Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lurks-no-More" data-source="post: 3903954" data-attributes="member: 8226">So, if the dragonborn are real, instead of just a catchy rumor, I'm perfectly okay with them.As others have said, reptilian people are an old stand-by of both sword and sorcery novels and of D&amp;D (see yuan-ti and lizardfolk). Having a detailed, scaly race in the PHB (for use either as PCs or NPCs) is a pretty good idea, I think; it's getting further from the &quot;all Tolkien, all the time&quot;&nbsp; racial line-up of the earlier (A)D&amp;D editions, but that's not a bad thing. Linking them with dragons seems also like a good idea; the game is called Dungeons &amp; Dragons, after all, and dragons are the iconic monsters, both in D&amp;D and in reality. A lot of people like dragons, and would undoubtedly find a dragonborn race interesting. (I think this is another case of WotC re-using or re-imagining a name used earlier; I really don't think the DB are going to be templated creatures in 4e.)I also hope this will ease the worries of those people who were concerned about the supposed focus on fiends w. tiefling, warlock etc.; if dragonborn are in the PHB, you are going to see a lot of emphasis on dragons as well. (And the eladrin are probably going to be the fey/celestial race.)Finally, what is it with people complaining about names? With eladrin, there were complaints it didn't mean anything; with dragonborn, it's a &quot;lame compound word&quot;. Would you be any happier if they'd been named &quot;draccaryn&quot; or something similar? I doubt so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lurks-no-More, post: 3903954, member: 8226"] So, if the dragonborn are real, instead of just a catchy rumor, I'm perfectly okay with them. As others have said, reptilian people are an old stand-by of both sword and sorcery novels and of D&D (see yuan-ti and lizardfolk). Having a detailed, scaly race in the PHB (for use either as PCs or NPCs) is a pretty good idea, I think; it's getting further from the "all Tolkien, all the time" racial line-up of the earlier (A)D&D editions, but that's not a bad thing. Linking them with dragons seems also like a good idea; the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, after all, and dragons are [i]the[/i] iconic monsters, both in D&D and in reality. A lot of people like dragons, and would undoubtedly find a dragonborn race interesting. (I think this is another case of WotC re-using or re-imagining a name used earlier; I really don't think the DB are going to be templated creatures in 4e.) I also hope this will ease the worries of those people who were concerned about the supposed focus on fiends w. tiefling, warlock etc.; if dragonborn are in the PHB, you are going to see a lot of emphasis on dragons as well. (And the eladrin are probably going to be the fey/celestial race.) Finally, what is it with people complaining about names? With eladrin, there were complaints it didn't mean anything; with dragonborn, it's a "lame compound word". Would you be any happier if they'd been named "draccaryn" or something similar? I doubt so. [/QUOTE]

Verification