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

[grimslade]

5E needs to go the full Talislanta: No Elves

20 Elven sub-races is a bigger problem than dragonmen. Arctic elves and snow elves? In the same edition? How many varieties of pointy-eared nature loving humans do we need?

Hopefully, dragonborn will be fully reptilian in 5E and in the PHB. Maybe gnolls and orcs? A non-thrikreen insect race if I DM a whole bunch?

I think ForeverSlayer is playing a massive troll joke on us. To describe a hate for dragonborn and using Dragonlance is delicious irony. The setting that gave us minotaur PCs, gully dwarves, tinker gnomes and kender being used to mock inclusion of a playable race. Well played sir, well played!

[ed.] Did not want to call ForeverSlayer a regenerating monstrous humanoid for expressing his opinion. Bad word choice on my part.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Oh look, ANOTHER thread by ForeverSlayer that does nothing but hate on 4E. ANOTHER one.

Seriously, we get it, you hate 4E so much you have a complete and utter lack of ability to let ANYTHING that it introduced into DDN.

If Dragonborn aren't in the 5E PHB, it will fail at unifying the editions. If you don't like them, DON'T USE THEM. Seriously, why is that concept so difficult for people to understand. Stop infringing on the fun of others.

I am also getting bored of the "I hate all things 4e" threads as well. It server no real purpose to the design goals "to unify all the editions gamers together".

I love DragonBorn & Tiefling too. I am want them in the core PHB, so do many others.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because I don't want a game that I need to houserule the hell out of to have it where I want it.

The same can be said of you. Just houserule them as core in your games, what's the problem with that?

Because creating a race that that doesn't exist in the edition is incredibly difficult, I have to create all sorts of associated material for it to not simply seem like I slapped it on there in a rush. Saying "you can't play them" is easy.

And how does houseruling out one or two races define "the hell of"? I mean if you were getting rid of every single instance of the word "dragonborn" and "tiefling" in your book, yeah, that's going to be difficult.

But saying "You can't play X and Y."? That isn't even houseruling! That's just DM discretion, everyone does it. I currently have a list of about 20 races from 4e that my players can't play. It took me all of 5 minutes to make a list and say "NO."

Considering some of your stances, I have a feeling you're going to have to "houserule the hell" out of 5e anyway. Because I get the feeling it's going to cater to a wide audienceof rather varied tastesand not one man's idea of what is or isn't D&D. If you don't want an inclusive edition of D&D, then at this point, with all the statements on goals they've made so far, I wonder why you are still here.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

20 Elven sub-races is a bigger problem than dragonmen. Arctic elves and snow elves? In the same edition? How many varieties of pointy-eared nature loving humans do we need?

Hopefully, dragonborn will be fully reptilian in 5E and in the PHB. Maybe gnolls and orcs? A non-thrikreen insect race if I DM a whole bunch?

I think ForeverSlayer is playing a massive troll joke on us. To describe a hate for dragonborn and using Dragonlance is delicious irony. The setting that gave us minotaur PCs, gully dwarves, tinker gnomes and kender being used to mock inclusion of a playable race. Well played sir, well played!

I think you need to watch who you are calling a troll because you are doing the exact thing you are blaming me for.

Calling people trolls is not an argument to a thread.

Why did you think it was okay for you to come into this thread and then announce that I was trolling? Why didn't you just report me if I was trolling?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I am also getting bored of the "I hate all things 4e" threads as well. It server no real purpose to the design goals "to unify all the editions gamers together".

I love DragonBorn & Tiefling too. I am want them in the core PHB, so do many others.

And yet you decided that you needed to come on here and announce it.

This is the Next forums, not the 4th edition forums. I make it no secret that I hate 4th edition and that's why I don't want 4th edition to be an inspiration for D&D Next.

 

[Melkor]

Ever since reading Dragonlance the Draconian(or the "Dragonman") has stood as fantasy staple in my mind. That it was introduced in 4e was an utter delight to me.

LOVE dragonborn and I consider them a fantasy staple. Would hate to see them gone.

Wait...Do Dragonborn turn to stone when killed, or explode?

 

[underfoot007ct]

I just reread the thread and the furthest ForeverSlayer went was to say he'd simply house rule them out. I didn't see anything like you're describing in anyone's posts.

I like dragonborn because my first experience with 4E included my friend's character that I now have fond memories of. My default assumption though, is no monstrous races for PCs unless the campaign is about that.

My biggest issue with dragonborn is the whole "honour" thing. I'm not a big fan of reskinned Klingon caricatures.

Klingons were resigned Samurai. Almost everything is reskined from something else. So is reskining or honor which is bad?

 

[Janaxstrus]

Dislike them intensely.

Having them as a CORE option would be a strike against the edition.
Having them as a module along with tieflings, etc for specific settings? Sure, no problem with that. It's much harder to remove all references from core from such a controversial race than it is to have them as a module.
Add in that The Elder Scrolls people are asserting they are trademarking the name, and it may be in their best interest to put Dragonborn aside for the core books.

By the same token, I don't want drow as a core race, or warforged, or orcs or minotaurs, but if they came out in setting specific (or even edition specific) modules, I wouldn't care.

 

[AngryMojo]

I truly doubt that removing Dragonborn from the PhB would make the game more inclusive. If the entire goal of D&D Next is to be the "Big Tent" edition, wouldn't it make more sense to have as many different races as possible in the PhB rather than restricting it to the "classics" of 1e?

If you include Dragonborn, Tieflings, Eladrin and Gnomes in the first PhB you make it easy for people who want to play those races. If you exclude elements like these, you wind up excluding many players by proxy.

If the concern is "the core races will be expected" then I propose there are no core races, not even human. Zero. The race chapter is prefaced with the concept of optional races, all of which are purview to the campaign being played. That way you can include everything from Aasimar to Warforged and they don't require any more "house rules" than saying nothing but humans.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Dislike them intensely.

Having them as a CORE option would be a strike against the edition.
Having them as a module along with tieflings, etc for specific settings? Sure, no problem with that. It's much harder to remove all references from core from such a controversial race than it is to have them as a module.
Add in that The Elder Scrolls people are asserting they are trademarking the name, and it may be in their best interest to put Dragonborn aside for the core books.

By the same token, I don't want drow as a core race, or warforged, or orcs or minotaurs, but if they came out in setting specific (or even edition specific) modules, I wouldn't care.

Agreed! Setting specific is fine but I don't want them as core.