Dragonborn - will you ban them?

[w_earle_wheeler]

It depends on how I can incorporate them into the "Lizardfolk" template of previous editions. I've allowed Lizard-Men characters before.

 

[WayneLigon]

*Snowflake*

As with all races, I'll consider them on a case by case basis. Some games I run, I'd allow them, some I would not. The last game I ran before the Eberron one, I cut out gnomes and dwarves and paladins as not being part of that setting. It's very likely that the next setting I create, dragonborn would have a place in it; so will a harpy-like race, and thri-kreen.

 

[el-remmen]

If I ran a 4E game I'd replace them with lizardfolk.

 

[neceros]

I'm gonna replace all races with Dragonborn. They will be called Dragonborn 1, Dragonborn 2, Dragonborn 3, etc.

Then I'll replace Dragonborn with deities.

 

[Lord Fyre]

Can I replace Tieflings with Gnomes?
. . . And Dragonborn with Half-Orcs?

 

[ferratus]

I imagine the "use them" and "special snowflake" voters are the DM's who plan to create a new campaign setting for 4e.

 

[Psion]

No idea. Unless 4e has really won me over, I'll probably run 3.5 and allow a 3.5 version of them should a player ask for them.

If I do run 4e, I'd be more liable to ban (or put a 1/party limit on) them, because them being core is likely to create a rush of players playing them, and I don't want them to be that common.

I think exotic races are okay in moderation, but making them core is overkill.

 

[Ashimaar Extorris]

I think I'll call them Dire Kobolds, cause it seems to me that that's what they really are, regardless of a possibly as yet to be revealed affinity for traps...

 

[Aeolius]

So long as they meet the minimum requirements for PCs in my game, I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Wormwood]

Unless they are *horribly* mechanically broken, I have no reason to ban them.

That goes for everything in the books, really.