Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Anything is optional in your own home games, but not for official setting support in 4e where so far every player centric element in the default core has been inserted wholescale into previously distinct settings (see the retconning of 4e Eladrin into FR, the destruction of portions of FR in order to insert a nation of dragonborn, etc).

I don't think FR is such a great example. There were many reasons the changes were made. Dragonborn were not the sole reason for the changes, I suspect they might have been one of the less important. Introducing a new race into FR isn't that hard, especially since the PoL Dragonborn aren't exactly a common race. They had a big empire, but that's long gone and now they are more or less mercenary nomads.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Nice write-up. I have always been fascinated by Urbis. Good work there.

Thanks. I wanted to get beyond the "crazy inventor" archetype of gnomes, since the dwarves also fit into the "craftsman race" archetype - so I needed more to distinguish them.

And the way gnomes seem to fade from sight - both physically and socially - well, it makes you think about them, doesn't it? They don't look tough or imposing, so what's their shtick?

And then I remembered all those old jokes about the "Gnomes of Zürich" and the rest fell into place. Now gnomes are an entire race of manipulative masterminds - or are they? They certainly deny it - but can you believe them?

Despite seeming entirely harmless and inoffensive, gnomes do worry a lot of people. Whether those worries are justified is up to the DM...

 

[ferratus]

It isn't as if they couldn't have introduced the Dragonborn on the western continent north or south of Maztica, and have them enter the setting through Baldur's Gate.

No, the changes to the Forgotten Realms were story changes because they thought it would improve the setting in its own right, rather than trying to make it fit 4e specifically.

 

[AllisterH]

While I don't really get Dragonborn, it's always been obvious to me that people will want to play them. Out of the 5 people in my first serious D&D group, 3 of them have latched onto the concept. One asked if he could play a dragon man when the group first formed, as he'd never played D&D before(this was in the early 2nd edition days). The other two started playing half dragons/dragon disciples in 3rd ed, and at least one of them is playing a Dragonborn now. I really don't get the appeal, but it's obviously there.

.

This is EXACTLY what it is like for me. I've had players asking for Dragonmen since the 2e days and like outsider, I don't get the appeal, but I can't deny that it has some sort of traction.

re: Lizardman vs Dragonmen
And no, they don't want to play a lizardman. A Dragonman race must have Wings and be able to fly eventually and most imprtantly, a breath weapon is a MUST.

re: Eladrin vs elves
A lot of my people seem happy with the split. They get to play the Sidhe they want and leave the "that half of the race is plain uninteresting" by the wayside. To me, it seems like a 50/50 split between those that prefer Eladrin to Elves and vice versa.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've come around to the idea that dragon-people fill a comfortable niche. My original idea was too much in my own biases (toward weird races, and away from what I don't like about Dragonborn), but further consideration opened my eyes that there is an appeal for dragon-people (though I still think a PC-dragon would kind of shoehorn in on their territory, I get that dragons aren't necessarily appropriate PCs).

I'd still say it's not the Dragonborn or the Tieflings that have "traction" per se, as these concepts existed in gaming before these races. I'd say that tieflings and dragonborn are 4e's way of giving players things they want to play (devil-people and dragon-people).

I also say that the most recent edition's creative side seems a little borked -- tieflings and dragonborn both look tremendously goofy to me, and the name "dragonborn" is pretty vile to me. But those are aethetics. It's OK to have dragon-people and devil-people, and those do make sense (well, kind of) in core D&D. They are more "monstrous" races, however, so they won't be appropriate for every high-fantasy setting.

Thus, for me, I'm less inclined to play a dragonborn or a tiefling than I was in 3e to play a half-dragon or a tiefling, because everyone's imagination will be filled with eyeless tentacle-haired dinosaur-men and buttock-heads and dragonbewbs and tails that make chairs impossible.

I'd still play a different kind of dragon-person (or a dragon) or a different kind of (2e-ified) tiefling, I'm just not partial to their most recent forms.

Though that might have more to do with 4e's broadly cartoony (in places) art style and the inability of designers to name things without sounding like two year olds just slamming words together. It's aesthetics. I don't begrudge their existence or their mechanics necessarily.

 

[Obryn]

Oh, side note on dragonborn:

Several of my friends who do like 4e have almost all mentioned that they think dragonborn is just "too good" compared to the others. They have mountains of awesome racial feats while other classes get bland +number ones, and they're amazing at a very large array of classes, far more then other classes. Their main complaint is that they think WotC wanted dragonborn to be a big draw, so they focused a lot on them mechanically - to the detriment of other races.

I think that was definitely the case when PHB1 came out, but over time I think it's improved. They were a very good fit for a lot of classes in PHB1 - they have good stats for fighters, some clerics, some rangers, and some warlocks; and have ideal stats for paladins and inspiring warlords. I mean, that's 3/4 of the PHB right there. They were also the only race with a Strength boost, which was appealing to 3e sensibilities where Strength was King.

