D&D 5E I don't like Dragonborn: Please stay away from D&D Next.

Do you like Dragonborn?

  • Yes

    Votes: 106 60.9%
  • No

    Votes: 68 39.1%

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about evidence that enworld likes Dragonborn. The poll is currently 58% pro DB. I think that any race or class that more than 40% of gamer want, needs to be included in 5eNext. Seems to be a clear no brainer.
I would like to see a 5 point poll,

Strongly dislike, dislike, neutral, like, strongly like.

I suspect that there would be more likes and strongly likes than dislikes and strongly dislikes, but also that there would be relatively more strongly dislikes than strongly likes.

i.e. if you weight strong responses more than weaker, I'm not so sure Dragonborn would come out overall in the positive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I could prove this, but you would never, ever, EVER forgive me.

Just please trust me that humanoid dragons are extremely popular in geek circles of various sorts. DO NOT SEARCH.
LOL yes. I believe you.

Still if D&D were really going after that audience I'm sure Dragonborn could use a visual reworking in a different direction.
 

LOL yes. I believe you.

Still if D&D were really going after that audience I'm sure Dragonborn could use a visual reworking in a different direction.

Nah. Humanoid dragons are very popular outside of rule 34, as well. Dragons are one of the most popular concepts in the whole of human existence. They are the symbol of fantasy, magic, and mythology. They have endless lists of metaphors that people draw from them.

4E dragonborn are actually an attempt to control how much people want to play dragons - D&D had way too many humanoid dragons and half-dragons and become-a-dragon things and they wanted to try and narrow that down a bit. Humanoid dragons were taking up too much creative space.
 



Drow aren't Core in 4e.

There are three kinds of books for 4e: Core, Supplement, and Essentials. Drow is introduced in the Forgotten Realms book (supplement) and again in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom (essentials).

Yes they were because everything in 4th edition was Core. They were also in the core Essentials books.
 


Yes they were because everything in 4th edition was Core. They were also in the core Essentials books.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "core" is.

It seems to me that WotC's use of the word "core" was intended in the sense of:

1. They are going to continue supporting it with new powers, feats, etc. (As opposed to races and classes that appear in one book and are hardly, if ever, referenced again.)

2. Everything works with everything else, so you can mix a FR class with a Dark Sun race and an Eberron feat and it won't cause you problems mechanically. (You're on your own with respect to flavor, though.)

Frankly, I think you would only have problems with the word "core" if you insist on defining "core" as something that you, as a DM, are required to include in your games by your players. If so, it might be more productive to stand up to your players and manage their expectations. Explaining to them what WotC actually meant when it used the term "core" might be a good place to start.
 

Yes they were because everything in 4th edition was Core. They were also in the core Essentials books.

I see this said a lot, but I don't recall any statements in the books to that effect. I do remember WotC labeling some books with the word "core" on the cover and others with "supplement" - which undeniably points to the conclusion that not all books are core.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top