Dragonborn - will you ban them?

[Derren]

Same reason some people will automatically allow it without having seen it yet, I guess.

Automatically allowing a core race is a bit different than automatically ban a core race.

 

[edbonny]

Ever since the Council of Wyrms in 2e introduced the half-dragon humanoid race, I always thought there ought to be a big place for them in the DnD (then AD&D) universe. In keeping with the chromatic/metallic dragons of DnD, I would prefer if the dragonborn were more reflective of their direct ancestors, each subrace having special traits attributable to their ancestral draconic parents.

 

[Ranger REG]

So far, I have never had any PC in my group that is of dragon-blood. I have no intention of introducing them as PC.

 

[der_kluge]

Automatically allowing a core race is a bit different than automatically ban a core race.

No, it just means that those of who will ban them outright have a better sense of the way our world works. I'm not going to revise my setting of choice to allow a race, core or not.

 

[Steely Dan]

I voted snowflake, as in they will be available only in certain campaign settings, as all other races are.

They will not be loitering around any Dark Sun campaign I run, but if a player wants to have a go with one in a Planescape campaign…

 

[Psion]

Why the heck would I ban a race I haven't even seen yet?

Because "the rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."

I don't add features to my campaign because there is rules support for it. I add something to my campaign because it belongs.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So far, I have never had any PC in my group that is of dragon-blood. I have no intention of introducing them as PC.

None of them played sorcerers?!?!?

What if one of your players comes up with a good background for a dragonborn PC? Will you still deny them because it doesn't meet your vision?

I had a player who really wanted to play a Warforged PC in Greyhawk. (Wait! Don't stone me yet!) I asked him to come up with a good background that would fit the flavor of our campaign. He wrote up a great background based on being a self-aware clockwork being and I thought it good enough to allow him to play a "Warforged" outside of Eberron.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Because "the rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."

I don't add features to my campaign because there is rules support for it. I add something to my campaign because it belongs.

Generally I agree with that concept, but as long as WotC is going to do the heavy lifting on the design & development end, who I am I to ban something without having first looked at it even?

I see all the changes in 4E as opportunities to help my worlds grow and change. I bet that if someone were playing a Midkemia campaign based on the four Riftwar novels they'd be all like "B&! Noble warrior-lizards have no place in Midkemia!", and then Ray Feist goes "No! U!" and writes the Serpentwar novels, and they'd be all "Sorry, my bad ..."

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, it just means that those of who will ban them outright have a better sense of the way our world works.

Surely you can't mean what you just said.

 

[Leontodon]

Well, it would be an interesting task to write a biography for them. I mean I can see why halfs-orcs are relatively common, but dragonspawn? Unless you give them own nations or a background story like the one they have in dragonlance I do not see the point in playing one.

I will always stay with the half-orc-> the dwarf for tall people!