Dragonborn, though they appeared first as 'core' in 4e, are not purely 4e phenomenon. They came out and and were quite popular (judging by their constantly being included and referenced since then) in 3e. They are not a result of the 4e designer's secret desire to thwart your will at every turn, but rather as you postulated it seems to be "kewlz" with the kids these days. As for the origin, It strikes me as far more plausible and mythic of an origin(though I too prefer a draconian type origin) than a dragon/humanoid offspring.
D&D 5E Renamed: Wandering Monsters 2 weeks later
- Thread starter steeldragons
- Start date
Dragonborn, though they appeared first as 'core' in 4e, are not purely 4e phenomenon. They came out and and were quite popular (judging by their constantly being included and referenced since then) in 3e. They are not a result of the 4e designer's secret desire to thwart your will at every turn, but rather as you postulated it seems to be "kewlz" with the kids these days. As for the origin, It strikes me as far more plausible and mythic of an origin(though I too prefer a draconian type origin) than a dragon/humanoid offspring.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Dragonborn were first introduced on January 5, 2006, almost 8 years ago. They were popular for 3e, which is why they were made into a core race in 4e.
See this article. And then, they had even more detail in this 3e book, called Races of the Dragon.
Last edited:
Klaus
First Post
And of course, half-dragons go back all the way to the dawn of 3e.
If we count saurials as precursors to the modern "playable" dragonborn, they go much farther back.
MarkB
Legend
Regarding the underwater article:
I disliked the concept that merfolk would be necessarily primitive just because they can't forge metals. I strongly suspect that an underwater culture would develop its own techniques and technologies, unimagined by surface folk and just as impressive - and magic could easily overcome the problems of undersea forging, whether by providing fuelless heat sources or creating air-filled workspaces in the ocean depths.
The merrow write-up was 'meh' simply because I don't think there's much need for an in-depth write-up of ogres in general, let alone ogre sub-species. They're big dumb brutes that the DM throws in to give the party a strong physical challenge - they don't need complex backstories or motivation.
I've not looked at krakens in past editions, but I really don't view them as the underwater equivalent of crafty, intelligent dragons. Krakens should be a force of nature, not an evil overlord - or ideally, the Kraken should be the undersea equivalent to the Tarrasque, a fearsome beast slumbering in the deepest ocean trenches, bringing apocalyptic destruction should it ever be awakened.
The Dragonborn article is deeply uninspiring. All this 'sanctioned by the gods' stuff is grating to say the least.
I disliked the concept that merfolk would be necessarily primitive just because they can't forge metals. I strongly suspect that an underwater culture would develop its own techniques and technologies, unimagined by surface folk and just as impressive - and magic could easily overcome the problems of undersea forging, whether by providing fuelless heat sources or creating air-filled workspaces in the ocean depths.
The merrow write-up was 'meh' simply because I don't think there's much need for an in-depth write-up of ogres in general, let alone ogre sub-species. They're big dumb brutes that the DM throws in to give the party a strong physical challenge - they don't need complex backstories or motivation.
I've not looked at krakens in past editions, but I really don't view them as the underwater equivalent of crafty, intelligent dragons. Krakens should be a force of nature, not an evil overlord - or ideally, the Kraken should be the undersea equivalent to the Tarrasque, a fearsome beast slumbering in the deepest ocean trenches, bringing apocalyptic destruction should it ever be awakened.
The Dragonborn article is deeply uninspiring. All this 'sanctioned by the gods' stuff is grating to say the least.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Oh yeah. I know. But, as noted, we already had half-dragons then...so,I just don't see how/why there was ever a need or desire to have another kind of dragon-people.
AHA! So you admit there IS that secret desire!? I knew it!
Pretty much what I figured. That's just not sufficient to warrant existence in the game world...for me.
Klaus
First Post
My group averages 39 years of age, and they all love dragonborn. It's very easy to place these preferences on "kids", or "videogamers" or any "other" group, but the truth is a lot of the newer stuff in D&D is popular with both new and old gamers, just as Old School stuff is popular with both new and old gamers.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
This is a fair point and all too oft forgotten.
...but they're still out to thwart me. ;P
Tovec
Explorer
At this point I guess should be used to the terrible poll questions, but the dragon ones are bad on a whole new level.