Now that PHB2 and several Dragon articles have come out, we have several more Strength-based races - Warforged, Minotaurs, Genasi, Goliaths, Half-Orcs. (Gnolls? I forget.) There are now better races for a lot of classes than dragonborn, so their supremacy has fallen a bit.

Other than that, I think Dragonborn mostly benefitted from having a Dragon article about them, much like Genasi did. I don't know that it's favoritism, really; I think an article was needed on the new race, and extra feats are just kind of an expectation for articles like that.

-O

 

[Puggins]

Dragonborn are probably the best executed race in 4e. It doesn't make them the best race- there are plenty of classes in which they are merely good fits. They simply happen to have an attribute combination that couples the two most popular primary attributes in the game.

Strength: Fighter, Warlord, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Warden
Charisma: Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard

Wisdom is the only other attribute that has four classes that use it as a primary. The Dragonborn bonuses seem perfectly in character to me. I wish they wouldn't have used Strength as a secondary attribute for sorcerers (that's the only kluge to cater to dragonborn that I've seen), but otherwise I don't see a biased design- I see a lot of natural synergy.

 

[alleynbard]

Thanks. I wanted to get beyond the "crazy inventor" archetype of gnomes, since the dwarves also fit into the "craftsman race" archetype - so I needed more to distinguish them.

And the way gnomes seem to fade from sight - both physically and socially - well, it makes you think about them, doesn't it? They don't look tough or imposing, so what's their shtick?

And then I remembered all those old jokes about the "Gnomes of Zürich" and the rest fell into place. Now gnomes are an entire race of manipulative masterminds - or are they? They certainly deny it - but can you believe them?

Despite seeming entirely harmless and inoffensive, gnomes do worry a lot of people. Whether those worries are justified is up to the DM...

You have hit on one of the wonderful things about worldbuilding when it comes to adding new races. The mechanics evoke an idea, which inspires you when it comes time to find a place for the race in society. Most often real world events help feed that concept. And before you know it, you have this inspired amalgam of ideas that brings the concept into fresh territory.

This is one of the reasons I like being presented with new races. It challenges me to find a place for these races in my world. Not necessarily "shoehorning", but finding a logical place for the race to dwell and to integrate its back story with my homebrew without retconning. The same goes for classes and power sources.

Once again, great stuff. I find Urbis to be of constant inspiration. Thanks for providing your ideas in the public forum.

I'm curious. Any thoughts on adding PHB2 races to your setting? Do you have plans to do that?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

You have hit on one of the wonderful things about worldbuilding when it comes to adding new races. The mechanics evoke an idea, which inspires you when it comes time to find a place for the race in society. Most often real world events help feed that concept. And before you know it, you have this inspired amalgam of ideas that brings the concept into fresh territory.

One of my major sources of inspiration are the old "Suppressed Transmission" articles by Kenneth Hite - that guy is able to find connections and inspiration in anything. I aspire to do the same, although I still have a long way to go...

The real world is also a major source of inspiration for me. I mean, it worked brilliantly for Warhammer Fantasy - so I figured I might as well try the same.

Oh, and since we are on the topic, I'd like to use this opportunity to plug the Arcana Wiki again, which is dedicated to finding gaming inspiration from Real World material. I used quite a few things I discovered while doing research for this wiki for Urbis as well...

This is one of the reasons I like being presented with new races. It challenges me to find a place for these races in my world. Not necessarily "shoehorning", but finding a logical place for the race to dwell and to integrate its back story with my homebrew without retconning. The same goes for classes and power sources.

I experienced this strongly with the eladrin when I tried to work them into the setting. Not only did I come up with a good explanation for their existence, but I also ended up making two of the elven kingdoms of Urbis a lot more interesting than they were previously...

Once again, great stuff. I find Urbis to be of constant inspiration. Thanks for providing your ideas in the public forum.

No problem. I always like to plug my stuff.

I'm curious. Any thoughts on adding PHB2 races to your setting? Do you have plans to do that?

That's a tricky topic. I recently decided to move Urbis to a more "system-neutral" description, as I'm not sure what the GSL will cover once I start selling Urbis as a product - in that situation, the Urbis Wiki probably doesn't count as a "fan site" any more.

So now I'm trying to stay away from anything that's too easily identifiable as D&D Product IP. The dragonborn (which I've renamed dragonkin) are already a fairly borderline case, and I'm trying to avoid adding more.

Gnomes are already a part of the setting. Half-orcs are sufficiently "public domain" that adding them shouldn't be a problem, and I actually have a writeup of them dating back to D&D3.X lying around somewhere - I just need to upload it.

I have some vague ideas of a race roughly analogous to the Devas - which I intend to call "Nephilim" - but I need to give them some further thoughts before writing them up. Goliaths and shifters are probably too D&D-specific, and I'll likely not include them.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I'd say the idea of playing a dragon person has had a long history in D&D, so the dragonborn, in one form or another, have always had traction. What I think 4e does is finally give this very popular concept a well-deserved front-and-center role in the game.

While I like their new backstory and the dark, sword and sorcery feel they bring to the game, I don't see tieflings quite as frequently.