D&D 5E Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves

Celebrim

Legend
Does anyone ban human characters? I mean if halflings are boring aren't full-lings doubly so?

I've considered on occasion running a D&D clockpunk campaign, with no humans, set in the atmosphere of a gas giant.

I'm more seriously considering offering my players as a campaign after this one wraps up (in 4 more years or so, assuming it reaches the finish line) a campaign set entirely in the Underdark, no humans allowed, where the players begin as a diverse crew of outcast merchant/pirates sailing a sunless sea.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanliss

Explorer
I don't allow dragonborn primarily because the pictures are just stupid*. Mammaries on a reptile? Why? And don't even get me started on those stupid scaly dreadlock things. Really? :rant:

*It also may have something to do with my campaign setting and dragonborn not fitting into the mythology and not having enough uniqueness to need their introduction. But seriously. Scaly dreadlocks?

I remember hearing somewhere that a dev said 5E Dragon born do not have breasts. Maybe I was wrong, but if it is true then any of the pictures inside can be make it female.
 

Oofta

Legend
I figured they have boobs because they are a human-dragon cross. Who knows what characteristics from each would be kept. I don't a really recall the dreadlocks, I just assumed that they all had frills or small horns depending on which dragon type they belong to.


I would actually be ok with horns. But no...
dragonborn 1.jpg

WTF?

dragonborn 2.jpg
 

Oofta

Legend
I remember hearing somewhere that a dev said 5E Dragon born do not have breasts. Maybe I was wrong, but if it is true then any of the pictures inside can be make it female.

Hey, this is my pet peeve list. It doesn't have to be logical!

But yeah ... female dragonborn cleavage. With, of course weird scale dreadlocks.

dragonborn female.jpg
 


I don't allow dragonborn primarily because the pictures are just stupid*. Mammaries on a reptile? Why? And don't even get me started on those stupid scaly dreadlock things. Really? :rant:
I don't use dragonborn either for reasons of parsimony, but in their defense:

(a) They're not just reptiles, they're half human. And hell, even full dragons aren't really reptiles. The 3E Draconomicon opens with the sentence of "At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile", then launches into a full chapter of "however..." When a creature can produce a blast of fire, the question of whether or not it ought to be able to produce milk seems silly. Now, if we were talking about lizardfolk, that would be a different story.

(b) Some full dragons are illustrated with "those stupid scaly dreadlock things" too. Gold dragons have facial hair, in case you've forgotten.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Currently, no Dragon born
A fertility crisis among Dragons? Interesting plot hook.


When a creature can produce a blast of fire, the question of whether or not it ought to be able to produce milk seems silly.
However, I do care about believability and coherency and so forth...I have absolutely no understanding of the argument that says, "This fantastic thing is in the game. Therefore it doesn't matter what is in the game." To me that might as well be like saying, "Build the doghouse out of pancakes, because wheels aren't square." One thing doesn't imply the other.
Hm. That's not one fantatsic thing excusing another. ("Wheels aren't square" is just a mundane fact.) No, an analogy to the fantastic-things-excuse-other-fantastic-things argument-you-don't-get would be saying "Build your dog's house out of pancakes..." to the Witch in Hansel & Gretel, who already lives in a house made of candy.

Oh yeah, I remember those now. I'd totally forgotten about them. I think I will stick with characteristics similar to the dragons their ancestry is based on.
I thought it was pretty clear that dragonborn, in spite of the name, appearance, and having breath-weapons and worshiping a god of dragons - which seems like a lotta spite, IMHO - were not supposed to actually be descended from dragons, particularly not the color-coded traditional D&D dragons. (Or maybe it was just that it was pointedly pointed out that the breath weapon and scale colors didn't correlate?)
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I would actually be ok with horns. But no...
View attachment 80167

WTF?

View attachment 80166

Why not? Are dragons really just giant flying reptiles that breath fire? They are fantastical creatures that require their own creature type. They are not beasts like dinosaurs or giant lizards?

Look at Oriental dragons, especially Chinese dragons, which gold dragons are obviously modeled after. You'll see dragons with hair, antlers, and barbels (those things that catfish and bullheads have).

