Dragonborn/Tiefling- which campaign setting?

[Lonely Tylenol]

It becomes, "Hey I am the solitary drow on the surface" phenomenon. If you write Dragonborn or Tieflings into a new campaign setting.....well peace....but FR or GH....too strange.

It looks fine for FR. That place is such a "and the kitchen sink" world you could play a half-bullywug-half-boggle and nobody would blink an eye. Besides, there's already a huge presence of planetouched in the Realms. Tieflings are specifically in the FRCS, notably present in Mulhorand, Unther, and Thay. Throwing in a new scalykind race--and especially one with a voluntary membership--is as easy as describing the appearance of a new dragon cult (or several with opposed ideologies) that possesses a ritual that can turn humanoids into scalies. That may dovetail well with the death of Mystra, as people suddenly find the need to turn elsewhere for power.

 

[Derren]

Throwing in a new scalykind race--and especially one with a voluntary membership--is as easy as describing the appearance of a new dragon cult (or several with opposed ideologies) that possesses a ritual that can turn humanoids into scalies.

I don't think (or rather I don't hope) that dragonborn will keep the "worshipper of Bahamut crawls into an egg and comes out as dragonborn" fluff. I think many people who are indifferent or even like the dragonborn race itself would hate that.

 

[Patlin]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about a new monster book, which tends to introduce hundreds of new creatures into a campaign world. I think there are two major reasons for this:

1) D&D worlds typically have plenty of room for a new scary monster around every corner.
2) The DM can always choose not to use them.

In my opinion, both of these things apply equally to PC races.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't think (or rather I don't hope) that dragonborn will keep the "worshipper of Bahamut crawls into an egg and comes out as dragonborn" fluff. I think many people who are indifferent or even like the dragonborn race itself would hate that.

How about something more like Arcana Evolved's mojh race? They perform a magic ritual, undergo a transformation, and turn into a scaly thing. If you remove the wonky fluff from the equation, the idea of a race based on a personal choice to alter your physiology (and perhaps psychology) is compelling.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Wow, you must have less stringent DMs than I'm used to. I've played several games where certain "core" classes and/or races were banned. Campaigns with no divine magic, campaigns with no wizard spells over level 5, no dwarves, no elves (or drastically different versions of those races)... I think I may have even run a game with no monks allowed, and I *like* monks.

Maybe you were playing d20 Modern?

 

[Shortman McLeod]

As someone else has already said, you didn't ask me this, but I'm going to answer anyway.

At my table, no way. Usually if I'm running a fantasy game, humans are the only sentient race. Or at least the only one open to players.

I'm assuming, then, that you run a "fantasy game" other than Dungeons & Dragons?

 

[Seeten]

Najo, I am going to pick on you a bit. Not for the sake of personal attack, but just for a point of discussion. Did you specifically ban them? All the gnome haters have come out and said they never use them which is fine. I just want to know if I sat down at your game table and said I want to play a gnome, would you let me?

I am going to guess the answer would be yes, I could play a gnome. Why? Gnomes despite their uncommon use fit into most fantasy tropes. I have a feeling that many DMs don't like the idea of a demon or dragon related creature running around as PCs. That would be something you have to ban. Banning is a lot different than saying they don't exist in my game because no one uses them.

I dont allow gnomes or halflings. They dont exist in my world. Tieflings and Dragons do fit my idea of something thats a great PC, so I certainly allow them. All the people I game with allow Tieflings and Dragons. In fact, I'm well known for playing a necromancer, in fact, my forum tagline is "Dread Necromancer" I think.

Maybe some of the "Good guys are all the game should allow, so lets only allow 3 alignments and good races" people feel its badwrongfun, I dunno, but as far as I am concerned, you can keep your hands out of my fun stuff, and I am glad to be WoTC's target audience, AGAIN.

It seems I am the target audience for everything they do. I love them.

 

[Singing Smurf]

I prefer the Smaug/Flame kind of dragon, proud, isolated, strong - not the "bukakke over the whole Monster Manual" type.

This line is composed entirely of victory.

Much laughter ensued - thank goodness my office door was closed!

 

[Rechan]

I'm assuming, then, that you run a "fantasy game" other than Dungeons & Dragons?

Maybe you were playing d20 Modern?

I assume then, based on your responses, if it isn't your way of playing, it's not D&D.

I'm making a campaign setting with no core PHB races, but by god it's D&D. Because there are dungeons, there are dragons, I'm using the 3.5 rules. And you are no one to tell me it's not "enough" of something to be D&D.

I don't care for people saying OA or Eberron "isn't D&D" because it's different. And I don't care for "Well if you don't have gnomes or elves then it's just not D&D" either.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

But since Dragonborn and Tiefs in the PHB, I expect to play a Tiefling Warlock and every NPC to be cool about me being horned and fiendish and all. And it clashes with my idea of standard fantasy. And I don't like that.

Shadowrun has Orcs and Trolls as "core" but just because they were in the PHB didn't mean that I, as the GM, didn't make the guy pay a social price for choosing to be an orc. DnD tends to have more "strange non-humans walking around town" than Shadowrun but if you wanted to play a 99% humanish town correctly there isn't any reason the half-orc/tiefling/lizardguy wouldn't be run out on a rail.

Is a tiefling all that much stranger than Raistlin was as a human?

DS