# Dragonborn - will you ban them?



## der_kluge (Nov 29, 2007)

To a lot of people, it seems Dragonborn just don't seem to fit in with their concept of a "Core" race.

What will you do with Dragonborn?


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Gonna wait to see how they are implemented. I don't mind them much, since I like Dragons in my _Dungeons and Dragons_.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2007)

No idea.  Plan now is to keep playing 3.5 (or better yet, some other game than D&D entirely) but we'll probably still pick up the SRD, and if we can use them as is, maybe we will.


----------



## Goken100 (Nov 29, 2007)

*Tieflings are Worse*

I am alone in banning Tieflings way before I'd ban Dragonborn?  I'm not opposed to the idea, it just doesn't fit and doesn't bring anything to the table.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

I liked my tiefling friend in NWN2.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 29, 2007)

I am _such_ a _special_ snowflake. 

My long standing ban on halflings will remain. Dragonborn may get renamed and merged with some other reptile races, but I will probably keep them. In some form.


----------



## resistor (Nov 29, 2007)

Depends on the setting.  Planescape can absorb them pretty easily, but I'm not sure I would use them in Eberron.  My current homebrew would actually absorb them pretty well:

The dwarves, exiled from their traditional home, have been taking over the homeland of the lizardmen over the last several centuries. The whole interaction has a lot in common with the European Settler/Native American conflicts in America. Since the dwarves hate dragons (it was dragon who drove them from their home in the first place), I think they might apply the term Dragonborn to the lizardmen as a pejorative.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I am alone in banning Tieflings way before I'd ban Dragonborn?  I'm not opposed to the idea, it just doesn't fit and doesn't bring anything to the table.



No, you're not.

I don't plan on banning Tieflings, but if I had to ban one race (and seeing as how WotC has gone to the trouble of banning Gnomes for me ...) I'd ban Tieflings before Dragonborn.  I like lizardy characters, and Tieflings don't seem to have a 'fit' in any of the worlds I like to play in (other than as the occasional NPC cultist).  

I might retheme Dragonborn as Draconians or Mohj or Saurials, but I'd keep 'em.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 29, 2007)

I don't know enough about the 4e Dragonborn or the Tiefling to make a judgement yet.  Seems silly to ban something when you don't know what you are banning other than a name and a very general idea.  

Of course I would not be converting an existing game to 4e, so I have no "compatibility" issues.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

If I'm running a module, I wouldn't mind letting people play them.  If I'm designing a campaign setting, then I would not use them as a race with influence in my world.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

Welcome to the fold, my scaly friends.

I actually suspect 4e will be a game I rarely spend the time to house rule.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm probably going to start a new campaign with 4th Ed, it's much less work than adapting an old campaign. So I'll keep them and probably add a host of other races from the MM as PC races as well.

Death to Medieval Fantasy!


----------



## Mercule (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I am alone in banning Tieflings way before I'd ban Dragonborn?  I'm not opposed to the idea, it just doesn't fit and doesn't bring anything to the table.




Well, if I had to include one or the other, based on current data, I'd include tieflings before dragonborn.

Really, based on current data, I don't expect to allow either.  I'm very much "wait and see" at the moment, though.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 29, 2007)

The OP's wording is a little odd, but I don't have a problem with either Dragonborn or Tieflings per say . . .    

I am just not so sure about the way WoTC sounds like they are implimenting races.  With the way that each race has a specific homeland, I have to ask a different question.   :\ 

Do I have to have enough of the appropriate terrain cards in play in order to to use one?


----------



## der_kluge (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I am alone in banning Tieflings way before I'd ban Dragonborn?  I'm not opposed to the idea, it just doesn't fit and doesn't bring anything to the table.





Oh no - I intend to ban Tieflings as well.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 29, 2007)

Dragonborn are not my first pick as a PHB1 race, but I rather like the concept of them. I want to know more about them. They certainly are not something so terrible I would go so far as to ban them outright without a very good setting reason.

After all, I like Dragonborn a lot more than I ever liked Gnomes, but I never bothered to ban Gnomes...


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Nov 29, 2007)

Like many of the changes in 4E this actually fits rather well into one section of my current 3.5 campaign world.  I'll have to see how they pull it off, but I'd be leaning towards yes.


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 29, 2007)

Can't say for sure until I see the book, but, at this time, I see no reason not to give the scalies a shot.


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 29, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I don't know enough about the 4e Dragonborn or the Tiefling to make a judgement yet.  Seems silly to ban something when you don't know what you are banning other than a name and a very general idea.




It actually sounds like buisness as usual for many people.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2007)

Allow.

Why not?  "It doesn't fit my vision?"  Frankly, I'm not such an artiste that I _have_ a vision detailed enough to not fit dragonborn.  And I've never liked playing in games where the DM clearly has an entire world written out in his head, conveniently located where we can't actually see it, and filled with arbitrary rules like "dragonborn don't fit my... _vision_."

I'll DM as I always do.  By starting with a grand plot concept, mixing in whatever is necessary to justify the PCs my players want to play, and then filling out the details of the world as they're encountered.  If my campaign doesn't feature dragonborn, the most likely reason will be that none of my players wanted to play one, and I didn't need them for anything, so they went to the same place that dwarves went during the last campaign I ran.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 29, 2007)

It depends on how I can incorporate them into the "Lizardfolk" template of previous editions. I've allowed Lizard-Men characters before.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 29, 2007)

*Snowflake*

As with all races, I'll consider them on a case by case basis. Some games I run, I'd allow them, some I would not. The last game I ran before the Eberron one, I cut out gnomes and dwarves and paladins as not being part of that setting. It's very likely that the next setting I create, dragonborn would have a place in it; so will a harpy-like race, and thri-kreen.


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 29, 2007)

If I ran a 4E game I'd replace them with lizardfolk.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm gonna replace all races with Dragonborn. They will be called Dragonborn 1, Dragonborn 2, Dragonborn 3, etc.

Then I'll replace Dragonborn with deities.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 29, 2007)

Can I replace *Tieflings* with *Gnomes*?  
. . . And *Dragonborn* with *Half-Orcs*?


----------



## ferratus (Nov 29, 2007)

I imagine the "use them" and "special snowflake" voters are the DM's who plan to create a new campaign setting for 4e.


----------



## Psion (Nov 29, 2007)

No idea. Unless 4e has really won me over, I'll probably run 3.5 and allow a 3.5 version of them should a player ask for them.

If I do run 4e, I'd be more liable to ban (or put a 1/party limit on) them, because them being core is likely to create a rush of players playing them, and I don't want them to be that common.

I think exotic races are okay in moderation, but making them core is overkill.


----------



## Ashimaar Extorris (Nov 29, 2007)

I think I'll call them Dire Kobolds, cause it seems to me that that's what they really are, regardless of a possibly as yet to be revealed affinity for traps...


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 29, 2007)

So long as they meet the minimum requirements for PCs in my game, I wouldn't have a problem.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Unless they are *horribly* mechanically broken, I have no reason to ban them.

That goes for everything in the books, really.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 29, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> It depends on how I can incorporate them into the "Lizardfolk" template of previous editions. I've allowed Lizard-Men characters before.



I assumed Wotc _made_ the dragonborn so they could leave Lizardfolk primitive, lacking empathy, thicker scaled than a starting PC should be and willing to eat their own who fall in combat. The dragonborn strike me as much more like the Dray from Darksun

I'd prefer to ban them, but I'm not dead set on it. I would have prefered a half ogre as a core race and i might repace Dragon born with options for lizardfolk, centaurs, half ogres and / or ogres if the MM has well balanced options for such.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

I ban things based on mechanical problems, not flavor issues, so given the info we have currently is entirely flavor, I voted allow.


----------



## Buttercup (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm a special snowflake, so I have another idea, which is to keep running 3E games in the Wilderlands, or in Freeport, or in the Iron Kingdoms, or in a homebrew world.  My version of these places does not have elves or gnomes, let alone dragonborn.

--Pouty Special Snowflake Spikey


----------



## Buttercup (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> I ban things based on mechanical problems, not flavor issues, so given the info we have currently is entirely flavor, I voted allow.



I ban things based on both, because I'm one of those moonbats who doesn't like chocolate on my peanut butter, or in this case, computer game on my D&D.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 29, 2007)

Considering I created "chromatic lizardfolk" as potential PC races for my campaign, yes, I'll definitely be including them _in some form_.  I answered Snowflake, because I can't honestly answer "as is" until I've seen the final product.


----------



## Wepwawet (Nov 29, 2007)

Banning Dragonborn? Of courso NOT.
Kinda like the idea.

Warlord, on the other hand, I could ban


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> I ban things based on both, because I'm one of those moonbats who doesn't like chocolate on my peanut butter, or in this case, computer game on my D&D.




And I'm one of those people who doesn't imagine computer game influences where there are none.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 29, 2007)

I love lizardmen and kobolds. I'll rename them, and use them with gleeful abandon.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 29, 2007)

If I ever play 4e, I will play it as is, including Dragonborn, at least for a few months before making any change.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 29, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I love lizardmen and kobolds. I'll rename them, and use them with gleeful abandon.



