No More Reptiles with Boobs!
- Thread starter Sylrae
- Start date
Another theory: Female dragonboobs might be a trait that is analagous and not homologous to mammaries.
I remembered an interesting theory in university, confirmed on Wikipedia:
If it was up to me, though, I think anthropormorphy can be a bit dull when making dragonborn "the same" as humans. What if females tend to be smaller with vibrant colors and "feminine" frills, whereas males are larger and dull-brown in coloration.
So in a modular D&D, if you want dragonboobs, I think you can make a pseudo-biological case for that, and if you don't want dragonboobs, you don't need them.
I remembered an interesting theory in university, confirmed on Wikipedia:
So with female dragonborn, chest mounds may have evolved purely as sexual signals, like ridiculously large antlers on male deer that have no purpose other than for fighting and mating.
If it was up to me, though, I think anthropormorphy can be a bit dull when making dragonborn "the same" as humans. What if females tend to be smaller with vibrant colors and "feminine" frills, whereas males are larger and dull-brown in coloration.
So in a modular D&D, if you want dragonboobs, I think you can make a pseudo-biological case for that, and if you don't want dragonboobs, you don't need them.
Wormwood
Adventurer
The last time WotC tried to be "ballsy and cool as hell" they added devil-people and dragon-people and a bunch of people bitched that "D&D looks like Mos Eisley, amirite?".
Considering those exact same people are the ones being courted for this new edition, I wouldn't expect such ballsy moves going forward.
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
What about female dwarf beards?
100% not expecting it. I just think it would be interesting.
Be honest though, the initial response is almost 100% based on an illustration. I don't even remember his name, but the guy who did most of the artwork in the 4E PHB is not really a good illustrator (sorry dude). At least not compared to the guys wotc uses frequently like rk post, wayne reynolds, steve prescott, mark zug, jesper ejsing, jim murray, etc.
Those guys could make anything seem authentic and interesting. Not cheesy and rehashed (like the tiefling and dragonborn currently look)
It's not just the thing itself, it's the way it is presented and marketed. I was ok with tiefling though I wondered where aasimar was. dragonborn just looked like crap.
wotc lost me with 4e when i saw what character the entire thing lacked. even 3e was basically todd lockwood and sam wood for like 80% of the book. it gives a specific attitude and feeling to everything. when you just have a bunch of random illustrators thrown together with clashing styles it just feels crappy.
whoever is in charge of art direction currently, or more likely, whoever they answer to needs to be slapped around a bit.
Klaus
First Post
"Dude, was she stacked?"
"She was cat-stacked, bro!"
Yes he's all kinds of awesome at refusing to draw (human) feet in every illustration I've seen.
He's cool and all, but not on the same level.
There's a place for his illustrations, but it isn't doing the iconic images of each race. wotc has the money and the previous work relationship to have one of any number of extremely talented illustrators work on their books.
instead with 4e to cut corners, save money and time they took work from way too large a pool of illustrators of varying skill levels. the end product simply looks bad. for a company with access to the talent I listed to go with the stuff they used is just sad.
Compare this to the above posted illustration by steve prescott that you linked.
:/ If I saw the prescott image first when 4e was announced. I might have been interested. Instead I saw that.
He's cool and all, but not on the same level.
There's a place for his illustrations, but it isn't doing the iconic images of each race. wotc has the money and the previous work relationship to have one of any number of extremely talented illustrators work on their books.
instead with 4e to cut corners, save money and time they took work from way too large a pool of illustrators of varying skill levels. the end product simply looks bad. for a company with access to the talent I listed to go with the stuff they used is just sad.
Compare this to the above posted illustration by steve prescott that you linked.
:/ If I saw the prescott image first when 4e was announced. I might have been interested. Instead I saw that.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
According to the Ecology of the Dragonborn article in Dragon 365, they do nurse their young:
Dragon Magazine 365 said:
Sylrae
First Post
God Damnit people! for like the fifth time, the post you keep quoting is a poste that quotes a previous post and is clearly referring to dragons, because the topic was briefly derailed onto the semi related subject of how dragons do not have boobs, or hair, or nurse their young. (and the implication was that therefore dragon people who aren't like, part human or something, should follow suite)
Easily. Its the fighter type with the hair. I think it looks much better than the William O'Connor dragonborn.To be honest: not every female dragonborn was shown with boobs. Steve Prescott's amazing cover to Player's Handbook Races: Dragonborn, has a male and a female. Can you tell which is which?
... 3e had Tieflings, and they were actually devil people instead of cursed humans. It also had the 3 previously mentioned dragon races.
It didnt come across as ballsy to me, it came across as moving two races from the monster manual (and Monsters of Faerun) to the PHB, and dumbing them down in an attempt to appeal more to 13 year olds.
All for them, they're dwarves. Plus, I've seen human women that didnt groom themselves well who had mustaches and the beginnings of a beard, so its not at all implausible.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
