• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Dragonborn Info

CleverNickName said:
- Normal vision? I would have thought that this race would have a more "reptillian" sort of eyesight (something like darkvision maybe, or even the old-school infravision) but maybe that is just my previous experience showing through. Perhaps 4E is moving away from the "not human, therefore better eyeballs" trend.
In the preview books, there was at least one clear statement that they were skewing the game far more to normal vision. I remember a passage in the discussion of dwarven settlements in particular.
- Skills...+2 History? Not sure why they are better at remembering dates and legends than the average Joe...perhaps they have longer lifespans, or tighter clan relations?
This again is something that jibes with the preview books. In Races and Classes, the developers point to certain behaviour of the dragonborn that relate to the telling of historical tales.

It's not biological, it's cultural. In your campaign, perhaps you'd do it differently. I can totally understand that.
I'm getting too much of an "Enemy Mine" vibe.
That made me chuckle. given some of the art, there is definitely that vibe.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nice scoop!

It's amazing how just a little bit of info jazzes me up for the Dragonborn. I get the sense the race will have an inborn sense of imperious confidence - in good Dragonborn, this will be more dignified, while in evil Dragonborn this will be more haughty and overbearing. I also love the ability they gain at bloodied - I can almost imagine them being outraged that they have been wounded in such a manner.

They're a good "strong guy" race - they're not at all stupid, and they ooze strength and power. I can't wait to read the full race write-up!
 

Jonathan Moyer said:
Nice scoop!

It's amazing how just a little bit of info jazzes me up for the Dragonborn. I get the sense the race will have an inborn sense of imperious confidence - in good Dragonborn, this will be more dignified, while in evil Dragonborn this will be more haughty and overbearing. I also love the ability they gain at bloodied - I can almost imagine them being outraged that they have been wounded in such a manner.

They're a good "strong guy" race - they're not at all stupid, and they ooze strength and power. I can't wait to read the full race write-up!

Your enthusiasm only serves to increase my own and make the wait until publication even more intolerable! Damn you, man!
 


Why house-rule something out of the game? ...

Sojorn said:
Just because he can.

And that's a perfectly good reason.

I'm more interested in why other people who aren't involved in his game feel the need to convince him to leave in a particular element. What's the motivation or personal investment in how someone else runs his game?
 

You know what makes me chuckle a bit? In 3rd, dragons can mate with anything under the son AND have fertile offspring. Dogs, humans, lizards, penguins, three toed sloths? Sure! You can, and someone most likely has, tossed the half dragon template on it. I remember some jokes about Dragons and their activities mentioned before, but hardly anyone ever brought it up, nor the fact that most of those humanoid based half dragons had boobies, in the artwork, if they were female.

So why is everyone suddenly up in arms over dragonborn having huge 'tracts of land' hanging off their chest? :confused: Heck, if Io was himself a huge dragon before he went asunder, it's just extending the tradition, right?

"and then Great Io did it with the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats..."
 
Last edited:


Making houserules because you dislike rules you haven't used is honestly kinda bad... but this is a flavor decision, so whatever. I will agree that a player might honestly want to play one of the races (especially in a 'new shinyness' kinda way, right at edition change)

But, whatever works. It's when people are like 'I'm changing marking. or diagonal movement. or dragonborn boob physics' that I'd question their sense in changing rules they haven't experienced fully.

Yeah, fully.
 


keterys said:
Making houserules because you dislike rules you haven't used is honestly kinda bad... but this is a flavor decision, so whatever.
Yup. Banning a race or adding new ones (from the MM or made up) is clearly part of creative freedom when creating a setting to play in. It doesn't really impact the rules. Imho, it's in the same category as changing names ("IMC warlords will be called marshalls!") or visuals ("IMC tiefling don't have tails!") without affecting crunch.

Now, banning classes could actually negatively affect game balance, especially if you ban all classes of a certain role - unless you create your own to fill the now vacant niche.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top