From a temple in the Forbidden City in Beijing:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tai...al+palace+museum+dragon&imgrc=540dqx-G9FkQ-M:

Look also at the old colonial emblem of Hong Kong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Hong_Kong_(1959-1997).svg

See also:

http://www.inkdancechinesepaintings.com/dragon/picture/4522001.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c6/a0/f2/c6a0f215a0a0d3d80fd75c2910e4b43f.jpg

I'm not into Dragonborn having mammalary glands, but that is mostly because (1) it seems like "furry" nonesense where even alien beings have to be sexualized, and (2) it is less interesting--dragonborn, even more than teiflings, are very alien sentient beings. They should have different reproduction, dietary requirements, etc. that would make for differently structured societies and make for interesting role-play opportunities.

This is why I like the idea of playing lizardfolk more than dragonborn, they require players to stretch their minds more than I see most people do when they play dragonborn. In my current campaign, neither fit, but I would certainly allow drgonborn in the right campaign, but i would tweak the culture and I may make their possible looks be even more radical than in the books.

I have a more difficult problem with exactly how they came to being. In some cultures, like in Slavic mythology, dragons are portrayed as sexually aggressive shape-shifters, often mating with humans. Chinese fairy tailes are even more on point. Certain lung were said to mate with human women, producing half-human half-dragon children. There is Tang Dynasty story, The Dragon King's Daughter, where it is a female dragon who mates with a male human. The story has been retold and made into operas and plays. In Chinese mythology, I think it works. Chinese dragons are divine beings. Immortal shapeshifters that contain the elements of all the animals on Chinese zodiac, are associated with the five elements, and rule the weather, earthquakes and other natural phenomena. Reading Chinese dragon myths is similar to myths of Greek gods walking among, and sometimes mating with, humans.

Because of the complexity of draconic forms and powers, the children of Chinese-dragons and their human mates could vary widely in form. There is the legend of the nine sons of the dragon. None of which grew into true dragons and all of which if different features. Note that "9" can symbolically mean "many" in Chinese myth. One son is described as turtle like in apparance. Another is described as a lizard without a table. One was tiger-like in appearance. Another like a wolf. Another was a small yellow dragon with scales. Another like a jackal, another like a lion, there was one that was even described as looking a like a snail.

I've though of running a campaign where everyone is dragon born, but basing the flavor on Chinese mythology. I don't think I would need to change the mechanics, just the flavor text. Each player would build a unique dragon born character with widely different looks. They would come together/discover each other, or be brought together by their dragon father for some important mission.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
I thought it was pretty clear that dragonborn, in spite of the name, appearance, and having breath-weapons and worshiping a god of dragons - which seems like a lotta spite, IMHO - were not supposed to actually be descended from dragons, particularly not the color-coded traditional D&D dragons. (Or maybe it was just that it was pointedly pointed out that the breath weapon and scale colors didn't correlate?)

That is the case I believe. I tend to ignore it and have my dragonborn having coloured scales reminiscent of their draconic bloodline.

Edit: Actually, rereading the dragonborn entry it states that some clans still have strong ties to their original draconic bloodline and retain the colours reminiscent of their bloodline instead of the standard copper/bronze of other dragonborn.
 
Last edited:

Hm. That's not one fantatsic thing excusing another. ("Wheels aren't square" is just a mundane fact.) No, an analogy to the fantastic-things-excuse-other-fantastic-things argument-you-don't-get would be saying "Build your dog's house out of pancakes..." to the Witch in Hansel & Gretel, who already lives in a house made of candy.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I thought it was pretty clear that dragonborn, in spite of the name, appearance, and having breath-weapons and worshiping a god of dragons - which seems like a lotta spite, IMHO - were not supposed to actually be descended from dragons, particularly not the color-coded traditional D&D dragons. (Or maybe it was just that it was pointedly pointed out that the breath weapon and scale colors didn't correlate?)
The scale colors don't correlate because the dragonborn have interbred to the point where they're mostly all that bronzy-brown color. They're still supposed to be descended from true dragons.

Dammit, that's the word I was trying to think of.
 

Remove ads

Top