Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 9717374" data-attributes="member: 7017304">Draconians and especially kolbolds fill different fantasy niches - kolbolds would be a bad fit for a genneral "dragon-person" race; they're a small race first and craft second. Closer to gnomes but ugly-cute instead of regular-cute.Draconians are closer; they have some evil origin baggage that dragonborn don't (and that niche is already covered by orcs and tieflings, let alone a whole host of non-core monstrous races).Dragonborn, however, are a pretty pure version of the Proud Warrior Race guy; the rest of the dragonborn entry adds some dragon-y cosmetic aspects. It's actually a niche that's been mostly unfilled (the closest prior core race was dwarves, but they're filling the surprisingly distint "dwarf" niche)Now, if you want to argue that dragonborn should have been written in a way that includes draconians, I don't disagree. But just swapping in the Krynn version of draconians is not an improvement, it's a limitation and missing the initial design goal (newbie-friendly playable dragon people, since most dm's would ban any race with wings, and a special death move doesn't jive with the idea that you'll keep your character for the whole campaign.)This part I also agree with: the way they were introduced was not great, much like a lot of 4e's new stuff. I even don't like them in FR just because they really should be from somewhere, even if the new dragonborn country itself came from another dimention and just sort of plopped down right on the side of Faerun.</blockquote>

Verification