Oddly enough, I don't like reptilian races in general, but I really like kobolds.  Maybe I'll just make them Small, call them kobolds, and otherwise leave them be.

...ancient kobold empire...  heh heh heh...


----------



## Buttercup (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> And I'm one of those people who doesn't imagine computer game influences where there are none.



Computer game and manga/anime influence has been growing since Eberron, IMO.  But no matter, you're free to like 4e or anything else.  And free to disagree wtih me.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

Given that the topic is dragonborn, would you be so kind as to tell me which videogame/manga they come from?


----------



## Kaffis (Nov 29, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I don't know enough about the 4e Dragonborn or the Tiefling to make a judgement yet.  Seems silly to ban something when you don't know what you are banning other than a name and a very general idea.
> 
> Of course I would not be converting an existing game to 4e, so I have no "compatibility" issues.




Ditto. As for the game I play in, I think my DM's current plan is to use 4e as an excuse to toss the homebrew campaign setting and rebuild from scratch.


----------



## danbuter1 (Nov 29, 2007)

Depends on how they are done. If they are t'skrang in all but name, they will be in. If they are ubermensch power-gamer wet dreams, then they will be banned.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Given that the topic is dragonborn, would you be so kind as to tell me which videogame/manga they come from?



Not really a hard question, since things like Dragonborn do appear in videogames and manga. The better question would be why anthropomorphic dragons are _specifically_ influenced by videogames and manga.

The existence of Dragonlance Draconians (or whatever their name is) is enough to show that such influence is not needed for humanoid dragon-men to appear in D&D. The simple combination of dragons and anthropomorphic creatures (like Minotaurs, Yakfolk, Lizardmen, Sahuagin, etc) is a logical step.

I suppose the idea of making Dragonborn a PC race, rather than just a monster, can be argued to be inspired by videogames and manga... The problem with that is such things are not terribly common even in anime and videogames. I can only name a few examples, myself.

Of course, I don't see the influence of anime and videogames as a problem (though I do see its influence is often overstated on these boards). I would rather have certain races from various videogames I like (Laguz anda Manakete, for example) than boring creatures like Halfings, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, and Half-Elves.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Given that the topic is dragonborn, would you be so kind as to tell me which videogame/manga they come from?




Too many sources to list, but take Dragonball Z as a starter:


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 29, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I suppose the idea of making Dragonborn a PC race, rather than just a monster, can be argued to be inspired by videogames and manga... The problem with that is such things are not terribly common even in anime and videogames. I can only name a few examples, myself.



The drakkon (?) race from the Wizardry series is probably the best example, given how much inspiration Wizardry takes from D&D.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Of course, I don't see the influence of anime and videogames as a problem (though I do see its influence is often overstated on these boards). I would rather have certain races from various videogames I like (Laguz anda Manakete, for example) than boring creatures like Halfings, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, and Half-Elves.



Aren't Laguz essentially the same as D&D's shifters?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 29, 2007)

How can 18% of people intend to ban a core race before they have even seen it?


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Because it isn't something they want?   This isn't really a rules/mechanics issue.  Some folks just don't want dragonpeople in their campaigns.  I happen to be one of them, I wouldn't necessarily care if they show up in an 4e Eberron campaign I might end up playing in (because Eberron design concept is 'chuck the entire Kitchen sink in'), but there just isn't a space for them in my homebrew.

That said, 'ban' isn't the right word. Its more a matter of 'won't include', just like I wouldn't include artificers or the various 'creature graft'  concepts and feats.  It doesn't fit the setting I am creating.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

Which of the guys in that picture is a member of a bipedal race descended from dragons?  I fail to see how that answers my question at all.  Is the only requirement to "prove" that Dragonborn are video game inspired the existence of some sort of lizardman in a video game and series that I believe postdates the Dragonlance series' draconians?  See, this is the problem with the video game meme.  It allows people to be hostile without ever having to work out what they dislike and distill it into words.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 29, 2007)

As a kid I loved Robert Asprin's 1979 sci-fi book The Bug Wars, which has lizardmen type creatures as the heroes (and no humans).

I doubt it was the inspiration for dragonborn though. The idea's been kicking around awhile. Draconians in Dragonlance, dragonborn in Races of the Dragon. Doesn't the heroine in Curse of the Azure Bonds have a lizardman companion?

I see no anime influence here. Unless dragonborn are teenage girls with pink hair who pilot mecha.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Is the only requirement to "prove" that Dragonborn are video game inspired the existence of some sort of lizardman in a video game and series that I believe postdates the Dragonlance series' draconians?



Yeah. You might as well argue that wizards in D&D were inspired by Superman comics cause Superman met a wizard once prior to 1974.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How can 18% of people intend to ban a core race before they have even seen it?



Because people are making very firm decisions based on evidence that's sketchy at best.

Seriously, we don't have enough information on _anything_ in 4e to make such sweeping decisions: not races, not classes, not XP systems, not magic, not magic items.


----------



## NaturalZero (Nov 29, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I suppose the idea of making Dragonborn a PC race, rather than just a monster, can be argued to be inspired by videogames and manga... The problem with that is such things are not terribly common even in anime and videogames. I can only name a few examples, myself.




Ironically enough, i usually ban elves and orcs because im tired of always seeing them in video games. You do see _way_ more elves in both video games and manga than you do dragon people.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 29, 2007)

Given that I'll be DMing in Eberron if I DM 4e at all, I'll either replace the lizardfolk of Q'Barra and the Principalities with Dragonborn, or shuffle them off to Argonessen. No real problems. I expect I'd see more changeling, warforged, shifter, gnome, and Kalashtar PCs than dragonborn and tiefling PCs, but that's Eberron PC demographics for you...


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2007)

I feel as if polls like these aren't the most clear...

I've run campaigns where I "banned" vast amounts of material.  Basically, I declared the campaign setting and the plotline to my gaming club, told them what sorts of characters would fit in, and left a sheet for people to sign up.  It was a military campaign, and the PCs were part of a nation of humans fighting against the hobgoblin legions.  So all the PCs had to be human.

I wouldn't really phrase that as "I banned all races except human," because it wasn't done out of an objection to those races inclusion in the books, or objections to their mechanics, or anything.  It was just what I did to make the setting coherent.  We played about 10 weeks, finished the war, and stopped.  My next campaign had no similar restrictions.

So... if you had given me this poll before my military campaign, I guess a "Will Ban" answer would have been true, but it wouldn't indicate any hostility or objection to the dragonborn's inclusion in the game.


----------



## Stormborn (Nov 29, 2007)

Given that I just finished Michael Stackpole's Cartomancy (Book two of The Age of Discovery) when I saw the leak about dragonborn I thought "Viruk!" I will gladly allow them.  In fact I generally prefer to play and run games where most options are allowed and deal with it as it comes.  I also agree with the philosophy that anything a player wants, so long as it is reasonably balanced or can be made so, can and should be made to fit the campaign world.  It may require an exotic explination, but it can fit.  Any game, any setting. 

Eberron?  Dragonborn are a new race just arrived in Khorvaire (or spotted in Xen'drik) from Argonnessen.

Forgotten Realms? There are all those Unknown Lands beyond the trackless sea. Or they can be strange mutations from the Spellplague (or whatever they are calling it).

Sure, sometimes its fun limit options to create a certain feel, but not right out of the gate and not without a better reason than 'I can't figure out how they fit."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 29, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Too many sources to list, but take Dragonball Z as a starter:



Neither of those are dragons.  They're both aliens.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 29, 2007)

Dragonborn and Tieflings will be in my 4th ed campaigns.  I'll be starting a new homebrew once 4th ed comes out, so no need to try to shoehorn them into an existing game.

Dragonmen have been in D&D since the draconians of Dragonlance, and probably before.  They don't show up in the majority of fantasy videogames and anime.  Now having humans, elves, and dwarves is definitely just pandering to the videogame fans, as they appear in practically every fantasy videogame I've ever played.


----------



## SteveFoerster (Nov 29, 2007)

*Snowflake*

I'm working on a campaign setting based somewhat on antediluvian myths, so if the mechanics aren't too silly then I may use Dragonborn as Serpents.  Those wanting to play one as a PC will have to come up with a clever back story, though.

-=Steve=-


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 29, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Because people are making very firm decisions based on evidence that's sketchy at best.




Oh come on.  We in the US (as a country) do the same thing every year when we go to the voting booth in November (and sometimes in February if there is also a Primary)


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How can 18% of people intend to ban a core race before they have even seen it?




Perhaps they don't use core races in their campaigns?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Because it isn't something they want?




How can you know before you see them if you want them?



> This isn't really a rules/mechanics issue.  Some folks just don't want dragonpeople in their campaigns.




How do you know it is "dragon people"? How do you even know what "dragon people" means until you see it?


----------



## Commonblade (Nov 29, 2007)

I have a Human, Pixi, Half-Dragon Fey'ri, Half-Dragon Human, Shifter, and Azer in my current 3.5 party. I have no problem with Dragonborn.


----------



## der_kluge (Nov 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How can 45% of people intend to allow a core race before they have even seen it?





FIFY


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Which of the guys in that picture is a member of a bipedal race descended from dragons?




