D&D 5E I don't like Dragonborn: Please stay away from D&D Next.

[nnms]

This isn't criticism. Criticism is saying that you don't like a particular element. The OP is saying that he's going to take his toys and go home if he doesn't get his way. That's called a TANTRUM.

I just reread the thread and the furthest ForeverSlayer went was to say he'd simply house rule them out. I didn't see anything like you're describing in anyone's posts.

I like dragonborn because my first experience with 4E included my friend's character that I now have fond memories of. My default assumption though, is no monstrous races for PCs unless the campaign is about that.

My biggest issue with dragonborn is the whole "honour" thing. I'm not a big fan of reskinned Klingon caricatures.

 

[am181d]

I'm not talking about homebrew games, I am talking about the game as it is written, the default setting of the game.

Homebrew IS the default setting of the game. Wizards provides setting details in core, but with the assumption that DMs will rewrite or ignore.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Drizzt was cool when Drizzt was left as something unique. But suddenly we have lots of drow who are good and have some to the surface.

But that's my point. Chaotic Good Drow PCs were already an over-used cliche long before Drizzt, thanks to Unearthed Arcana. I distinctly remember having at least two Drow Cavaliers in campaigns of mine, and I was, what, 12?

It's like if some dragon-looking character from Skyrim suddenly became an overly-popular book character, and everyone was playing Dragonborn PCs, and then started blaming D&D for ripping off Skyrim. Bad cause and effect.

Anyway, that's why we shouldn't have Dragonborn in 5e.

 

[Dracorat]

Considering my name, it would be a crime for me to vote anything other than yes.

(And for the record I do actually like them so the vote is valid too.)

And another point to consider:

Any race not included by the core rules will be eventually created anyway. The question is when it comes to balance - where would you prefer it be created? I find that the first sets of rules tend to be the truest to form and spirit of the edition. Then power creep begins.

For that reason alone, I'd want any popular race to be in the book, regardless of whether I like them or not. (Such as Minotauren and Dopplegangers - which I don't like.)

 

[Sunseeker]

I just reread the thread and the furthest ForeverSlave went was to say he'd simply house rule them out. I didn't see anything like you're describing in anyone's posts.

I like dragonborn because my first experience with 4E included my friend's character that I now have fond memories of. My default assumption though, is no monstrous races for PCs unless the campaign is about that.

My biggest issue with dragonborn is the whole "honour" thing. I'm not a big fan of reskinned Klingon caricatures.

Then if he'd just houserule them out, as hundreds of DMs have done in every edition with hundreds of races, what's the problem? Why is this thread even needed? He has his solution, if Dragonborn are in, he'll apply it, if they're not, he won't. Problem solved, issue over, the end.

I mean really out of all the things to take issue with in 4e, I can't fathom why some people get soooo hung up on Dragonborn and Tieflings.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Then if he'd just houserule them out, as hundreds of DMs have done in every edition with hundreds of races, what's the problem? Why is this thread even needed? He has his solution, if Dragonborn are in, he'll apply it, if they're not, he won't. Problem solved, issue over, the end.

I mean really out of all the things to take issue with in 4e, I can't fathom why some people get soooo hung up on Dragonborn and Tieflings.

Because I don't want a game that I need to houserule the hell out of to have it where I want it.

The same can be said of you. Just houserule them as core in your games, what's the problem with that?

 

[Ainamacar]

I don't care for the Dragonborn, and 4e itself left me cold after an honest attempt to like it, but I don't consider items I won't use in my games (and would try to avoid in others) a waste of space if they enable a larger line of material I will use. Therefore, the true opportunity cost for us isn't really, under most circumstances, about that one page for a race, it is all the pages in the books that follow (or not!) depending on the sales of the core books.

If a person doesn't plan to buy additional D&D books then this won't matter to them, because the cost to them really is limited to that one page. If they suspect that, on the whole, "pandering" to the Dragonborn crowd will result in less useful material for their future gaming than if WotC had omitted that one race from the PHB, then omitting it will be for them a net positive. That's a tough sell for me, because omitting the Dragonborn sends a message to the 4e community that I think is much more likely to shrink the overall 5e market by an extent that means the overall resources devoted to elements that individual likes will also shrink.

 

[nnms]

Then if he'd just houserule them out, as hundreds of DMs have done in every edition with hundreds of races, what's the problem? Why is this thread even needed? He has his solution, if Dragonborn are in, he'll apply it, if they're not, he won't. Problem solved, issue over, the end.

Sometimes people just want to feel like they've had an outlet to express something. For instance, my last worry for 5e is that it will use the 4e style level-as-pacing framework where monster stats are all a product of a level based formula relative to PC level rather than statted up based on their fictional descriptions/concepts. I've had the opportunity in the HP thread to bring that distinction and concern up. I guess ForeverSlayer felt his expression required a new thread (had the HP article and ensuing discussion not come up, I'd have don the same).

I mean really out of all the things to take issue with in 4e, I can't fathom why some people get soooo hung up on Dragonborn and Tieflings.

For the majority of D&D's history, characters were humans or demi-humans that all had human faces, body types, etc., and were largely variations of human forms. The closest things got to inhuman PCs were half breeds like half orcs.

Some people consider this an iconic characteristic of what PCs in D&D are. Dragon people and devil people don't look like what has historically been PCs, but instead look like what has historically bean monsters.

My opinion is that D&D should handle multiple fictional worlds well and I like that it supports PCs that are more monstrous for those who want them. For those who don't, they can houserule them out. I also remember reading something about a rarity system for races that would make it clear to the reader of a PHB that just because the game includes the option of monstrous PCs, that they shouldn't necessarily expect them to be present in every fictional setting of every game.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

But that's my point. Chaotic Good Drow PCs were already an over-used cliche long before Drizzt, thanks to Unearthed Arcana. I distinctly remember having at least two Drow Cavaliers in campaigns of mine, and I was, what, 12?

It's like if some dragon-looking character from Skyrim suddenly became an overly-popular book character, and everyone was playing Dragonborn PCs, and then started blaming D&D for ripping off Skyrim. Bad cause and effect.

Anyway, that's why we shouldn't have Dragonborn in 5e.

Until 4th edition came along, drow have never been a part of the core game. Even Pathfinder stayed away from making them core and letting the DM decide.

The problem with making races like Drow core in D&D is the fact that the game will be written with them integrated into the world. I like to use as much of the game as written as possible without having to change much. I do like default settings at times but having Dragonborn, Drow and Tieflings written into the core just means that the default is going to have them as common races.

 

[Eridanis]

There's quite a bit of crankiness in this thread, folks. Take a deep breath and think twice before posting if you're starting to take things personally, please.