And the mystery race is...hated

I find it telling that it was the newest player to join our group that wanted to play a dragonborn.

I think that dragonborn will be popular among new players. The game itself being called "Dungeons and Dragons" will be a big pointer for them.

For us old fogies that are used to dwarf-elf-halfing-human, we either will use dragonborn or not. But we are not the target audience for 4E. And the target audience will lap up dragonborn like pudding.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ivocaliban said:
Zip, zero, zilch.

In fact, the only reason I would have picked up the Races of the Dragon was for the kobold coverage. Granted I don't know much about the Dragonborn, but with kobolds, half-dragons, dragonkin, and a draconic template I just didn't see the point in another dragon-based humanoid race. I suppose it was meant specifically for players, but it just missed the mark as far as I was concerned.
Well, as it's been shown with the snippets from the Races and Classes, the 4e Dragonborn aren't the Dragonborn from Races of the Dragon.

They're a true-breeding, egg laying empire-like sort.
 



Arcana Evolved essentially had dragonborn too: the dracha. They came in two flavors i think, ones that could fly and ones that couldn't. It tied in very closely with the dragon theme of the setting though. I'm not against having dragonborn, but i probably would not allow it off the bat for new characters in, for example, a new FR campaign. I would introduce it slowly as a new theme. Or i might disallow it completely. Who knows? If a player really whined about it i would probably cave in.

Like others have mentioned, there does seem to be a lot in 4e that is distinctly different from the vanilla D&D that we're used to. I can't say it's bad though, just that it's different.
 

I hope that dragonborn aren't divided by color in 4e. I was planning to use lizardfolk as my brute PC race anyway, so if they aren't distinctive colors I can adapt them a little more easily. I'll probably end up merging the lizardfolk and dragonborn, using the dragonborn in place of advanced lizardfolk or use them as tribes under stress who have made a deal to keep off human encroachment.

It would also be better for me because I'm also debating getting rid of the classic D&D dragon types (no good ones for example), and substituting others to make dragons a little more mysterious. Also to see if I can take advantage of some cheap McFarlane dragons.

Though I'm using dragonborn/lizardfolk myself, I do understand the complaint that tieflings and dragonborn are a little too monstrous for DM's who want a classic village or medieval city. Demihumans are easy to fit in a "civilized" venue, and even goblinoids aren't that much of a stretch.

However, dragons are nasty beasts that lay waste to entire cities, and demons and devils are about as pure concentrated evil as you can get. So it isn't just like the half-orc child, when orcs can be seen as an almost-human barbarian invader. You could imagine half-orcs as rough nobles of a feudal kingdom without that kingdom being considered evil and monstrous, though I doubt you could say the same about these two races. It just would seem more sinister than a ordinary human civilization. Some of that might be the influence of various writers treating orcs as barbarian demihumans, but I can't imagine any sort of treatment of Rosmary's baby or a walking crocodile doing anything to rehabilitate their image.

I was planning to use tieflings and lizardfolk in my campaign setting too, but they are definately not going to be integrated in the wider society. Tieflings as a secretive order of warlocks from a lost royal family, while lizardfolk have been displaced by humanity to inhabit the deserts and marshes that the humans don't want. So they will be exotic members of the party, but not integrated into the civilization.

Since I am the DM, I'll be in control of the NPC reactions, and it will go worse for the Tiefling than the lizardfolk. The reaction to the dragonborn would be similar to if someone was bringing a trained lion or bear into town. The local authorities would probaby wish to ensure that it was properly under control and not aggressive (perhaps with a warning that they would be held liable for any destruction or injury it caused). Of course, this reaction fits because I'm also doing something a little different with lizardfolk. I am taking away their ability to do abstract thought that isn't a reaction to their environment (which besides making them unable to be clerics or wizards, makes them horrible tacticians, so I probably have to rethink warlord as a favored class).

Tieflings will be rare enough that people will not necessarily know what they are. However, anyone familiar with their nature can expect to treat them with outright hostility at best.
 
Last edited:

Nebulous said:
Arcana Evolved essentially had dragonborn too: the dracha. They came in two flavors i think, ones that could fly and ones that couldn't.

These are two very different species you are talking about here, Nebulous. One, with the wings, dragon ancestry etc are indeed called the Dracha. The others you refer to, the ones without wings, are in fact humans who went trough a magical metamorphosis and took up some "dragon taint", are genderless (and thus can't sexually reproduce) and are called the Mojh.
 

Odhanan said:
The others you refer to, the ones without wings, are in fact humans who went trough a magical metamorphosis and took up some "dragon taint", are genderless (and thus can't sexually reproduce) and are called the Mojh.

Sound like 3.5 dragonborn to me.
 

Dragonborn sound like they could be fun. I'd certainly consider playing one. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd take dragonborn or tieflings over gnomes any day of the week. I can't recall anyone in our group playing a gnome on purpose (stinkin' reincarnations!).

I can explain "lizard-y dragon dinosaur men" better than the "kind of like hobbits but more magical and not as chubby" gnomes.
 

Remove ads

Top