I thought it was self-evident, sorry.  The one on the right.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 29, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Neither of those are dragons.  They're both aliens.




If by "alien" you mean "someone not from Earth", then every D&D character is an alien too.

But we have a nice consolation prize waiting backstage.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Gonna wait to see how they are implemented. I don't mind them much, since I like Dragons in my _Dungeons and Dragons_.




QFT!!!


----------



## Fishbone (Nov 29, 2007)

What the hell is this? We get gnomes totally axed off and orcs/half-orcs are in the air but we get friggin' Lizardmen and evil sorcerers? 
When did D&D turn into a bloody Conan the Barbarian novel?


----------



## sunrisekid (Nov 29, 2007)

My game follows a fairly Tolkienesque feel (though set in FR) and I intend to ban dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks from the standard campaign.  If I ever get around to playing an "evil party" then I'll open them up.  They otherwise strike me as "evil" characters to play, sort of like the assassin from 1E (and 3E).


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 29, 2007)

I'll ban whatever I feel like banning at the time when I start playing 4E - if I play 4E.

This can mean banning none of them, all of them, or something inbetween.

I'll also make sure to ask my potential players what they'd be interested in before I ban anything.


----------



## am181d (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm torn on this. Obviously I'll be waiting till the books actually come out and I get a chance to fully digest everything before I make a firm decision, but my first (and second and third) reaction is that dragon-men as PCs don't fit the kind of fantasy games that I run.

And I'm not a traditionalist by any stretch. I'm a big fan of Eberron's Warforged, Shifters, and Changelings. I like animalfolk (not *furries*) for their Narnia pedigree. I like faeries and ogres and reinterpreting the races with weird new backgrounds. (Halflings as evil little children that never grow up being one of my favorites.)

But massive competing civilizations of dragon-men doesn't work for me. Maybe I'll allow them as rare survivors of some ancient race. Or strange visitors from distant lands. 

But I can't see myself running them out of the box.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> I thought it was self-evident, sorry.  The one on the right.




Dragonball z - 1984, Draconians - 1984 Given lag in publishing time, it would be impossible for one to be an influence on the other.  And I can't even begin to understand a worldview that holds that Dragonball Z is a larger influence on D&D than the Dragons of... novels.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 29, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Too many sources to list, but take Dragonball Z as a starter:



Oh please... If you are going to take an example from videogames and anime, at least use one that is applicable. There are a few humanoid dragon-people in the Dragonball universe, but you picked the wrong alien. Calling King Cold a humanoid dragon is like calling a Klingon a humanoid armadillo. It doesn't make any sense beyond the sketchiest of similarities.

I guess I will be nice and post a link to _real_ anime-influenced videogame dragonman. Here. Grey is a pretty cool guy, if you ask me. To be specific though, he is a human cursed to have a dragon's appearance because he killed too many dragons, but he breathes fire, ice, and lightning, so he easily qualifies.

But, they really arn't that common, and individual examples don't prove a trend, especially with solid counter-examples like the Dragonalnce Draconians.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Dragonball z - 1984, Draconians - 1984 Given lag in publishing time, it would be impossible for one to be an influence on the other.  And I can't even begin to understand a worldview that holds that Dragonball Z is a larger influence on D&D than the Dragons of... novels.



Actually, the Dragonball manga got started in 1985 according to my sources, and the particular species (frieza and King Cold's race) that is being referred to wasn't published for several years, until 1988 or so. The actual humanoid dragons of Dragonball GT were not seen until 1996-97, and were not seen in the US until about 2003-2004.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Actually, the Dragonball manga got started in 1985 according to my sources, and the particular species (frieza and King Cold's race) that is being referred to wasn't published for several years, until 1988 or so. The actual humanoid dragons of Dragonball GT were not seen until 1996-97, and were not seen in the US until about 2003-2004.




84 is the date given in Wikipedia for the very earliest Dragonball thing I could find.  I'd rather give the other side the benefit of the doubt, and I am admittedly ignorant about the manga/anime in question.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 30, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> Aren't Laguz essentially the same as D&D's shifters?



I wish Shifters were more like Laguz... Laguz are really a lot more like pure Lycathropes, except they have animal features in their human form, do not have a hybrid form, and are a set of pure-breeding species rather than a cursed creature. Also, their transformed forms tend to be larger and more powerful than a normal creature, and most of them can't remain in their transformed state permanently. So, I guess you can say they are shifters who turn fully into an animal, rather than just gain a few animalistic features. Am I contradicting myself here? Either way, they are an interesting way to handle the concept, and they have a lot of interesting flavor with regards to their relation to normal humans.

I also like the similar, yet different Hanju from the anime _The Twelve Kingdoms_. Sooner or later I will write up a D&D version that combines the two races...


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 30, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> What the hell is this? We get gnomes totally axed off and orcs/half-orcs are in the air but we get friggin' Lizardmen and evil sorcerers?
> When did D&D turn into a bloody Conan the Barbarian novel?




You win the thread, sir.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 30, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> I thought it was self-evident, sorry.  The one on the right.




Oh God . . . you were being _serious_.


----------



## NaturalZero (Nov 30, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I guess I will be nice and post a link to _real_ anime-influenced videogame dragonman.




Actually, the first guy i thought of when i heard someone mention dragon-people in video games was Garland from BoF3:






Of course, the fact that draconians pre-date BoF3 by more than a decade pretty much invalidates any theory that DnD stole from it.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 30, 2007)

NaturalZero said:
			
		

> Actually, the first guy i thought of when i heard someone mention dragon-people in video games was Garland from BoF3:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Stop letting the facts get in the way of the internet.  Next thing you know, people will start expecting Wikipedia to be accurate.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 30, 2007)

I'll likely allow them as is, but I tend to allow all sorts of oddball stuff anyway.  However, it will all be a moot point if I decide that the rules suck.


----------



## Ruavel (Nov 30, 2007)

without the information on the race that one might expect to find in the PHB  (game mechanics & flavour), I'm surprised anyone can make a serious call either way...

... I shall reserve judgement until that information actually becomes available some time next year.


----------



## ivocaliban (Nov 30, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> No idea. Unless 4e has really won me over, I'll probably run 3.5 and allow a 3.5 version of them should a player ask for them.
> 
> If I do run 4e, I'd be more liable to ban (or put a 1/party limit on) them, because them being core is likely to create a rush of players playing them, and I don't want them to be that common.
> 
> I think exotic races are okay in moderation, but making them core is overkill.




QFT


----------



## Mercule (Nov 30, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Like many of the changes in 4E this actually fits rather well into one section of my current 3.5 campaign world.  I'll have to see how they pull it off, but I'd be leaning towards yes.




Much of 4E seems to mesh nicely with things I either want or have already implemented via house rules.

Races are the big area where I've heard nothing exciting and much to dislike.  Most other things are either "cool" or "eh, could be cool, if done right".  Tiefling and dragonborn, both, are unlikely to meet the flavor of any world I run.  Actually, tieflings might fit as a very rare race that really doesn't warrant attention in a primary book.  I haven't seen the final treatment, so I could be surprised, though.

The racial ability trees have me a bit skeptical, but I could see them working well.  If I can ignore the breath-weapon and wings of the dragonborn (i.e. treat them as lizardfolk), they may find a niche in a remote area of my world.  Mainly, I'd do that just so I don't have to ban stuff in the primary player book -- kinda like gnomes, now (though I did ban halflings).


----------



## Patlin (Nov 30, 2007)

It's unlikely I'll ban them, and if I do it will be because they are mechanically flawed.  As we don't have mechanics yet, I'll stick with the snowflake option.


----------



## Voss (Nov 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How can you know before you see them if you want them?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it is "dragon people"? How do you even know what "dragon people" means until you see it?




Because they already exist?  I know some of the flavor will change, but humanoid dragons are easy to picture, across various incarnations spanning draconians, the *current* dragonborn, spellscales, or just slightly odd looking humans with horns, tails and pointy teeth.  None of these fit in my homebrew. I'm aiming for a cap of about a dozen sentient races- its all I need, and all I can reasonably fit in the setting and keep the historical and 'flavorful' feel that I want.  My geography and history is fairly well established.  There isn't a place for another race (with its own history, needs and requirements), and spontaneously transforming one of the existing cultures doesn't appeal to me, nor does it fit with the themes I'm working with in the setting.


----------



## Tharkun (Nov 30, 2007)

I was going to reply with a sarcastic comment about not having seen them but ban them anyway because I would assume they suck/overpowered.  Though I will see if that is so first.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 30, 2007)

Ruavel said:
			
		

> without the information on the race that one might expect to find in the PHB  (game mechanics & flavour), I'm surprised anyone can make a serious call either way..




From the information thus far we know that "Each race seems to have a clear “homeland”... Dragonborn to deserts (at least their great empire were in desert)."

Remember when I said that so long as they meet the minimum requirements for PCs in my game, I wouldn't have a problem with them? The minimum requirements are than the PC have a natural swim speed and the ability to breathe underwater without the use of magic. I wouldn't disallow them because they were dragonborn. I would disallow them because they aren't aquatic.

Mind you, if there's a "dragon turtle" dragonborn, I'm all for it.


