Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[doctorhook]

I honestly don't understand why anti-hero-type characters or their players are necessarily presumed to be "angsty" by some.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I honestly don't understand why anti-hero-type characters or their players are necessarily presumed to be "angsty" by some.

Because Races and Classes literally says that the developers like the new tieflings because they have angst ;p

 

[Fifth Element]

People just claming that dragons cannot be playable from the get-go aren't pushing their imagination enough. That is my point.

You're missing my point entirely. Sure dragons could be playable characters, no problem. But that would be a very different situation than what is the core D&D gameplay experience. It has nothing to do with limited imagination. It has to do with the limits of what core D&D is about. Bringing dragons into the mix as core PC races would be a drastic departure from that.

No one is claiming that dragons cannot be playable. But they are not desirable as PCs in core D&D. However, the interest in draconic creatures leads to the dragonborn, which are draconic but still fit within core D&D gameplay.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've never seen anyone use the term "emogoth" or any such similar made-up pseudo-derisive term

Pseudo-derisive? It seems fairly clear to me that it's just plain derisive.

 

[hong]

Thing is, even a large number of people who DO like the tieflings readily agree that they're meant for that emogoth audience.

An emogoth audience... WITH MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME THAN YOU.

HAW HAW!

 

[Fenes]

You're missing my point entirely. Sure dragons could be playable characters, no problem. But that would be a very different situation than what is the core D&D gameplay experience. It has nothing to do with limited imagination. It has to do with the limits of what core D&D is about. Bringing dragons into the mix as core PC races would be a drastic departure from that.

No one is claiming that dragons cannot be playable. But they are not desirable as PCs in core D&D. However, the interest in draconic creatures leads to the dragonborn, which are draconic but still fit within core D&D gameplay.

I do not understand why Dragonborn fit with the New Core D&D but Dragons would not. Would you say the same if WotC had aded Dragons to Core D&D?

 

[Maggan]

Because Races and Classes literally says that the developers like the new tieflings because they have angst ;p

No, it literally says that Chris Perkins feels that "their infernal heritage gives them plenty of angst and an excuse to "get medieval" whenever the mood suits them."

Whether this sentiment is shared by all developers isn't literally spelled out in Races&Classes at all, as far as I could find. I imagine that to be the case, but if it is literally written down in the book, I couldn't find it.

/M

 

[DandD]

I do not understand why Dragonborn fit with the New Core D&D but Dragons would not. Would you say the same if WotC had aded Dragons to Core D&D?

Dragons are core. They're just not core playable choices for the players, as they wouldn't mesh well with the balance in the game. Heck, if one really has problems with it and wants to play dragons, you can still claim that your dragonborn character is simply the bipedal magic form the dragon chose himself to be to fit in with the other bipedal characters.

Dragonborn are meant to be more or less balanced with dwarves, elves, eldareladrin, humans, halflings, tieflings, half-elves and whatever.

Huge firebreathing reptiles that can shoot out their flames of damage all the time, fly from the beginning, have immense strength compared to all the rest, more hitpoints than the most toughest defender-type could ever get, and get more attacks per round than anybody else was either a level-adjustment that made them suck-tastic then in 3rd edition. In 4th, better to not start with that at all. And quite frankly, unless everybody plays a dragon or a similarily strong monster, such a thing wouldn't work. It didn't back then in the older editions of D&D, it still doesn't work in 4th edition, and it won't work in 5th either.

 

[rounser]

An emogoth audience... WITH MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME THAN YOU.

HAW HAW!

You mean, they have still have money to spare after paying for all that eyeliner and hair dye?

Who knew?

 

[Barastrondo]

Pseudo-derisive? It seems fairly clear to me that it's just plain derisive.

I say "pseudo" because it's a fake concept. If actual emogoths exist, they're heavily outnumbered by both the emos and the goths. Making up this word to try to sway others into agreeing "They like different things, they must be the other" just proves what a silly, emotional argument it is in the first place.

Sort of like invoking the word "angst." Angst is only a bad word if you've already made up your mind that nobody can use the term seriously any more. Certainly the concept of angst is still heavily appealing to people in a general basis, even if they don't use that word to describe it. I would even guess that there are people who will mock the concept of enjoying darker trappings, internal darkness or angst, and then go out to see the new Batman movie as quick as they can. Does that make sense? No, not really — but that's why it's an emotional argument, not a logical one.