Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[Mercurius]

Am I just a grognard, or are Dragonborn and, to a lesser degree, Tieflings universally despised? Both seem more "kewl" than "cool", more post-2000 World of Warcraft-esque fantasy than classic Lord of the Rings fantasy or New Wave Talislanta-esque weird fantasy.

I wish I liked them but I just don't. They both seem kind of silly to me. Of the 3.x races I would have preferred to see genasi as core than tieflings. Actually, I would have liked to see WotC retain the classic core classes in PHB I (inc. gnomes and half-orcs) and then in later PHBs, or even a Race book of its own, have other playable races like Dragonborn, Tieflings, Genasi, Drow, etc.

Ultimately I don't care all that much as I just wouldn't use them in my campaign, or at least as very rare occurences. But I guess I'm just a bit surprised they are both core; now I was out of gaming from about 2003-08, but it seems they kind of came out of nowhere in terms of centrality to the D&D ethos. Anyways, poll away...

 

[Wormwood]

Love Tieflings, neutral on Dragonborn.

Elves and Dwarves, on the other hand, bore me to tears.

 

[Shroomy]

Yeah, I got no problems with either race, I like'em fine. I can also see why WoTC included both racial archetypes in the new core rules.

 

[drothgery]

I think it's kind of shocking that Dungeons & Dragons went 30 years without dragon-men in core, though for purposes of artwork plausibility IMC I think I'd say dragonborn are mammals (and so are dragons). On the other hand, I've never really liked giving PCs demonic flavor, so not huge tiefling fan. Though that's more of an indifferent than dislike; as long as D&D has humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings, anything else is gravy.

 

[Psion]

I don't dislike them so much as I don't want to see them as default elements.

Honestly, I'd be glad to allow either in my 3e game. As exceptions.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Dislike them both.

Not to the point where I flat-out forbid them in my games, but I'm just not keen on having either race be dominant in the game. I limit their availability as PCs (one per adventuring group), that's all.

Now, I like that all PC races (and monsters available as PC races) don't have the Level Adjustment element anymore. Makes things somewhat easier to incorporate into a game (esp. a starting game).

But, I don't care that gnomes and half-orcs were excluded while these 2 races were included. I can understand why, but I don't like it.

 

[JeffB]

I guess I'm a grognard- I figure Gygax and the original TSR crew wrote the best adventures ever, I learned how to play with and love the LBBs, adore Moldvay/Cook B/X, 1E, C&C and all sorts of classic D&D flavor. But I also love Eberron (Xen'Drik=perfect D&D gaming setup) and 4E! (hate 3.x , sorry)

With that little bit of my background laid out- I can say neither the silly jimmy durante shnoz' people ..err dragonborn... or the Tieflings will be making any appearances in my 4E campaign.

 

[Doug McCrae]

They're growing on me. I want my first few 4e games to be close to the assumptions in the core rules, which means there must be tieflings and dragonborn kicking around. Having to come up with a reason for them to exist in the campaign world means one ends up thinking about them in a positive way.

Next thing you know, they'll be part of the wonderful D&D tradition and people will cry on message boards when they're removed in 8e.

 

[EricNoah]

I like Planescape-esque tieflings fine -- you know, the ones where no two look exactly alike. Not the 4E variety that look like a unified race.

Not as interested in Dragonborn.

So I voted Tiefling Yes, Dragonborn No.

 

[Gold Roger]

I like Tieflings.

I'm indifferent to dragonborn and if it was entirely about me I'd propably remove them to make room for other choices. But I've got the same feeling about elves, half-elves and halflings.

However, I currently have a dragonborn and a half-elf in my campaign, so my players like them.