D&D General What if we gave dragonborn four arms?

[cbwjm]

European heraldry is a very poor source of Dragon canon, in that you get four, two and no legged dragons, some dragons the size of a horse, some with wings, some without and any number of heads

Sounds great for dragon canon.

 

[James Gasik]

Did someone say dragon cannon?

 

[Corinnguard]

Funny enough, I’ve been thinking of greatly expanding the species and their features, along with giving them species specific feats that they can take in addition or general feats to create more mechanically distinct options that can be mixed and matched along side classes for greater options.

PF2 does something like this with their Ancestry feats. Each Ancestry receives an Ancestry feat at levels 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th level. As an example of what I mean, this link from the Archives of Nethys website shows what you will get for being a human in PF2.

Human Feats

 

[Corinnguard]

Btw @RoughCoronet0, PF2 also has a Versatile Heritage for anyone wanting to play a Dragonblood (the PF2 remastered name for Half-Dragons)

Dragonblood - Ancestries - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Dragons are powerful creatures, and many have involved themselves deeply in the lives of others. Some might be treated with reverence by a group of smaller humanoids, acting as their protector or, in rare cases, deity incarnate. Others take on a humanoid form to live within a civilization as...

2e.aonprd.com

A Versatile Heritage is a heritage that can be applied to any Ancestry in lieu of an Ancestral heritage.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Settings used to be more fluid, I've noticed. Back in the TSR days, if a new supplement or Dragon magazine article came out and said "hey, here's this new class or race" and provided lore for what campaign settings it could fit in, an individual DM might not allow it, but I don't recall anyone saying "x doesn't belong in y setting". Maybe this was just because the internet wasn't quite a thing yet, maybe it was because with Spelljammer and Planescape, TSR's worlds were more cosmopolitan, with it not being a big deal if a Tinker Gnome from Krynn hitched a ride on a spelljammer and landed in Waterdeep or a Bariaur stepped into the wrong portal and found himself in the Free City of Greyhawk.

By the time WotC took over stewardship of the IP, the existence of Aasimar and Tieflings wasn't contested, and we got a ton of new things too, like Genasi, and several books devoted to dragonkind which gave us "draconic" PC options, (like say, Silverbrow Humans).

This is super subjective, but I feel like there was a shift in either the game culture or in the game presentation that started during 2e and carried on into 3e.

AD&D 2e started with a strong aesthetic about making the game be what you wanted it to be. Use any or all of these attribute-determination methods, XP options, non-combat skill systems, use kits or don't, hey try this green-leatherette-bound book about a Viking setting, etc. As the edition progressed more of the books were setting books and the blank spots on the map started to get filled in. Slowly the published material was thought to define not what could be but both what was there and also what wasn't.

Third edition (and/or the internet for a much larger portion of the player base) comes around and suddenly people start talking about 'RAW.' It's not like rules disputes/rules parsing/rules lawyers/appeals to 'but, the rulebook says...' weren't already part of the game culture vernacular (and often lampooning), but now there was this cohesive term and framing for a solid body of established norms that, if not rigidly applied, should at least be treated/examined/judged as if it were.

None of this changed (to my knowledge) that every game table chose which and how much of each book they were going to use. Stories about new player X finding out that gaming table Y wasn't using rule/world setting element Z and throwing a fit popped up, but never with any indication of prevalence or ubiquity. Mostly I think what changed was a perception about what the published ruleset was for -- like, this was supposed to be a singular cohesive whole and then the gaming group would cull and carve and resculpt to cultivate their preferred play experience.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think most tables do not have discussions like this. They don't analyze the existence of mudmen societies in the world in order to justify their presence in an encounter.*

I for one like to allow for mystery and the unknown within the game, so I don't question this stuff. If, as the Dungeon Master, I set up something nonsensical (like including mudmen in an encounter without thinking about their place in the world) and a player presses me on it, i appeal to the unknown, either, "This is unknown to your character," or "An old wive's tale says that men made from mud are born from rotten food carried away into the forest by birds, so eat your vegetables! Your character didn't know they really existed until now."

*Except as a joke while cracking open another peanut.

so what is so different about player options?

 

[James Gasik]

so what is so different about player options?

Thinking about it more, it's because they're player-facing.

If a DM doesn't want to use vampiric roses from Castle Amber in his game, he doesn't have to- even if he's running Castle Amber, he could substitute them for something else. The players don't have any say in this process, and I don't think anyone would gripe about "the DM doesn't use Monster X in his games" (ok maybe someone would, but probably not enough people to worry about).

Meanwhile, when a player cracks open a book with player options, the presentation is that, yes, indeed, these are options you, as a player can choose from. If you like one for whatever reason (power, aesthetics, lore, what have you), you'll naturally want to use it.

If the DM comes down and says "nope!", something has been removed from the smorgasbord and the player has just as much recourse as they do when the DM adds or fails to add a new monster type, but this is something that they are likely to care about more.

 

[Bri]

European heraldry is a very poor source of Dragon canon, in that you get four, two and no legged dragons, some dragons the size of a horse, some with wings, some without and any number of heads

The original Greek dragon (and the monster that the word came from) was a sea monster and had flippers.

Many think the "modern" dragon originally was Typhon, who was a winged sphinx like thing with a dragon tail. Zeus defeated him making him king of the gods. The most powerful monster in Greek mythology

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

The original Greek dragon (and the monster that the word came from) was a sea monster and had flippers.

Many think the "modern" dragon originally was Typhon, who was a winged sphinx like thing with a dragon tail. Zeus defeated him making him king of the gods. The most powerful monster in Greek mythology

When did dragons acquire the four legs and two wings depiction? At least for the Dungeons and Dragons boffery. This may have occured rather recently.

I usually defer to Saint George when I imagine dragons...but in art the dragon has however many legs the artist thought to give it. Four, two, or even none. It usually has wings though.

 

[Bri]

When did dragons acquire the four legs and two wings depiction? At least for the Dungeons and Dragons boffery. This may have occured rather recently.

I usually defer to Saint George when I imagine dragons...but in art the dragon has however many legs the artist thought to give it. Four, two, or even none. It usually has wings though.

I think what we think of today as dragons in the Hollywood sense is modern and heavily influenced by dinosaur sCiEnCe!

They grew a lot. They seem to be something more lion sized, where it was reasonable St. George could slay one as in all the sculptures.

Until one day they are the size of dinosaurs...
Also I think the disassociation between dragons and sea monsters is modern. Beowulf it's a sea monster that lives in a cave by the sea.

And the real old art, does have morphology kinda similar to a sea lion.