----------



## Siberys (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, since I run Eberron almost exclusively, here goes:

I'll probably allow 'em, But I'd like to see 'em first. If they are literally born-of-dragons, no way is a PC being one ('less he's got a BRILLIANT backstory and hooks), as they'd probably be the 4e equivalent of half-dragons, which are EXTREMELY rare. (I'll use the same tack on Tieflings - the one I currently use for all planetouched, as a matter of fact. Very rare and all.) If they aren't literally born-of-dragons, but still draconic, they'll be from argonnessen, so likely not to make it into a campaign any time soon, except as NPCs.

If they're closer to Lizardfolk, I'll probably just use them for that, unless the mechanics reflect a  more 'civilized' lizardman - in which case I'll use whatever they have in the MM as lizardfolk.

As for gnomes, I WANT THEM! The Trust is just too cool NOT to have them!


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 30, 2007)

they don't ewok or gungan bother me so chances are I will let them in, though if I do one of my already established campaign settings I may hold off on letting them in till I figure out how to slide them into the campaign world.  

But if what I see sucks big time I wont let them in.


----------



## Khairn (Nov 30, 2007)

If I were to play 4E, I'd use them as appropriate for the setting.  So they would not be allowed in my FR game, and wouldn't be allowed if I GM'ed Eberron.  They also wouldn't be suitable for my IK, my homebrew game of my BR games.  

But if WotC introduces a new setting that I enjoy and where they fit, then yeah, I would allow them.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 30, 2007)

I can't really answer. They confuse me so much. Ancient empires of lizard-dudes have never been a big part of my D&D experience. You might as well ask me what I think of Arcana Evolved races.


----------



## Agamon (Nov 30, 2007)

Assuming I play the game, I think both Dragonborn and Tieflings fit the darker Points of Light D&D that 4E is trying to be.  Works for me.


----------



## .:avatar:. (Nov 30, 2007)

I'll have Dragonborn in my first campaign, but not as a PC race.
They'd work for me as playable race only with a good background or in a high fantasy setting.


I'm sorry, but the world I'm already working on is not called Tamriel... nothing personal, DB.


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 30, 2007)

Well as far as it seems I might finally start my homebrew world with the 4e and the dragonborn might find their place in there. Especially since my dragons all live in a land beyond great desert and what I've heard of dragonborn is that their fluff is tied to deserts. But with other settings I have no idea what to do with them. Maybe they give a good fluff for integrating them and I'll use, maybe I hate and rip them from my books (well not really  ).


----------



## Aris Dragonborn (Nov 30, 2007)

Eh. I'll give Dragonborn a chance, just like the Tiefling, but if neither work out, I'll just replace them with the half-orc.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 30, 2007)

Until I see it, I wont make a final judgement, But I'll probably let them in.  They sound, from the fluff, more like advanced lizardmen then actual dragon men.  That's not exactly a new concept, and since I tend to go toward the pulp end of things, I wouldnt have a problem with that concept at all.  

If they had called them 'Noble Lizardmen' in the book, and just added some fluff of 'Claim dragon heritage', would people have had as much of a problem with them?


----------



## delericho (Nov 30, 2007)

I quite often change the list of available races depending on the campaign. As such, Dragonborn will be banned or not depending on the campaign, and only be slightly more likely to be banned than Elves. So, the existence of Dragonborn, or Tieflings, or even Warforged in the PHB doesn't concern me.

One thing that does (slightly) concern me about 4e is that the races seem to have more to them (in terms of talent trees and such) than in previous editions. This may make adding new or replacement races more difficult.


----------



## Aristotle (Nov 30, 2007)

I intend to ban them as PCs at first, but may allow them later depending on what I see in the PHB. I suspect PHB races will be supported more heavily in future products, so I don't want to completely cut out that portion of the product line.

My point of light campaign is especially forgiving of new, or even alien, races... so they will likely work just fine for me; but I still feel they would have been better served as an MM race.


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 30, 2007)

*I'm special *

As a person who voted "special snowflake" the reason is:

As I will be converted the current campaign I run to 4E, and convert/recreate any rules that we use as custom now, and implement house rules in 4E as well, I reserve right to do the same for the races.

I DM a planescape campaign, but even there, some parts of cosmology I have adjusted.  I like some of the ideas of the 4E cosmology but not all, so I will combine it with what I envision now, and just move stuff over.

My players will be a bigger issue, as currently, we have a:

Half Orc Barbarian
Dwarven Lycanthrope Fighter
Aasimar wildmage (specialist)
elven cleric
human swordsage
lillendi bard
halfling rogue/sorc
elven wizard

For some of the races/classes I'll already have to do some custom adjustments, and if anyone makes a tiefling, I use a planar table, for customized accents for the character (do you want a tail? horns? hooves? etc..make a customized tiefling)  I envision that type of thing for the dragonborn...customize them a bit more..but that also depends on the feats they can take.

Ultimately, they sound more like a lizardmen with dragon blood, instead of a true half-dragon, so I may just leave it as such, so that players who choose to be an actual half-dragon have that advantage (breathe weapon from the start, etc)

I'll probably also change the tiefling back to having some type of planar heritage causing for their appearance/abilities.

Sanjay


----------



## withak (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm the magic 8-ball. Answer hazy, ask again later (when we have more info).


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 30, 2007)

I had to vote "no idea".  Although I don't care for the general concept and will have to be convinced by their final iteration to make a decision one way or another.  But, I tend to lean towards removing them and tieflings.  I think I can make Eladrins work - I just hate the name.


----------



## Benben (Nov 30, 2007)

Special snowflake:

For my home brew I will be OVERJOYED to have an LA +0 lizard race.  I just need to adjust my home brew flavor or snip the wings and dragon breath options from the dragon born.  The name will change, but I change most names anyway.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 30, 2007)

I fully intend to warp the concept, flavor and crunch of dragonborn.


----------



## Traycor (Nov 30, 2007)

In almost every game I've ever played, someone has asked if they could play a half dragon or a dragonman of some sort. Even with new players who had no idea what races they could play.

Making dragonborn a core race makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Dykstrav (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm not terribly excited or upset either way about the dragonborn, I'm pretty indifferent right now based on what I've seen so far. That attitude will probably change once I've actually got my hands on a PHB though.

Still, I voted to ban them from my own homebrew, at least at first. It's because I'd rather just ban them than have to retcon my setting or develop a new area that they come from in addition to learning a new edition. I'd probably allow them in settings where they were incorporated from the ground up and I happen to like their design/flavor.


----------



## EATherrian (Nov 30, 2007)

I've found that I can integrate them into my game-world so that part helps in my decision.  My problem is that I like to run a more heroic fantasy campaign than pure swords and sorcery or something grittier.  I'm still undecided on how the Dragonborn, or even the Tieflings and Warlocks will fit into my world/campaign.  But if I create a new world, or just do a one-shot I see no reason not to use anything that is given.


----------



## Xethreau (Nov 30, 2007)

I have no intention to ban Dragonborn.  Besides draconic breath and flight being really cool, it fits with my home brew ideas (will require minor reflavoring, but I will allow them none the less.)  

A lot of things in 3e core was _truly ungeneric_, and by comparison to *Gaurdinals *and The Clockwork Nirvana of Machinus, a race of dragon-men is generally applicable to many worlds, if given a chance.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2007)

I voted that I'd ban them, but now that I have a second, a clarification is in order: I would ban them in my existing campaigns, because they aren't a good fit for the game world.

After 4E comes out, and after my existing campaigns end, I'll create something new that will try and make sense of the new races from the ground up. There'll be dragon men aplenty in that new world, but it will be a different one from what I have now.

--Steve


----------



## Kesh (Nov 30, 2007)

_I am a special snowflake!_ *cough*

The dragonborn will likely be an extinct race in my campaign. Think pseudo-Egyptian culture, only with a bit of a twist (my homebrew is a frosty world).

Their replacement race will be gnolls! (What a surprise, right?)


----------



## GreatLemur (Dec 1, 2007)

I don't blacklist.  I whitelist.  And that all depends on the campaign I'm running.  Dragonborn do sound more interesting than elves, though.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 1, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Mistwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because we trust the WotC designers to produce a game whose default options aren't sucktastic or broken? 

It makes a lot more sense to initially allow whatever is in the core books. If the DBs turn out bad in practice, sure, go ahead and ban them; or if they turn out as not to fit any campaign idea you have. But pre-emptive banning, based on basically just the name and a few sentences of description, is irrational.l


----------



## Gold Roger (Dec 2, 2007)

It sounds like they are just some kind of lizardfolk with fancier name and draconic connections. I can work with that.

In fact, have perfect places for dragonborn and tieflings in the setting I intend to use with 4th, while I still have some trouble placing elves, eladrin and halflings.


----------



## Imban (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm pretty sure the first 4e game I ever run will have a Dragonborn in it, so no, they won't be banned. I don't really ban stuff unless it's mechanically *terrible* though so...


----------



## Grimstaff (Dec 2, 2007)

I've been using Lizardmen as a player race since the early 80's. Dragonborn just saves me some houserule work. 

