Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[Fifth Element]

"Inspired by a dragon" is not "a dragon".

Semantics. Obviously playing an actual dragon does not fit in the core game, so dragonborn are a viable alternative.

Can you imagine the uproar if dragons were included as a core PC race?

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Let's face it - most of it was crap.

 

[rounser]

Let's face it - most of it was crap.

LOL

Yes...yes, a lot of it was. The difference was most of it was optional.

The new core is crap. "Dragonborn"? "Warlords"? Tieflings without Aasimar? "Eladrin"?

At least the previous cores gave you a foundation to go specific and wahoo from. The new core is wahoo and arbitrary and "What the heck is an X" straight out of the gate, wham bam thank you ma'am.

Therefore, let's face it, the new game is crap. Unless you ban stuff.

 

[Fifth Element]

At least the previous cores gave you a foundation to go specific and wahoo from. The new core is wahoo and arbitrary and "What the heck is an X" straight out of the gate, wham bam thank you ma'am.

What's really arbitrary, I think, is your definition of what's "wahoo" and what's not.

And why is having tieflings without aasimar "crap"? Symmetry for the sake of symmetry is no longer the standard.

 

[Mallus]

The difference was most of it was optional.

Hint: all of it is optional. For example, the only core race in my 4 year old campaign is human.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I'm okay with Dragonborn. I like Tieflings. I was kinda "meh" on Dragonborn, however the players in my group loved them....3 out of the 5 are Dragonborn. So slowly my opinion has been changing.

Same case here... I originally disliked them and was resigned to having one Dragonborn in the party (I was sure the dragon-lover in the group was going to play one)

However, as I read more about them and translated the race and class one-page descriptions (some players in my group don't speak English very well) they started to grow on me...

And given the fact that three of my players picked them as first choice, I guess WotC did something right (I also got one Tiefling)

I think their ProudWarriorRace qualities just were too appealing.

 

[rounser]

Symmetry for the sake of symmetry is no longer the standard.

See, I didn't see it as a "for the sake of" thing. I saw it as actually supporting a theme. And a coherent theme is what the current implied setting doesn't have. It looks like the line-up for a specific world, with a handful of races and a poorly designed splat class cherry-picked from splatbooks according to the tastes of a specific DM. Unfortunately that's now the new default.

 

[Fenes]

Semantics. Obviously playing an actual dragon does not fit in the core game, so dragonborn are a viable alternative.

Can you imagine the uproar if dragons were included as a core PC race?

Why wouldn't an actual dragon not fit? In 4E, where PCs are special, and not the norm, it would conceptually fit in very well.

Mechanically, one could make a "dragon race class", and spread the powers out. At heroic or epic tier, a dragon should not be out of place.

 

[Staffan]

Because they're change for the sake of change, and it's poorly done change.

Change for the sake of change is superior to stasis for the sake of stasis. If you stop moving, you're dead.

And me personally, I think it's a pretty well-done change, at least the dragonborn. I could have gone for a more subtle tiefling a la Planescape, though.

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.

Yeah, curse WOTC for adding new-fangled stuff like Bahamut to the game.

 

[Fenes]

Yeah, curse WOTC for adding new-fangled stuff like Bahamut to the game.

If the whole fluff is rewritten and changed, it's a new thing, not the same thing.