Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[Rechan]

I don't see the difference there. "Man, I want to play a Drizzt type of character. Hey, look, the new tieflings were modeled based on 'why go with Drizzt when you can do this?' Awesome, it looks made just for me!"

The difference is this:

The only "Evil" connotation to Drizzt is "Well my race is evil. But I'm a warm fuzzy teddybear with scimitars. How about a hug."

Why play the Gentle Giant, whose only claim to "Ooh cool evil" is that he is of a race that is otherwise evil, when you can play something much darker with a better backstory that's easier for your DM to work into the story (because good drow are a lot harder to come by than tieflings).

Drizzt is a GOOD GUY. Tieflings are, to put it in older terms, CHAOTIC NEUTRAL guy.

So again I'll ask where the similarity is.

 

[The Highway Man]

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?

Do you know the tabletop RPG called "Chimeres"? There are plenty of ways in which dragons could be made playable from the get-go without resorting to portmanteaus and lazy design.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

That's not a very good argument, honestly, much of 4E seems to be "crap" and I guarantee will retrospectively be seen as crap, too. Certainly 4E's fluff seems full of absolute junk. Just probably not the rules.

 

[DandD]

Do you know the tabletop RPG called "Chimeres"?

I don't. I've heard of In Nomine, Gurps, Shadowrun, The Dark Eye, D&D, Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40k, and even Alternity, but never knew of a tabletop RPG called "Chimeres".

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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

Not meaning to pick on you solely, rounser, but the "no edition wars" edict is still in effect - and some folks are stepping on (and over) that line.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

It doesn't fit because all of the other PC races are Small or Medium-sized humanoid creatures. It would be fairly easy to do a dragon mechanically in 4E, sure, but then so would giants and manticores and any other monster, really. But I referred to the core game specifically. It would be rather incongruous to have the core races be human, elf, dwarf, halfling and dragon.

 

[Fifth Element]

Do you know the tabletop RPG called "Chimeres"? There are plenty of ways in which dragons could be made playable from the get-go without resorting to portmanteaus and lazy design.

I googled it, and it sounds nothing like core D&D, to which I referred in my post.

 

[Maggan]

It would be rather incongruous to have the core races be human, elf, dwarf, halfling and dragon.

I think that would make things a lot easier for people who're asking "are there any dragons or dungeons in this game?".

Actually, I think the starting races should be human, elf, dwarf, halfing, dragon and dungeon.

That'd make everything a lot clearer to people!

/M

 

[DandD]

Hmm, what would be the stat modifiers for a living dungeon?

 

[Fenes]

If we can have small and medium creatures, why not large creatures as well?