(For example, check out the "Lands of Lyrion" link below)


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 2, 2007)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> I've been using Lizardmen as a player race since the early 80's. Dragonborn just saves me some houserule work.
> 
> (For example, check out the "Lands of Lyrion" link below)




This is what confuses me.

Haven't Draconians been a playable race since forever? Weren't kobolds the big sleeper race of 3e? Didn't the Dragon themed products sell like gangbusters? What's the big deal about Dragonborn?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 2, 2007)

Dragon-men as a core race in D&D? Wanted them since the Lizardmen at Kuto´s Well kicked my ass in Gold Box  Pool of Radiance.


----------



## GSHamster (Dec 2, 2007)

Lizard or Draconic humanoids have been a part of D&D for many years now, before most computer games. Dragonlance had Draconians, which are an essential part of the setting. Forgotten Realms had saurials.  Dragonbait was a major character in the 1988 novel _Curse of the Azure Bonds_.

Claiming that Dragonborn is evidence that 4E is "video-gamey" merely shows that you have no understanding of the history of D&D.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 2, 2007)

My initial repsonse towards the dragonborn was negative. I've had it with dragon-blend everything lately.

However, I'm remembering that in my homebrew setting that has been on the shelf for a handful of years now, (I've been playing exclusively in Living Greyhawk the past half-decade) I had a reptilian race that was a PC-option.

If it is simple for me to take the dragonborn race and file off the draconic-heritage background, and simply use it as a generic-reptile-heritage race, I'll very likely use it as is with my own flavor.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 2, 2007)

If they're appropriate for the campaign, I'll allow them. For instance, they wouldn't fit in a Viking game.


----------



## Lord Zack (Dec 3, 2007)

I may change them around a bit, but there's a very good chance I'll let them in.


----------



## Henry (Dec 3, 2007)

At current, I have no idea. I'm leaning toward disallowing them for Forgotten Realms games (timeline advance be damned), definintely tossing those suckers in there for Dragonlance if I play it, and hve no idea for anything else I do. In general, the more over-the-top the setting is, the more I'm likely to allow them.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 3, 2007)

I don't GM, so I'm not in a position to ban anything, but if I were?  Heck no.  I'd sooner ban elves, dwarves, and halflings.  Lizardmen are _way_ more interesting than pointy-eared humans or short humans.


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 3, 2007)

Interesting.  Fully 1 in 5 intend to ban the race outright.

I wonder what percentage of folks ban gnomes?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 3, 2007)

I will use dragonborn if and when I create a setting which has a place for them. I treat all elements of the game, core and otherwise, in this fashion. Races, classes, whatever. I've got no interest in a "core only game" primarily because Wizards of the Coast has to sell "core D&D" to an audience which likes a lot of dumb stuff I'm not interested in using.


----------



## Starglim (Dec 3, 2007)

I don't have a particular problem with including reptilians if a player wants one, though the designers will need to come up with something pretty amazing to convince me they are _necessary_ to any campaign setting. I would want to ban the wings and the lightning-struck eggs.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 3, 2007)

Why the heck would I ban a race I haven't even seen yet?


----------



## Tharkun (Dec 3, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Why the heck would I ban a race I haven't even seen yet?




You've never heard of knee jerk reactions?


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 4, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Why the heck would I ban a race I haven't even seen yet?




Same reason some people will automatically allow it without having seen it yet, I guess.


----------



## Derren (Dec 4, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Same reason some people will automatically allow it without having seen it yet, I guess.




Automatically allowing a core race is a bit different than automatically ban a core race.


----------



## edbonny (Dec 4, 2007)

Ever since the Council of Wyrms in 2e introduced the half-dragon humanoid race, I always thought there ought to be a big place for them in the DnD (then AD&D) universe. In keeping with the chromatic/metallic dragons of DnD, I would prefer if the dragonborn were more reflective of their direct ancestors, each subrace having special traits attributable to their ancestral draconic parents.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 5, 2007)

So far, I have never had any PC in my group that is of dragon-blood. I have no intention of introducing them as PC.


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 5, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Automatically allowing a core race is a bit different than automatically ban a core race.




No, it just means that those of who will ban them outright have a better sense of the way our world works. I'm not going to revise my setting of choice to allow a race, core or not.


----------



## Steely Dan (Dec 5, 2007)

I voted snowflake, as in they will be available only in certain campaign settings, as all other races are.

They will not be loitering around any Dark Sun campaign I run, but if a player wants to have a go with one in a Planescape campaign…


----------



## Psion (Dec 5, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Why the heck would I ban a race I haven't even seen yet?




Because _"the rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."_

I don't add features to my campaign because there is rules support for it. I add something to my campaign because it belongs.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 5, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So far, I have never had any PC in my group that is of dragon-blood. I have no intention of introducing them as PC.




None of them played sorcerers?!?!?   

What if one of your players comes up with a good background for a dragonborn PC? Will you still deny them because it doesn't meet your vision?

I had a player who really wanted to play a Warforged PC in Greyhawk. (Wait! Don't stone me yet!) I asked him to come up with a good background that would fit the flavor of our campaign. He wrote up a great background based on being a self-aware clockwork being and I thought it good enough to allow him to play a "Warforged" outside of Eberron.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Because _"the rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."_
> 
> I don't add features to my campaign because there is rules support for it. I add something to my campaign because it belongs.



Generally I agree with that concept, but as long as WotC is going to do the heavy lifting on the design & development end, who I am I to ban something without having first looked at it even?

I see all the changes in 4E as _opportunities _to help my worlds grow and change.  I bet that if someone were playing a Midkemia campaign based on the four Riftwar novels they'd be all like "_B&! Noble warrior-lizards have no place in Midkemia!_", and then Ray Feist goes "*No! U!*" and writes the Serpentwar novels, and they'd be all "_Sorry, my bad ..._"


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 5, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> No, it just means that those of who will ban them outright have a better sense of the way our world works.




Surely you can't mean what you just said.


----------



## Leontodon (Dec 5, 2007)

Well, it would be an interesting task to write a biography for them. I mean I can see why halfs-orcs are relatively common, but dragonspawn? Unless you give them own nations or a background story like the one they have in dragonlance I do not see the point in playing one.

I will always stay with the half-orc-> the dwarf for tall people!


----------



## Dire Human (Dec 5, 2007)

Amusingly, part-dragons are already a big part of my core-only campaign setting and I've since gotten tired of applying the Half-Dragon Template to _everything._  They'll most definitely be used when I convert for 4th.  Cries of "But they don't fit my setting!" by 4th naysayers on this and other boards just make me chuckle when I read them.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 5, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> What the hell is this? We get gnomes totally axed off and orcs/half-orcs are in the air but we get friggin' Lizardmen and evil sorcerers?
> When did D&D turn into a bloody Conan the Barbarian novel?



While I am not the keenest on the new races, maybe is time the tolkien crowd had a little competition in the races section...


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 5, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> While I am not the keenest on the new races, maybe is time the tolkien crowd had a little competition in the races section...



I find this amusing, since the races removed (gnomes and half-orcs) are not in any novels by Tolkien that I am aware of ...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 5, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I find this amusing, since the races removed (gnomes and half-orcs) are not in any novels by Tolkien that I am aware of ...




Saruman's Uruk hai were implied to be orcs bred with man. There were also orc-men or goblin-men or somesuch.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 6, 2007)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> None of them played sorcerers?!?!?



One of my players tried, but found the class sucks. FWIW, his character is fey-blooded, not dragon-blooded.


----------



## Draxo (Jan 5, 2008)

This poll looks a little skewed.  Where is the 'I actually LIKE the new race' option?

To me Dragonborn are one of the best things I have heard about 4th Ed.

D&D NEEDED a race that wasn't just human with a funny feature like ears or shortness or whatever.  I feel like I've been playing in medieval star trek for way to long.  It needed something different.  I wanted Kobolds, but.. eh, i'll take them.  I like them.  I have adored Dragon-men since the old days of Draconians in Krynn.

Oddly, I was very hesitant about 4th ed till i learned of these.. but since I found out about them, i'm actually looking forward to it now.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 5, 2008)

No need to ban what has never been allowed. Dragonborn strike me as too much teh kewl; therefore, the status quo reigns.


----------



## italianranma (Jan 5, 2008)

Allow them as is.  Not that I know what "as is" is:  I've got races and classes.  In any case I think they're cool, and it seems like 4E is really separating itself from Middle Earth, and I like that.  In any case I can't wait to use burly Dragonborn fighters to intimidate my PCs.  But first I'm going to have to remind my PCs that the NPCs in my world aren't all pushovers (I think they forgot as evidence of a pick-up game we had over the holiday:  I had to beat on of the PCs to an inch of his life because he pissed off the town guard commander).


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 5, 2008)

Boobies.


----------



## Insight (Jan 5, 2008)

It just so happens the Dragonborn have a perfect place in the new campaign setting I'm developing specifically for 4E, and they had this place before I even knew the Dragonborn would be a base race.

That said, I'm still going to take a look at their racial abilities, etc, and make sure I feel they are appropriate for my game.  I'm definitely not using the fluff, but I imagine a lot of people are planning to customize the racial fluff to fit their setting.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 5, 2008)

I once played a Saurial in someone else's game, so that pretty much precludes me from removing Dragonborn.  I'd never hear the end of it!  "Hey, rkanodia, do you remember that time you played a finhead? Finheads are SO COOL!"