There is no option for multiple selections (half-dragon and kobold), to tell him that half-dragons =/= dragonborn or kobolds, or even kobolds =/= dragonborn. No options for "looks like a dragon" only, a la kobold. Too much "Yeah, you did a great job," or "No, I didn't like this one aspect" and no options for "No, I dislike the premise/everything". Wow. Just shocking how little I was prepared for that poll to suck.
For the record, I assume dragonborn will be in 5e. I don't really care what form they take, what their backstory is or any of that jazz. I hate them and don't plan on using them. That goes for draconians, spellscales, and dragonborn of Bahamut as well. Don't need or want a human-sized dragon-person (except as below) and certainly not one tied directly to a dragon or the dragon-gods.
Now, half-dragons - through various origins with the most likely being a papa dragon and mama human (alter race/genders as appropriate) - I have and do plan to continue using them. But I don't need any ties to clutches of eggs, special ritual garbage, blessings by gods or anything like that. I figure if dragons are rare, half-dragons should be extra rare as they are when a full dragon ends up doing something special to create one that is half. I don't like a race of half-dragons in this regard, and I think that is why a template works best. They are only half-dragon afterall, you need to have the dragon part modify the non-dragon part - that means template to me. And nothing he discusses about dragonborn, etc. does that for me. Not one bit. It just strikes me as FAR too one true wayism and doesn't make any sense for what I have come to love about half-dragons.
And for kobolds? What? I was going to poll half-dragon, but then I saw kobolds and I guess they are draconic but they aren't born of whatever either. How they came to be is anyone's guess - same goes for dwarves, elves, humans, and so on. They are kind of the opposite of half-dragons, a true race that breeds and create more of themselves. They aren't special when they exist, that is why they can be used as canon fodder lowbie monsters. Why was kobold on the poll? Was it to split the half-dragon vote (my best guess at the moment)? How are kobolds related at all? Should we include humans in the halfling poll now too? I mean it is just a different heighted pink skinned creature, just like kobolds are different heighted scaled-skinned creatures in the dragonborn poll.
As far as the aquatic one: Meh, nothing really stands out as great. Nothing exceptionally terrible either.
The assumptions about merfolk make sense - hard to forge or write when under water. But I wonder why the "unpredictable" part isn't applied to all humanoids, or at least all races of any type. I mean there is no reason I can see that all orcs, or elves or anyone would be monolithic except to the sheltered human observers. I think they need to try a little harder.
Merrow? Eh, I think they need their own non-ogre entry; but they need to do a description in a non-ogre way too. If merrow aren't ogres that is cool, don't sort them there. I think that they probably shouldn't be descend from ogres either maybe? (I don't know, haven't given it any thought before this article.) I personally find the marid description that was given to be pretty weak over all. Not a whole lot to work with - kind of like how the gnoll description, or was it Yeenoghu*, mentioned too much about Yeenoghu and not enough about gnolls themselves, and very little that is actually useful when encountering them. They're descended from hyenas/ogres, cool. So what does that mean when fighting them? Should we try to parlay and fix their genetic condition? Nah, probably not - they'd still be hyenas/ogres and eat us.
Kracken - Okay, I have a question. Was the part in there about "fresh, salt water and air" useful? What does it accomplish that outsider/immortal tag doesn't? I mean isn't that what it really is at this point? Also, not a huge fan of its over-intelligence and apparent warlordship but it isn't something that really factors in for me. I'm curious what shape the supernatural abilities will take - controlling storms and fish.
* And if it was the Yeenoghu description, and not the gnolls; then why was there so much about the gnolls that I think it was their description? Don't need to spend half of any monster description focusing on something else and only half on the thing you are talking about - that is poor design regardless of whose description it is.
There is no option for multiple selections (half-dragon and kobold), to tell him that half-dragons =/= dragonborn or kobolds, or even kobolds =/= dragonborn. No options for "looks like a dragon" only, a la kobold. Too much "Yeah, you did a great job," or "No, I didn't like this one aspect" and no options for "No, I dislike the premise/everything". Wow. Just shocking how little I was prepared for that poll to suck.
For the record, I assume dragonborn will be in 5e. I don't really care what form they take, what their backstory is or any of that jazz. I hate them and don't plan on using them. That goes for draconians, spellscales, and dragonborn of Bahamut as well. Don't need or want a human-sized dragon-person (except as below) and certainly not one tied directly to a dragon or the dragon-gods.
