Dragonborn - will you ban them?

[Hjorimir]

I'm a special snowflake.

I'm including them, but the background is very different for my homebrew.

 

[mattcolville]

I completely understand why the DevTeam thinks Dragonborn are a good idea. And I don't think there's anything wrong with them in principle...except for the part about female lizards having mammal parts.

But to me, and I think to many others, they read as something you'd have in a high fantasy setting. And the Points of Light does not seem like a High Fantasy setting. So I think the DevTeam is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Fantasy settings typically have a broad assumption of what a "person" is. Clearly, it's intended that dragonborn and tieflings are regarded as people, not as monsters. Otherwise, why don't elves and dwarves get lynched on entry to a human town?

Because they don't look like/have actual association with an evil, monstrous race. Elves basically look like more graceful, slender humans, dwarves like shorter stouter humans. Dragonborn look like humans crossed with dragons. Worse still, tieflings look like humans crossed with demons. This is unlikely to engender trust in a PoL setting.

 

[glass]

Gonna wait to see how they are implemented. I don't mind them much, since I like Dragons in my Dungeons and Dragons.

This. Plus, I'd have a mutiny from one of my players if I banned them.


glass.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Depends on the kind of game I would want to run.

Ravenloft? No--although so far, they'd be the only 4E character option I'd ban for the Dread Realms. Tolkienesque fantasy (and I mean real Tolkienesque, not the Howard/Lieber/Moorcock pastiche that made up 1E and often gets called by that name)? Probably not, and I'd be iffy about tieflings and warlocks too. High fantasy along the lines of the early Final Fantasy games? They'd fit in naturally enough. Neo-Dragonlancian that builds off the 4E rules like DL does off the 1E rules (and without DL's philosophical errors and adolescent infatuation with evil )? Tough to say; it would depend on how I wound up addressing dragons.

IMO, every option in the game should be considered on a campaign-by-campaign basis.

 

[am181d]

Not only will I be using them in my first 4e game, they'll be the main race, having surplanted humans some time ago. (That said, I won't be using any of the back story from the core books.)

 

[Bishmon]

At first I thought there was little chance I'd use them. But now, after reading R&C, I'm on board. The only thing I won't be using is the name, since I have a great dislike of race names like 'dragonborn' and 'catfolk', etc.

I will be dropping tieflings and half-elves, though. I'll probably include minotaurs and possibly shifters if there's decent racial stats for them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dragonborn don't fit my concept of a core race.

However, I won't ban them until I have the books in my hand and read something that makes me think they need banning.

Given the openess of my tastes in 3.5, don't wait for that ban to fall- I'm currently designing a campaign with 1 or 2 "draconic" PC races.

My complaint isn't about the inclusion of the Dragonborn, but the excision of gnomes. Or the inclusion of Tieflings without their opposite number.

The only problem I have with dragonborn is that the females have breasts. Half-dragons, sure, but a truly reptilian humanoids? Girl=boobies is silly adolescent thinking.

I have a problem with that as well. They had a chance to have the males be larger, more colorful, have "horns" or colorful throat pouches or frills- y'know, something that reptiles have!- and they blew it.

In my campaign mentioned above, for example, I'm toying with the idea of the sexual dimorphism in the draconic species having the (egg laying) females be much larger (M or L) and the males be sized S-M, but with the males having brilliantly-hued scales.

 

[Gloombunny]

But to me, and I think to many others, they read as something you'd have in a high fantasy setting. And the Points of Light does not seem like a High Fantasy setting. So I think the DevTeam is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

I think elves and dwarves are more high fantasy. Dragonborn and tieflings make me think of sword-and-sorcery.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Because they don't look like/have actual association with an evil, monstrous race. Elves basically look like more graceful, slender humans, dwarves like shorter stouter humans. Dragonborn look like humans crossed with dragons. Worse still, tieflings look like humans crossed with demons. This is unlikely to engender trust in a PoL setting.

Looking in R&C, it's noted that the fall of Bael Turath is a LONG time ago, and that they've been accepted in that time. And, to be honest, if they were all evil punks, they'd be monsters, and not PCs.

I mean, heck, if tieflings and dragonborn are verboten, why not half-orcs?

Brad