To be honest, though, I actually LIKE Dragonborn, and I'm a little surprised at the hostility.  The designers specifically mentioned in R&C that, when they went looking for candidates for core races, they found about two dozen variants of 'scaly dragon man', and said, "Huh, seems like this is a popular idea that just needs a little tightening up".


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 5, 2008)

*I run DragonLance*

So "dragonborn" aren't particularly news to me.  

If I continue to run my version of DL, I'll throw the clock forward a couple of centuries and the "Dragonborn" will be the resultant non-exploding/disintigrating/acidpool decendants of the draconians.


----------



## Voss (Jan 5, 2008)

That doesn't mean everyone is going to like it.  It just means the designers, over the years, haven't been very creative.

Having seen more of them with the R&C coverage.... I'm even more keen on not including them.  They just don't fit my understanding of a points of light setting.  Armed monsters showing up at the town gates get a face full of arrows, not integration into the community.  Same with tieflings, evil, devil-tainted creatures that ruled an evil empire and physically can't pass for humans (going by the art) just aren't going to be accepted.

It seems weird to me that 2 of the 8 races in the PH don't fit very well in the implied or existing settings, but thats my take on them.


----------



## Xethreau (Jan 5, 2008)

When I showed Dragonborn to my PC's, here is what they said:
"Awesome! That's so my first 4e character. Probably a fighter."
"That looks cool, I wish I could play one... I can play one?!  SWEET!"
"Yeah... they look pretty F****** badass."

I dare say it would be as good as self-mutiny if I banned them!  Besides, I think they are cool too!


The thing about it is, anything can and will fit if the DM says so.  And as a DM, I say so


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean everyone is going to like it.  It just means the designers, over the years, haven't been very creative.




Or that the designers, over the years, have been responding to a segment of the playing public that *really wants this.* I think it's more likely that players have been begging for it than that the designers just think it's cool and want to impose their will.

Hell, _Ptolus_ has a dragonman race. How come people didn't go ballistic about _that_?

I intend to allow them as is. As usual, I'm coming up with a new campaign setting. So I'll just figure out how to incorporate them. I like them better than half-dragons, personally.

However, I may steal an idea from Michael Stackpole's _Dragoncrown War_ involving the life cycle of dragons. They start as dumb beasts (like firedrakes), then go into a crysallis stage and emerge as humanoids. After a lifetime in that form, they go into a crysallis again and emerge as true dragons. So, the progression goes:

Dumb beast -> Draconic Humanoid -> True Dragon

Which might be an interesting way to integrate them. I'm not sure I'll do it, but I share it here for those who might want an idea.


----------



## Voss (Jan 5, 2008)

No one besides Monte (and a handful of other people) had any assumptions about what Ptolus was in the past and should be in the future, thats why.
its also a very specific setting, and not the basic rulebook for an entire game.

Maybe people have been begging for it, I don't know.  All I see is medium sized kobolds to kick around.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 5, 2008)

The only problem I have with dragonborn is that the females have breasts.  Half-dragons, sure, but a truly reptilian humanoids?  Girl=boobies is silly adolescent thinking.

The race as a whole?  I have no problem with it.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2008)

Special snowflake here.  I plan to keep the stats but attach them to a completely different race.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It seems weird to me that 2 of the 8 races in the PH don't fit very well in the implied or existing settings, but thats my take on them.




Fantasy settings typically have a broad assumption of what a "person" is.  Clearly, it's intended that dragonborn and tieflings are regarded as people, not as monsters.  Otherwise, why don't elves and dwarves get lynched on entry to a human town?

Also, the fluff from R&C indicates that Bael Turnath went down a long time ago.  Attitudes can change in the meantime.

Brad


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2008)

For me, it would depend on the campaign. If I am going for a more traditional D&D world, I'm banning them and Tieflings (But I'd put another race in their place - perhaps orc again.)

Then again, the first time my group ever tries out 4E in all its glory, assuming I'm DMing, I'll probably throw all the default doors open and see what we get. I'll also probably just use a generic setting with little to no plot, and just tear the system up like a muscle car with its pedal to the floor.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm a special snowflake.

I'm including them, but the background is very different for my homebrew.


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 5, 2008)

I completely understand why the DevTeam thinks Dragonborn are a good idea. And I don't think there's anything wrong with them in principle...except for the part about female lizards having mammal parts. 

But to me, and I think to many others, they read as something you'd have in a high fantasy setting. And the Points of Light does not seem like a High Fantasy setting. So I think the DevTeam is trying to have its cake and eat it too.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Fantasy settings typically have a broad assumption of what a "person" is.  Clearly, it's intended that dragonborn and tieflings are regarded as people, not as monsters.  Otherwise, why don't elves and dwarves get lynched on entry to a human town?



Because they don't look like/have actual association with an evil, monstrous race. Elves basically look like more graceful, slender humans, dwarves like shorter stouter humans. Dragonborn look like humans _crossed with dragons_. Worse still, tieflings look like humans _crossed with demons_. This is unlikely to engender trust in a PoL setting.


----------



## glass (Jan 5, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Gonna wait to see how they are implemented. I don't mind them much, since I like Dragons in my _Dungeons and Dragons_.



This. Plus, I'd have a mutiny from one of my players if I banned them. 


glass.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 5, 2008)

Depends on the kind of game I would want to run.

  Ravenloft? No--although so far, they'd be the only 4E character option I'd ban for the Dread Realms.  Tolkienesque fantasy (and I mean _real_ Tolkienesque, not the Howard/Lieber/Moorcock pastiche that made up 1E and often gets called by that name)?  Probably not, and I'd be iffy about tieflings and warlocks too.  High fantasy along the lines of the early Final Fantasy games?  They'd fit in naturally enough.  Neo-Dragonlancian that builds off the 4E rules like DL does off the 1E rules (and without DL's philosophical errors and adolescent infatuation with evil   )?  Tough to say; it would depend on how I wound up addressing dragons.

  IMO, _every_ option in the game should be considered on a campaign-by-campaign basis.


----------



## am181d (Jan 5, 2008)

Not only will I be using them in my first 4e game, they'll be the main race, having surplanted humans some time ago. (That said, I won't be using any of the back story from the core books.)


----------



## Bishmon (Jan 5, 2008)

At first I thought there was little chance I'd use them. But now, after reading R&C, I'm on board. The only thing I won't be using is the name, since I have a great dislike of race names like 'dragonborn' and 'catfolk', etc.

I will be dropping tieflings and half-elves, though. I'll probably include minotaurs and possibly shifters if there's decent racial stats for them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2008)

Dragonborn don't fit my concept of a core race.

However, I won't ban them until I have the books in my hand and read something that makes me think they need banning.

Given the openess of my tastes in 3.5, don't wait for that ban to fall- I'm currently designing a campaign with 1 or 2 "draconic" PC races.

My complaint isn't about the inclusion of the Dragonborn, but the excision of gnomes.  Or the inclusion of Tieflings without their opposite number.


> The only problem I have with dragonborn is that the females have breasts. Half-dragons, sure, but a truly reptilian humanoids? Girl=boobies is silly adolescent thinking.




I have a problem with that as well.  They had a chance to have the males be larger, more colorful, have "horns" or colorful throat pouches or frills- y'know, something that reptiles _have!_- and they blew it.

In my campaign mentioned above, for example, I'm toying with the idea of the sexual dimorphism in the draconic species having the (egg laying) females be much larger (M or L) and the males be sized S-M, but with the males having brilliantly-hued scales.


----------



## Gloombunny (Jan 6, 2008)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> But to me, and I think to many others, they read as something you'd have in a high fantasy setting. And the Points of Light does not seem like a High Fantasy setting. So I think the DevTeam is trying to have its cake and eat it too.



I think elves and dwarves are more high fantasy.  Dragonborn and tieflings make me think of sword-and-sorcery.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 6, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Because they don't look like/have actual association with an evil, monstrous race. Elves basically look like more graceful, slender humans, dwarves like shorter stouter humans. Dragonborn look like humans _crossed with dragons_. Worse still, tieflings look like humans _crossed with demons_. This is unlikely to engender trust in a PoL setting.




Looking in R&C, it's noted that the fall of Bael Turath is a LONG time ago, and that they've been accepted in that time.  And, to be honest, if they were all evil punks, they'd be monsters, and not PCs.

I mean, heck, if tieflings and dragonborn are verboten, why not half-orcs?

Brad


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 6, 2008)

It's my intention to have a by-the-books campaign for testing out the actual quality of 4E as intended, so dragonborn are automatically part of that.

May as well see what they've done alongside my extreme homebrew campaign.


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 6, 2008)

*yay!*

As someone else mentioned....since I DM a planescape campaign, I already convert any race that players want to use from 2E if they don't exist with an ECL now (most do), and any race/class is allowed. I also modify races/classes/monsters as I see fit all the time.  

That said, dragonborn, tieflings, whatever else 4E throws in, will be gladly added.

Sanjay


----------



## Campbell (Jan 6, 2008)

Let's consult the Magic 8 Ball.



