Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

[AllisterH]

You're the first person I have heard that has done so. What supplement did you use that detailed the PC class?

Council of Wyrms had rules for Half-dragons IIRC.

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

Dragonmen are a much wanted race it would seem. Personally, I never understood the appeal but looking at the 3e supplements and the number of dragon-focused products as well as the sheer number of half-dragon/dragonnmen remplates races and prestige classes, SOMEONE out there has got to be buying it...

(I know many here would deny to the high heavens that dragonmen are not that popular, but seriously look at how many dragon-related things came out in 3.x...WOTC isn't in the business of producing money losers)

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't think it's witty or clever, but I'll not give these contrived imposters the time of day by calling them by their poorly chosen name. They deserve mockery. Heck, I save to disbelieve that "they" exist as a core PC race in any D&D milieu worth a damn.

Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.


Anyone here remember this old Dragon magazine article where they introduced enchanted dragon's teeth? Plant one, and up pops a warrior in color-appropriate mail, with an elemental power matching the parent dragon. D&D spartoi, essentially. I did that once, in a Hollowfaust-set one-shot testing out 4e.

Of course, as far as traction goes, I'm kind of in a weird space. I've been using dragon-people-type PCs since 1990, purely on the merits of the old Ral Partha draconian miniatures, and demon-blooded people since... well, about the same amount of time, only we started using tiefling rules instead of homebrews (like the homebrew demon-blood rules from Mayfair's old Demons line) when they finally came out. So I sort of feel like 4e used to hang out at my old college gaming sessions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

Hmm...yeah, it seems that the dragonoid concept certainly has traction...

....of course dragonborn are different....but perhaps my dislike of them comes solely from the name and the look. I probably would have no problem with them, even their existing 4e backstory, if I thought the name or the look were appealing in any way.

The "fiendish" concept also has traction, though not every fiendish creature is a 4e tiefling, either.

So I guess the answer to the OP is more along the lines of: "Those things have ALWAYS had traction, this is just the most recent form of them," rather than "Dragonborn are dumb."

 

[Mark]

Council of Wyrms had rules for Half-dragons IIRC.

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

Dragonmen are a much wanted race it would seem. Personally, I never understood the appeal but looking at the 3e supplements and the number of dragon-focused products as well as the sheer number of half-dragon/dragonnmen remplates races and prestige classes, SOMEONE out there has got to be buying it...

(I know many here would deny to the high heavens that dragonmen are not that popular, but seriously look at how many dragon-related things came out in 3.x...WOTC isn't in the business of producing money losers)

Okay. I'm convinced that the "dragonman" heritage and traction, if not massive, is at least longer-lived than I would have at first given credit. Fair enough.

 

[rounser]

Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.

Probably because it's not what I said. I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core of any D&D milieu worth being called such. No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a poor choice.

 

[Mad Mac]

If there was a dragon race that could fit the mold of other PC races....heck, if the "Dragonborn" mechanics were just appropriated for an *actual* dragon instead of the bagged cereal version of a dragon, dragonborn would evaporate as unnecessary.

Again, I disagree. They may be redundant in your mind, but it's not a universal opinion. I'm just going to leave it at that.

As for Lizardmen vs Dragonmen, of course the details are somewhat different, but it's a smaller difference than say, Dragonmen and halflings. I could take the rules for Dragonborn, have him spit poison or something, and roleplay him as a lizard-dude if I wanted.

Obviously we have different minds on this, I just feel that having Dragonborn reduces the chances of seeing lizardmen as a PC race, for various reasons, and vice versa.

My impression from CRPG's is that lizardmen used to be popular, and then were somewhat eclipsed by Dragonmen. Most games don't offer both.

In terms of style though, I do wish they had given the big lizard tails to the Dragonborn instead of the Tieflings.

 

[Mark]

As for Lizardmen vs Dragonmen, of course the details are somewhat different, but it's a smaller difference than say, Dragonmen and halflings. I could take the rules for Dragonborn, have him spit poison or something, and roleplay him as a lizard-dude if I wanted.

Obviously we have different minds on this, I just feel that having Dragonborn reduces the chances of seeing lizardmen as a PC race, for various reasons, and vice versa.

My impression from CRPG's is that lizardmen used to be popular, and then were somewhat eclipsed by Dragonmen. Most games don't offer both.

In terms of style though, I do wish they had given the big lizard tails to the Dragonborn instead of the Tieflings.

This, too, all rings true with me.

 

[AllisterH]

Probably because it's not what I said. I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core, of any D&D milieu worth being called such. No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a hoser.

*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....

 

[Mark]

*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....

I think your definition of core is overbroad. Most consider the core setting to be whatever the core books (first three in each previous edition) utilize to be the only core setting. Sometimes it is hard to even tell what that is unless you look at the deities section.

 

[rounser]

*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....

The whole thing revolves around PC races, being present or not by default in all settings. You don't understand these distinctions, or they don't matter to you, so it is useless pointing them out to you. Unhappily for me, people like you are now in charge of D&D.

Eberron is the only truly kitchen sink setting, and the guy in charge of the design of that was also the guy in charge of the design of 4E. No surprise that ill-founded kitchen sinking is present in both. Unfortunately there's a lot more damage to be done with the core implied setting than with any specific setting like Eberron.