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

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've been thinking about it, and here's my story for Kobolds:

In the beginning, they were a particularly small race of goblins (or possibly gnomes!). They weren't terribly threatening but they had two frightening things about them: 1) They were very clever at making traps; 2) They liked to ritualistically eat their enemies.

One day, a dragon moved in to their warrens and enslaved them. They laboured for the dragon, capturing food, slaves, and treasure for the tyrant. Eventually the dragon went to battle another dragon and returned to its lair injured. The kobolds pretended to nurse the dragon back to health, but when it went to sleep they murdered it.

Their captor vanquished, they ate the dragon, and found that the more they ate, the more dragon-like they became. Some sprouted tails, or longer muzzles, horns, ridges, vestigial wings. Their shamans became sorcerers.

They liked this newfound power, and so, as the generations went on, they found other dragons to "worship" - but if the dragon they serve ever comes home vulnerable, they will murder and eat it.

And become more dragon-like, as they have continued to do as the years go by.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The current definition isn't sketchy. It's an attempt to turn the traditional definition, which is sketchy, into a coherent one. "Reptilia" is the smallest clade that still includes everything we traditionally consider a reptile (crocodiles, snakes, turtles, lizards, tuataras).

As it turns out, however, if you want a clade that contains all those things, birds and dinosaurs* inevitably come with it. If you try to slice them off, they take crocodiles and turtles with them.

*Although "birds and dinosaurs" is redundant; dinosaurs include birds, for much the same reason that reptiles include dinosaurs.

You're really illustrating why it's sketchy as hell, dude

They decided what they wanted in it, then worked back from there, and included birds/dinosaurs because they had to, even though it makes little sense to.

I'm not really sure just how scientific traditional taxonomic classification is. Once you start to look at the genes it turns out to be quite misleading. Biology's not my specialism though.

"Not very" would I think be the short answer.

 

[Dausuul]

You're really illustrating why it's sketchy as hell, dude

They decided what they wanted in it, then worked back from there, and included birds/dinosaurs because they had to, even though it makes little sense to.

Why does it make "little sense" to? Would you prefer Reptilia to consist only of snakes, lizards, and tuataras? Why is that any less sketchy than the current definition?

 

[dave2008]

Haw! That is exactly what Paul Farquhar was saying! (Edit: I mean the last sentence.)

And I agree with Paul on that. I disagree with him that it is ignorance that would lead one to associate kobolds with reptiles. Or more correctly, the pejorative use of that word.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why does it make "little sense" to? Would you prefer Reptilia to consist only of snakes, lizards, and tuataras? Why is that any less sketchy than the current definition?

Do we really want to have an in-depth argument on taxonomics, a subject which whilst becoming more scientific, is still far from it and still more about human convenience? Also yes I would prefer that, because I think it's more reflective of actual evolutionary relationships. Maybe I'm just being difficult though. Or a taxo-grog of a very specific time period.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And I agree with Paul on that. I disagree with him that it is ignorance that would lead one to associate kobolds with reptiles. Or more correctly, the pejorative use of that word.

Well, I don't speak for him, obviously, but what I got from what he posted was that he felt that a lot of the time (not always, mind) if a reader read a description of a "dog-like creature with scales that lays eggs" and assumed that it had to be reptilian, because of the last two factoids, then it was probably based on ignorance of all the other types of animals that have scales and lay eggs. I very much doubt he was suggesting that everyone who might make that assumption was automatically ignorant for doing so.

 

[cbwjm]

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?"

If I didn't have a picture to show my players, after reading the old school description, I'd just say they're like a cross between a dog and a lizard and then move on to combat...

 

[Mind of tempest]

I question why does it matter what they were before what matters is kobolds are little dragons now and what should they be used for?

 

[dave2008]

Well, I don't speak for him, obviously, but what I got from what he posted was that he felt that a lot of the time (not always, mind) if a reader read a description of a "dog-like creature with scales that lays eggs" and assumed that it had to be reptilian, because of the last two factoids, then it was probably based on ignorance of all the other types of animals that have scales and lay eggs. I very much doubt he was suggesting that everyone who might make that assumption was automatically ignorant for doing so.

That is a fair interpretation, but Paul definitely didn't explain it that way. And again, saying it is reptilian doesn't mean it is a reptile. If I just look at the picture below, I don't think it is ignorant to call it reptilian. It might be ignorant to call it a reptile. There is a bid difference IMO.

 

[Mecheon]

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

Because despite all swimming in the water and whatnot, they're not actually all that closely related to one another