			
				Magic 8 Ball said:
			
		

> Uncertain. Ask again later.


----------



## EditorBFG (Jan 7, 2008)

I am one of the many folks who intends to allow them but to adapt them to whatever world I may be running (as opposed to adapting the world's history to include them), maybe as the basis for converting draconians/assarai/saurials/mojh/whatever to 4E.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 7, 2008)

R&C said that, when they were putting together a list of all the races they had published in 3e (192 in all), that variations of Dragon Men kept popping up on the list. So the designers said that they just had to do it because it was just so popular and numerous.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jan 7, 2008)

well Dragonborn don't fit in my currernt world.  Tieflings and Assimars fit on one contient but not the other.  Half-orcs and gnomes were never part of the world. 

Im still undecided on the possibiltiy of doing a new world from scratch.  If I do, dragonborn will get a place at the table, presuming they work as a race. 

My players are bigger on new classes -warlock, beguiler, cloistered cleric, duskblade, spirit shaman, and scout. As well as every core class - _except ranger, oddly._  I have no doubt that everything will be tried.  

As for races, only tiefling x2, half-demon, celestial (templated) elf, and core have been used, except by one ex-player who played in rapid sucession: goblin, dragonborn, elf. 1/2 fey, human, and exotic human.


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Jan 7, 2008)

Dragonborn fit as a core race moreso than half-orcs or half-elves.  If people actually read Races & Classes (yeah, I know... $20 for a preview), they would see how dragonborn both fit in with the mythology & history of the new Base D&D World, and are a cool character concept to play.  Their culture is cool (and doesn't depend on bastard children, unlike half-breeds). The concept of them as martial (klingon, krogan, hobgoblin/bugbear) trailblazers will definitely interest players.

Saying you'll ban dragonborn as a kneejerk reaction would be the same as saying you'd ban warforged or half-orcs (not as cool as warforged).  If your precious world is standard medieval fantasy, sobeit.  But if I were a player and could play as a character who got strength bonuses or eventually breath attacks or eventually wings and it didn't BREAK THE GAME (make them more uber than everyone else), then I'd be a little pissed as a player and would color you as a little too rigid for my Saturday fun time.


----------



## Imban (Jan 7, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Because they don't look like/have actual association with an evil, monstrous race. Elves basically look like more graceful, slender humans, dwarves like shorter stouter humans. Dragonborn look like humans _crossed with dragons_. Worse still, tieflings look like humans _crossed with demons_. This is unlikely to engender trust in a PoL setting.




Yeah they do, in 4e. Elves look like more human noble Eladrin, who are basically jerks who live in another dimension and some of them hunt humans for sport. Dwarves look like more human azers and galeb dhur, murderous servants of the Primordial-spawn giants.



			
				BradfordFerguson said:
			
		

> Saying you'll ban dragonborn as a kneejerk reaction would be the same as saying you'd ban warforged




I hope you're aware of how many people utterly hate the Warforged, or find them only grudgingly appropriate for Eberron. I think that honestly, a lot of the resentment players here are feeling for gnomes and half-orcs being non-PHB1 and dragonborn or tieflings being in PHB1 is that DMs who took a hard line of banning all non-PHB races in 3e *had* to have been widespread, considering the amount of players (including myself) who have complained about that being a frequent condition.

I know *I* don't, but it seems pretty unfortunately common. Maybe this will take a step to address it, by having a decent portion of GMs banning races in the PHB1 and making "monster" races available to PCs. Maybe it won't, and instead you'll have Tiefling PCs all over the place and anyone who wants to play a Gnome will be treated the same as someone who wants to play an Illithid.


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Jan 7, 2008)

Just because a vocal crowd on the Internet doesn't like warforged doesn't mean that a vast majority of gaming tables banned them (if they are running Eberron).

A VAST MAJORITY of gamers never come onto the Internet to discuss/follow their RPG hobby.  MOST people I game with haven't heard of Malhavoc Press and BARELY know who Monte Cook is.  These people aren't stupid, they just aren't into it as much as you and I are.


That said, I totally understand the DM that doesn't want the players playing "wierd" races.  But warforged fit into the Eberron history/myth, and so will dragonborn and tieflings into the new Base World's history/myth... and have a major part in world history and are somewhat accepted in society...  Then who are you as DM to say, "no you can't have fun that way even though it isn't overpowered/twinkish."...?

Would you allow a player to play a drow but not a tiefling?  Tiefling is a way for 4e players to explore kinda evil (if they like) without DMs having to kill their characters on the spot as would most surface dwellers kill drow on sight.


----------



## Mieric (Jan 8, 2008)

In the unlikely event that we actually do migrate to 4e - Dragonborn are definately on the list to get hit with the banstick, they'll get replaced by the Muls from Darksun (after all if we have half-elves and half-orcs, why not half-dwarves too). 

Oh, and the <bleeping> planetouched (aasimar, tieflings, gensai, etc.) are getting changed to some sort of damn template instead of them being distinct races, like they always should have been.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 8, 2008)

> I think that honestly, a lot of the resentment players here are feeling for gnomes and half-orcs being non-PHB1 and dragonborn or tieflings being in PHB1 is that DMs who took a hard line of banning all non-PHB races in 3e had to have been widespread, considering the amount of players (including myself) who have complained about that being a frequent condition.
> 
> I know *I* don't, but it seems pretty unfortunately common.




You hit the nail right on the head!  I'm a wide-open DM personally, but the majority of the DMs in my group don't go outside the PHB.  Heck, several don't even allow non-PHB base classes, though typically gear, PrCls, Feats & spells are OK.

Honestly, though, I don't think it will affect the hardliners.  The same DMs I know who excise non-PHB races also do things like ban classes they dislike- typically Paladins.



> Oh, and the <bleeping> planetouched (aasimar, tieflings, gensai, etc.) are getting changed to some sort of damn template instead of them being distinct races, like they always should have been.




I'm doing that myself, using the term "Nephilim." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim)


----------



## BradfordFerguson (Jan 8, 2008)

I do feel for the people who play half-orcs and gnomes and want their characters to remain as such if their campaign switches over to 4e.  I guess I don't get as attached to my characters as some folks do.  If someone told me I could switch my half-orc barbarian to a dragonborn fighter or dragonborn warlord, I would be like, "Heck yeah, sign me up!"  Half-orcs are already outcasts so its not like the experience of playing a dragonborn would be much different except the occasional backwater town may freak out a bit when a dragonborn, tiefling, eladrin, and halfling show up to save the day.  However, most denizens of a world that had dragonborn and tieflings play a major role in their history would be used to the idea of dragonborn and tieflings.


----------



## Scarbonac (Jan 8, 2008)

I think that if I were convinced to go over to 4e, I'd re-season dragonborn as an advanced lizardman race, give them tails and do away with boobs on the females.


----------



## Draxo (Jan 9, 2008)

Some people have mentioned that the females will have breasts, which makes no sense.  I could not find the picture on the site though, could someone link it?

As much as I love the idea of this race, my sticking point is that they are supposedly only bronze/golden in coloration, which I don't like.    I hope we'll get more color options.  I want a red scaled one..! 

Also.. I would much prefer them to have tails.  To me, a dragon-man _needs_ a tail.  I hope they'll have a racial option to have a tail.. they look incomplete without one.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 9, 2008)

I rolled and hit the jackpot with 4e.  My major villian in all three of my campaigns has been the same demon.  My 4e world takes place a few centuries after my current campaign and it makes perfect sense that now there is a race of tieflings.  I have two characters who always play character with dragon blood, no matter the race, and they are decended from a line of great dragons. Again, it works out in my favorite that they are around as well.  I killed off gnomes from my campaign 2 years ago and i"ve always equated elves with the fey, even going as far as to use the morninglord flavor in my 3.5s.


----------



## Vanifae (Jan 9, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I'm probably going to start a new campaign with 4th Ed, it's much less work than adapting an old campaign. So I'll keep them and probably add a host of other races from the MM as PC races as well.
> 
> Death to Medieval Fantasy!



I support this message.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 9, 2008)

When i started dm'n 3.0 i thought I"d be an open DM, then i realized how rediclulous it was to come up with the pc driven campaigns that i liked with a githyanki, drow, celestial and blink dog running around.  From a balance point of view going outside of pc races will eventually come back to haunt you without strict observation and if i got to play too much police i begin to hate dm'n.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 9, 2008)

Yes, they're on the "Banned by Default" list because my D&D settings have no place for them at all, let alone as PCs.


----------



## Mokona (Mar 23, 2008)

I don't know what the rules are for Dragonborn yet but I expect to merge Dragonborn with the Lizardfolk art from *Dungeons & Dragons* 3rd Edition: _Monster Manual_.  I'll throw in a little bit of the 3rd edition Trogolodyte concept as well.  Kobolds are just juvenile Lizardfolk.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 23, 2008)

I will allow them as is presented.


----------



## Imp (Mar 23, 2008)

The thing of it is, I've wanted to play with/include saurian races in D&D ever since I picked it up, but _none_ of the saurian humanoids I've seen have ever really felt right:

lizardmen: caveman baggage
troglodytes: caveman baggage, plus they smell
yuan-ti: pretty cool, but shapeshifter/ fluid-form weirdness
dragonborn: fire-breathing baggage?

