusion that Kobolds might be some fantasy reptilian creature, it is a decent hypothesis based on the evidence.

Pedantry here on my part but the definition of reptile has been in flux for a long time:

Reptile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Frankly the current definition is somewhat sketchy and more about conveniently choosing a point to split things, than anything with more meaning than that (that it includes birds/dinosaurs shows that). If you randomly sampled points through the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before) you'd find some rather different definitions.

I agree however that calling something "Reptilian" does not mean it is necessarily literally a reptile. I mean, you can call certain people "reptilian" if you're feeling insulting!

 

[tetrasodium]

Ignorance of what? Fantasy monsters? I just want to be clear that describing something as reptilian does not mean you are stating it is a reptile. I mean the vast majority of extant animals that lay eggs, have scales, and walk on land are reptiles (lizards, birds [dinosauria], snakes, turtles, tuatara - I think those are the remaining ones). It is hardly ignorance that leads one to the conclusion that Kobolds might be some fantasy reptilian creature, it is a decent hypothesis based on the evidence.

So I would say, with regard to Kobolds (and that is all I am talking about), it is an association born out of experience and education, not ignorance. If you are presented with an animal that is scaled, breaths air, has four limbs, a tail, and lays eggs. I think that evidence (without other evidence) points to something like a reptile more than anything else - don't you?

Fish and insects lay eggs. Pretty sure they account for some staggering percentage of life on earth. D&d/fantasy creatures dont really fit well in the standard phylum kingdom whatsit order species grouping without adding new ones like draconic monstrosity humanoid or whatever and accepting that sometimes creatures fall in more than one bin

 

[dave2008]

Pedantry here on my part but the definition of reptile has been in flux for a long time:

Reptile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Frankly the current definition is somewhat sketchy and more about conveniently choosing a point to split things, than anything with more meaning than that (that it includes birds/dinosaurs shows that). If you randomly sampled points through the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before) you'd find some rather different definitions.

I agree however that calling something "Reptilian" does not mean it is necessarily literally a reptile. I mean, you can call certain people "reptilian" if you're feeling insulting!

I agree it is a bit messy. But I think it is generally accepted that Reptilia includes snakes, lizards, crocodilians, turtles, and birds (dinosaurs)

 

[dave2008]

Fish and insects lay eggs.

The point is it is not one thing that links kobolds and reptiles, it is many:

fish: scales & eggs
insects: eggs & walk on land / breath air
reptiles: walk on land, breath air, scales, and lay eggs
Kobolds: walk on land, breath air, scales, and lay eggs

D&d/fantasy creatures dont really fit well in the standard phylum kingdom whatsit order species grouping without adding new ones like draconic monstrosity humanoid or whatever and accepting that sometimes creatures fall in more than one bin

I agree completely. And I wasn't suggesting to "classify" kobolds as reptiles, I was just saying that describing them as reptilian (as an adjective) is completely acceptable. In fact, the can be reptilian dog-like people!

 

[dave2008]

I agree however that calling something "Reptilian" does not mean it is necessarily literally a reptile. I mean, you can call certain people "reptilian" if you're feeling insulting!

That is really my point as well, you just said it better!

 

[dave2008]

I did. And it is an association born out of ignorance. As a science teacher, it is not an association I would make.

Just curious, what association would you make with kobolds, if you were forced to pick an extant "class" of animals:

1. Agnatha (jaw-less fish)
2. Chrondrichtyes (cartilaginous fish)
3. Osteichthyes (bony fish)
4. Amphibia
5. Reptilia
6. Mammalia

EDIT: why are 1, 2, & 3 not just "Fish?"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just curious, what association would you make with kobolds, if you were forced to pick an extant "class" of animals:

1. Agnatha (jaw-less fish)
2. Chrondrichtyes (cartilaginous fish)
3. Osteichthyes (bony fish)
4. Amphibia
5. Reptilia
6. Mammalia

EDIT: why are 1, 2, & 3 not just "Fish?"

I wouldn't. No reason fantasy creatures should conform to any real world biological class.

Kobolds having scales tells you on thing about them: they have scales. It would be foolish to try and infer anything else about them from that single piece of information.