I don't like Dragonborn: Please come and bring friends.

[Connorsrpg]

Certainly not a fan of putting stuff in the MM for players. I don't think diversifying the MM's uses would be a good move myself.

I would prefer a few more options in the PHB (just like we are going to get a lot of classes).

I would also like to see a book on alternate races follow (or even better, some settings with different races...but that is another thread)..

This has never been a problem at our table b/c the DM has had the world/region detailed beforehand that includes the Races that live there.* On the VERY RARE ocassion a player has wanted a different race we have managed to accomodate. But I find players actually love to see which races are avaialble 'this time around' and especially, how they fit into the world. (And when this list varies from setting to setting, there really is a buzz).

What races aren't available often says as much about a setting as the ones that are present. (I wasn't a fan of 4E squeezing all core races into all settings - but again, easy to restrict some from some settings or better still, restrict them to certain areas; the core settings are very large areas after all).

* I do this randomly using the extensive Realm-Building docs I have put together over several editions/games. (Kind of an expanded version of the 2E World Builder's Guidebook)

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't really like the Dragonborn. It's not that I have anything against half-dragon type characters, I just don't like the way they look. They'd be alot cooler if they had wings, but they just couldn't give flight to a core race (though why not a slow fall or gliding ability?).

They could, the race just wouldn't get much else in the way of special powers. I do like the idea of a "buy in" in the way that Savage Species gave various monstrous classes, but players should have control over how much and when that buy-in happens, which was one of my biggest dislikes of the book.

I don't know, maybe if they are redesigned to look more dragon-like and less like bipedal monitor lizards, I'll like them better. The same goes for tieflings. I liked tieflings in the past, but the 4e ones went a bit overboard with the huge demon horns and 6 ft. long tails.

I think the latest Pathfinder book has it spot on with Tieflings. There should be a variety of looks to them, based on their heritage and player choice. But I do appreciate the fact that 4e took tieflings beyond the realm of "hot slutty rogue with horns".

I'm all for putting the non-traditional races (dragonborn, tiefling, aasimar, drow, warforged, etc.) in the Monster Manual. That said, I'm not going to nerdrage if there are dragonborn or tieflings in the PHB. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Sure, I'd be happy with a LOT more playable races in the MM than are in the PHB. I just want to give my games more diversity so it feels less like I'm directing a LOTR remake.

 

[CleverNickName]

Sure, I'd be happy with a LOT more playable races in the MM than are in the PHB. I just want to give my games more diversity so it feels less like I'm directing a LOTR remake.

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason. Some people like The Lord of the Rings and/or Dragonborn, some people don't, and that's fine. But how does the inclusion of dragonborn in the Player's Handbook prevent someone from playing a LotR-style game of D&D? And, conversely, how does excluding dragonborn from the Player's Handbook force someone to play a LotR-style game?

 

[Splurch]

I don't mind Dragonborn or Tieflings and don't care if they are in the core players handbook. What I would like is a players handbook that touches on all the races that most people play and I would also like Tieflings to go back to more of what they were previous to 4th Ed. I was a big fan of Earthdawn and how they did the splat books. They had a books that covered in high detail 4 races each and went into special classes, backgrounds, and history for each race. In DDN they could do something like this and include specail themes, backgrounds, classes, feats, and sub races. Those Earthdawn books really inspired the players to really delve deep into their characters when they created them and my 1st character from that game is one of my favorite characters from any game I've played (and I've tried a lot of different RPG's). LOL

 

[nightwyrm]

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason. Some people like The Lord of the Rings and/or Dragonborn, some people don't, and that's fine. But how does the inclusion of dragonborn in the Player's Handbook prevent someone from playing a LotR-style game of D&D? And, conversely, how does excluding dragonborn from the Player's Handbook force someone to play a LotR-style game?

I see it not just in dragonborn threads but a lot of other threads when discussing "exotic" races. No one bats an eye if you want to play or include in your game one of the LOTR races, but if you want to play a dragon-man or devil-man or insect-man or metal-man and people scream "Mos Eisley Cantina".

Somewhere along the way, LOTR became the fantasy canon and everything else is "bloat" or "pandering to the WoW players."

 

[Minigiant]

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason. Some people like The Lord of the Rings and/or Dragonborn, some people don't, and that's fine. But how does the inclusion of dragonborn in the Player's Handbook prevent someone from playing a LotR-style game of D&D? And, conversely, how does excluding dragonborn from the Player's Handbook force someone to play a LotR-style game?

I find that many DMs play practically the same world with different names and many of those who "Copy paste Generic D&D land" also hate monstrous PCs.

Most DMs tend to make worlds that are:

Generic ElfWoodland/DwarfMountains/HumanKingdom1-5/AlmostaShireland with "Always Evil Monsters rage HERE and THERE" area
OR
LOTR with different names

 

[Serendipity]

I see it not just in dragonborn threads but a lot of other threads when discussing "exotic" races. No one bats an eye if you want to play or include in your game one of the LOTR races, but if you want to play a dragon-man or devil-man or insect-man or metal-man and people scream "Mos Eisley Cantina".

That's just it though. For a lot of people, exotic means not elves, dwarves, or halflings. I don't get it either, but there it is.

 

[Incenjucar]

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason. Some people like The Lord of the Rings and/or Dragonborn, some people don't, and that's fine. But how does the inclusion of dragonborn in the Player's Handbook prevent someone from playing a LotR-style game of D&D? And, conversely, how does excluding dragonborn from the Player's Handbook force someone to play a LotR-style game?

The eternally-defended races are the LotR ripoffs, and that makes them the races that people who get tired of things are likely most tired of. No matter what, race-wise, D&D will continue to favor ripping off that one guy. Over and over and over again forever. You can always depend on Bilbo to show up in Undermountain, if you can depend on anything.

 

[CleverNickName]

I find that many DMs play practically the same world with different names and many of those who "Copy paste Generic D&D land" also hate monstrous PCs.

Most DMs tend to make worlds that are:

Generic ElfWoodland/DwarfMountains/HumanKingdom1-5/AlmostaShireland with "Always Evil Monsters rage HERE and THERE" area
OR
LOTR with different names

I don't see a problem with either one, honestly. But I have noticed that most of the people who do NOT want dragonborn are DMs, and most of the people who DO want them are players. So maybe this whole argument has more to do with control over world-building than anything else.

 

[Mengu]

I don't care much one way or the other. I like dragonborn, and can create dragonborn easily enough once I see other races. All I need is average race, big burly race, fast agile race, small sneaky race, stout race, mentally adept race. Give me those, and I don't care about the rest, I'll figure it out, as long as the races have identifiably balanced mechanics.