Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[Lurks-no-More]

Because they're change for the sake of change, and it's poorly done change. They're not aesthetically pleasing at all. Their fluff isn't enjoyable.

Your personal preferences are not objective measurements of good and bad, you know.

 

[rounser]

Your personal preferences are not objective measurements of good and bad, you know.

You're implying he's alone in this view. He's not. I think he's spot on.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

And I think he's full of it. There isn't a poster on EnWorld that I more consistently disagree with. Change for the sake of change? What about complaining for the sake of complaining?

If Dragonborn are supposed to be for people who like to play Dragons, then the race fell far, far short of the mark.

I consider the race ugly, and unsuited for all campaign settings I play.

Cool, most people don't, you're in the minority here.

Nothing wrong, but someone wanting to play a Dragon playing a Dragonborn looks to me like someone wanting a 200 oz. Sirloin steak ordering tofu.

(I like Tofu, but I'd never mistake it for steak.)

And if you drop the - rather pretentious - "Dragon" from the name, you've got tailless lizardfolk. Something we already had, just graphically redesigned like the Tiefling ("Now with boobs! and no tail!").

A proud warrior race isn't the same thing as a backwoods swamp-dwelling barbarian tribe.

Wiki disagrees with you. Batman at least started out as an anti-hero in his time.

Just, these days, what was an anti-hero 10 years ago, is now closer to what we consider a hero.

And hulking lizard mercenaries certainly qualify for anti-heroes, compared to paladins, good clerics, folk heroes, etc.

Oh, really? Is that why according to the fluff you're rallying against, dragonborn make good paladins? The dragonborn paladin in my game is such an anti-hero; he's always defending the weak, smiting demons, and bringing foes to justice. You can tell he's an anti-hero because he looks like a lizard.

My campaign's god of justice is not a dragon.

You can't change core fluff, then complain that core fluff is wrong. Core D&D says the God of Justice is a dragon. Dragon men follow him and are quoted in the fluff as making excellent paladins. It doesn't matter if they're too fat and tailless for your taste, that's the way it is until you change it.

Nothing wrong with them being savage mercs in your game, but that's not how they're written, and no matter how many times you say it, it's not going to come true.

 

[Fenes]

Plant Dragonborn into a swamp, and give them tails, and there's lizardfolk - it's not as if all lizardfolk have the same customs, some even work as mercenaries. A breathweapon doesn't make tailless lizardfolk into dragons.

And changing the core fluff is what I hate about 4E. Suddenly, lizardfolk is accepted everywhere in civilised lands, the god of justice is a dragon, and so on - no, thanks.

There was no Tiefling or Dragonborn Empire in my campaigns pre-4E, there won't be one even if we use the 4E rules. I won't change a background that worked for more than 15 years (and far longer for those who started playing earlier) just so we can have ugly lizards in the party.

If someone wants to play a dragon, I'd be more likely to let him or her play a dragon instead than some "dragonborn" - at least it would be more interesting, and have a better background.

And for a while, "New Coke" was the official coke as well, if I recall correctly. It didn't make it "real coke" either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Plant Dragonborn into a swamp, and give them tails, and there's lizardfolk - it's not as if all lizardfolk have the same customs, some even work as mercenaries. A breathweapon doesn't make tailless lizardfolk into dragons.

Actually, it does. If you make a reptilian creature and give it a breath weapon (especially one that can be fiery), you can't tell me that this is not inspired by Dragons!

Suddenly, lizardfolk is accepted everywhere in civilised lands, the god of justice is a dragon, and so on - no, thanks.

Why suddenly? The implied setting didn't change. It was created with 4E, and as such, it has always been that way (except of course, that not lizardfolk are accepted everywhere, but Dragonborn.)

There was no Tiefling or Dragonborn Empire in my campaigns pre-4E, there won't be one even if we use the 4E rules. I won't change a background that worked for more than 15 years (and far longer for those who started playing earlier) just so we can have ugly lizards in the party.

You're not required to change an existing setting! You can do it, if you like (which you don't), but there is nothing forcing you to do it.

 

[Fenes]

"Inspired by a dragon" is not "a dragon". If I want to play a dragon, I want to play a dragon, not a lizardfolk warrior with delusions of grandeur.

The Implied setting was replaced. And they are wrecking FR so they can fit dragonborn and the new tieflings in.

And yes, I am not forced to change any setting - so I won't have to treat my lizards differently at all. I'll simply not use the fluff for lizards and tieflings.

 

[rounser]

Why suddenly? The implied setting didn't change. It was created with 4E, and as such, it has always been that way (except of course, that not lizardfolk are accepted everywhere, but Dragonborn.)

And if you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, stamp your feet and yell "LA LA LA LA LA" loudly enough, you can pretend the last 30 years of D&D never really happened.

Remember, mouseketeers, FR and DL were the first campaign settings!

 

[DandD]

Dragon men are still dragon men (now called Dragonborn), however. And the implied setting for 3rd edition was Greyhawk... Which only a minority care for.

The new Forgotten Realms are set 100 years into the future. People who don't want Dragonborn nor Tieflings simply don't have to apply the standart-FR-edition-change-catastrophe, and voilà, everything is still the same. Of course, the FR are still boring, even after the newest "oh-my-gosh-explosions"-events.

Some people don't even use half-orcs, gnomes, half-elves or whatever freak-race there is.

 

[Fifth Element]

Remember, mouseketeers, FR and DL were the first campaign settings!

...that were not default settings.

 

[Doug McCrae]

More and more I'm realising that both the new races were a really good idea.

D&D needed a big strong honorable warrior race. It's a very popular concept as evidenced by the Klingons in Star Trek. They could've used orcs, but presumably wanted to keep them as bad guys a la Lord of the Rings.

Also, people love dragons. They're almost as popular as elves. Was it in this thread someone wrote that WotC revealed any book with 'dragon' or 'magic' in the title sold more? And okay, dragonborn are only mini humanoid dragons, but that's as close as you're going to get and remain balanced. This ain't Rifts.

And tieflings have got that whole emo goth Vampire-player vibe. I think they do occupy the same niche as Drizzt. Both look evil and everyone is all down on them for the way they look. Just like goth kids. Okay, Drizzt is really a cissy, whereas a tiefling may have any personality but it's basically the same idea - the evil appearance/not necessarily evil on the inside disconnect.

To make room they got rid of the two most unpopular races in D&D. Gnomes were pointless. How many short arses did D&D need ffs? It's like Gary had almost as much of a hard on for short people as the 3e MM creators had for fishmen. Halflings got shorty covered. Elves got fey covered. So we don't need gnomes.

And half-orcs? Well they could've gone the whole hog and made them orcs but for whatever reason, half-orcs have never been popular among D&D players. Maybe it was the int penalty. Most likely it was the ugliness. Your goth emo "people look at me and think I'm evil" fan won't stoop to actually being physically unattractive.