Now, half-dragons - through various origins with the most likely being a papa dragon and mama human (alter race/genders as appropriate) - I have and do plan to continue using them. But I don't need any ties to clutches of eggs, special ritual garbage, blessings by gods or anything like that. I figure if dragons are rare, half-dragons should be extra rare as they are when a full dragon ends up doing something special to create one that is half. I don't like a race of half-dragons in this regard, and I think that is why a template works best. They are only half-dragon afterall, you need to have the dragon part modify the non-dragon part - that means template to me. And nothing he discusses about dragonborn, etc. does that for me. Not one bit. It just strikes me as FAR too one true wayism and doesn't make any sense for what I have come to love about half-dragons.
And for kobolds? What? I was going to poll half-dragon, but then I saw kobolds and I guess they are draconic but they aren't born of whatever either. How they came to be is anyone's guess - same goes for dwarves, elves, humans, and so on. They are kind of the opposite of half-dragons, a true race that breeds and create more of themselves. They aren't special when they exist, that is why they can be used as canon fodder lowbie monsters. Why was kobold on the poll? Was it to split the half-dragon vote (my best guess at the moment)? How are kobolds related at all? Should we include humans in the halfling poll now too? I mean it is just a different heighted pink skinned creature, just like kobolds are different heighted scaled-skinned creatures in the dragonborn poll.
As far as the aquatic one: Meh, nothing really stands out as great. Nothing exceptionally terrible either.
The assumptions about merfolk make sense - hard to forge or write when under water. But I wonder why the "unpredictable" part isn't applied to all humanoids, or at least all races of any type. I mean there is no reason I can see that all orcs, or elves or anyone would be monolithic except to the sheltered human observers. I think they need to try a little harder.
Merrow? Eh, I think they need their own non-ogre entry; but they need to do a description in a non-ogre way too. If merrow aren't ogres that is cool, don't sort them there. I think that they probably shouldn't be descend from ogres either maybe? (I don't know, haven't given it any thought before this article.) I personally find the marid description that was given to be pretty weak over all. Not a whole lot to work with - kind of like how the gnoll description, or was it Yeenoghu*, mentioned too much about Yeenoghu and not enough about gnolls themselves, and very little that is actually useful when encountering them. They're descended from hyenas/ogres, cool. So what does that mean when fighting them? Should we try to parlay and fix their genetic condition? Nah, probably not - they'd still be hyenas/ogres and eat us.
Kracken - Okay, I have a question. Was the part in there about "fresh, salt water and air" useful? What does it accomplish that outsider/immortal tag doesn't? I mean isn't that what it really is at this point? Also, not a huge fan of its over-intelligence and apparent warlordship but it isn't something that really factors in for me. I'm curious what shape the supernatural abilities will take - controlling storms and fish.
* And if it was the Yeenoghu description, and not the gnolls; then why was there so much about the gnolls that I think it was their description? Don't need to spend half of any monster description focusing on something else and only half on the thing you are talking about - that is poor design regardless of whose description it is.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Kobold is the third-highest answer at 16%, almost tied for second which is 17%. Maybe people view this different than you view it?
Tovec
Explorer
Maybe so, but really I don't understand this reply. What about it being polled at 16% is important to what I said?
I mean, I selected kobold as well, so I'm one of that 16% but it doesn't negate the poll options being terrible. I voted on each of the polls. And like usual I found the polls to not reflect what I really wanted to say on the subject. But if the regular polls are bad, as I already said, then the dragon article polls are on a whole new level as they add in things that are not discussed or related, like kobold. And further, give no option to say "this is unrelated" like the half-dragon. And worse, in the second (or third) poll seems to really conflate the two when asking for the origins of the dragonborn, with people mostly picking dragon-parent and humanoid-parent (at the time I answered) for something that I think that applies to half-dragon mostly and almost not at all to (as Wyatt describes) kobolds, draconians, dragonborn of bahamut, and even spellscales, and 4e's dragonborn (of Io?). So I think that it is extra terrible in this regard because it lumps them all together when it shouldn't. So, 16% relates how?
A comparable example, IMHO, would be if Wyatt had done an article about dragons, then in the polls he gives options of dragons, wyverns, basilisks, and dragon-turtles and gave an option (which is most highly selected) of frog sitting on chicken egg (or whatever the basilisk origin is) for all of them and thinking that that is what people thought all dragons should be like. I think that woefully under specifies what people actually think. So, in this case the poll is not only bad, but misleadingly bad. Usually it is just bad because it is self-congratulatory or an assumed positive spin. So, it is that plus not getting (again, based on how the polls are phrased) an accurate picture of what people really think.
Similar Threads