If I can strip the dragon-specific stuff from dragonborn I'll use 'em.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 23, 2008)

I sense great necromancy at work!


----------



## Fobok (Mar 23, 2008)

I'm definitely allowing them. I'm working on a new campaign setting for my games, and I was actually thinking (before I heard of Dragonborn) of having a dragonkin race as part of it, so it fits perfectly. I'll be tweaking their culture a little for my setting, but still.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Mar 23, 2008)

I don't mind tieflings, but I don't like the idea of dragonborn as a common PC race.  I will wait until I see the full write up.  Then, I may either decide to allow them as is or ban them outright.  But I think my preference would be to allow the mechanical rules for them but with different fluff for the race.  But to know how to change them into a totally different race with the same stats, I will need to see the mechanics to see if I think of fluff I like which fits with the stats.


----------



## Wulfram (Mar 23, 2008)

They're not likely to play a major role in any setting I create, but this is a fantasy game - if someone wants to play a dragonborn, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to have a remote tribe, or an experimenting wizard appear in the world so that it's possible.


----------



## GoLu (Mar 23, 2008)

I am going to kill two birds with one stone by renaming them to "druid" without actually changing their in-game stats.  Problem solved: no more dragonborn, and druids are now core.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 23, 2008)

I'll at least give them a try.


----------



## Hathorym (Mar 23, 2008)

Well, I guess I'm a special snowflake, because I will probably allow them, but adapt them to my world, rather than try to force them in.  And what the heck is a special snowflake anyway?


----------



## nutluck (Mar 23, 2008)

Assuming I end up playing and running 4e. It would matter on what kind of game i am running and what the game world is like. If they fit it, then i would allow it like I do any race. If they don't fit then they would be banned like any other race.


----------



## variant (Mar 23, 2008)

If I buy 4e, though due to this crap I may not, both Tiefling and Dragonborn would be banned.


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 23, 2008)

I just realiaed what I'm going to do with them...

Tieflings are going to be the ruling families of a Ottoman-like near-east empire...  All descendants of the ancient pharoahs of the desert, who in turn, legends say, were descended from the "gods".

Likewise, dragonborn will be the ruling families of the far east oriental-flavored empires. They'll have a style more like the Chinese lung dragons, or the Japanese ryu or tatsu dragons. 

Oh, yeah...  Dragonborn samurai and ninjas.


----------



## tuffnoogies (Mar 23, 2008)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> To a lot of people, it seems Dragonborn just don't seem to fit in with their concept of a "Core" race.
> 
> What will you do with Dragonborn?




I've never subscribed to the "core race = common race" philosophy.  Assuming they're balanced I'll let them be as is.


----------



## Gorrstagg (Mar 24, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Unless they are *horribly* mechanically broken, I have no reason to ban them.
> 
> That goes for everything in the books, really.




I've only ever banned Gnomes. They've never been present in my homebrew worlds. Ever. And I won't use them as monsters either. That said...

I've already got half-dragons in my world so a dragonborn fits just fine.

And Tieflings fit in my world just as well also. 

Heck I've even go room for Eladrin..

Just no Gnomes.

Friends, don't let friends play Gnomes.

The only good Gnome is the one dead and buried, and you never had to know of its existence.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 24, 2008)

I think I will have to make a new homebrew for 4E anyway, seeing has how there are so many changes in the default setting. Dragonblooded and Teiflings are the least of the problems IMHO.


----------



## Hejdun (Mar 24, 2008)

Lord Fyre said:
			
		

> Can I replace *Tieflings* with *Gnomes*?
> . . . And *Dragonborn* with *Half-Orcs*?




This.

Mechanically I'm sure I'd have no problem with them.  They just fill needed roles.

I just think that Dragonborn are ridiculous.  Even in DnD where the threshold for ridiculousness is really low, I think Dragonborn somehow cross the line.  The pictures of them in Races and Classes just completely turned me off.

Therefore, I'd just say that you can cross off Dragonborn and write in Half-Orc and play it mechanically identically and be done with it.  Tieflings I don't have as much of a problem with, but it really irks me that they axed the gnome, so I wouldn't have too much of a problem doing the same thing with them.


----------



## jeffh (Mar 24, 2008)

Banning _anything _sight unseen seems like a pretty foolish policy to me.


----------



## hong (Mar 24, 2008)

Dragonborn are fine, it's halflings and tiefling tails that I'm banning.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 24, 2008)

I'll ban the boobs.














Just kidding


----------



## FunkBGR (Mar 24, 2008)

Assuming I had Lizardmen in my setting, I would definitely allow Dragonborn, just renamed "Lizardmen". 

Done, no big deal. 

This renaming thing works well - see, instead of Eladrin, I plan on renaming them to "Rockseers" from the old 2e Night Below module, and just fiddling with some of their story. Perhaps slightly modifying their teleport. 

Not a problem, whatsoever.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 24, 2008)

All dragonborn must die.


----------



## Imban (Mar 24, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Banning _anything _sight unseen seems like a pretty foolish policy to me.




Well, we've seen them. A lot. I mean, they're in Races & Classes, which supposedly has *more* of everything but the stats on the PHB races, and I'd feel justified saying "bronze-skinned dragonmen have no place as everyday folk in my campaign setting, so they aren't available as a player option" or "making Penance into a race is really stupid, so they aren't available as a player option and I am certain I will not use them as a Dungeon Master" if I so chose.

Obviously, we can't really comment on whether any of these races is underpowered or overpowered or whatever yet, of course.

Personally, I'm down with Dragonborn, though possibly not for all campaign worlds I'd consider running a game in, and less down with Tieflings. A more subdued look - very small horns protruding from their forehead, a very slight red tint to their skin, unnatural hair colors, maybe traditional thin "devil's" tails with pointed ends at most - and no scribbleblades would have done wonders for my opinion of them.


----------



## escaflowne777 (Mar 24, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> I liked my tiefling friend in NWN2.




Neeshka made me want to shoot myself in the face repeatedly then jump into a pit full of pungi stakes.  I verbally abused that creature every chance I got. sorry, off topic.  Are there different colors of Dragonborn or one size fits all?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Mar 24, 2008)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> To a lot of people, it seems Dragonborn just don't seem to fit in with their concept of a "Core" race.
> 
> What will you do with Dragonborn?




I won't ban them.  With a little reconceptionalizing of the original idea, they'll fit right in with my Slavic-based zmajeviti (dragon-like men).  Historically, they have a human mother but dragon father, and are fairly human-seeming, but it's a simple matter to just replace the word "dragonborn" with "zmajeviti" to give it a more fantasy-feel, make 'em look and act like the dragonborn in the PHB and there ya go!.

(edited for clarity...)


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Mar 24, 2008)

Before the announcement of the dragonborn, I probably would have scoffed at the idea.  In fact, I was initially disappointed when I first heard of them, because I was hoping full-blooded orcs would have been made it into the first PHB.  But not long after that disappointment, I really warmed up to them.  I haven't even seen the game, but now I can't imagine D&D without the dragonborn, nor can I imagine what took D&D so long to finally get them.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 24, 2008)

I'll allow them.  I warmed up to the idea of draconian-type PC core races while playing Arcana Evolved.  I like the Mojh and the Dracha so I'll probably allow the Dragonborn.


----------



## escaflowne777 (Mar 24, 2008)

are there different colors?


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Mar 24, 2008)

escaflowne777 said:
			
		

> are there different colors?



AFAIK, the default Dragonborn are mostly gold-ish.  However, as a GM I have no problem with different colored Dragonborn.  Indeed, I bet the 4e Draconomicon will have that as an option, along with a variety of powers depenedent on what color of Dragonborn you are (red-scaled Dragonborn can get firey breath, black-scaled Dragonborn get darkness abilities, etc.).


----------



## escaflowne777 (Mar 24, 2008)

I figured they'd make them color dependant, but if not, that's really really lame.  Basically their just lizardmen as a base class.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Mar 24, 2008)

I really don't like them as a core race, in the sense of living in the same places as the other major PC races.  But then, I picture them out in a jungle somewhere, probably with aztec/mayan style pyramids, tying scantily-clad women down to altars for sacrifice to the Elder Wyrm they worship as a god, and...man, I start to think maybe they *do* have a place in my campaign world.  

I think the problem is that I'm more of a Sword & Sorcery guy at heart than the current "story of D&D" is going for, so I will most likely have to reflavor all kinds of stuff.


----------



## Xorn (Mar 24, 2008)

Allowed.  After reading Races & Classes, I'm excited to start a new Points of Light themed campaign.  The history written up for the Dragonborn seems great to me.


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 24, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ...and tiefling tails that I'm banning.




Yeah...  I think that in my campaign, both Tieflings and Dragonborn will look more human-ish than not.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 24, 2008)

Like my view of all races Dragonborn will be campaign-setting specific, so if they work in one setting I use them, they don't in another I don't. Just that simple.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Mar 24, 2008)

I don't plan to use Dragonborn. Truly, I don't plan to use any of the new core races as they don't fit the mold of my homebrew.


----------

