# Races & Classes spotted?



## Klaus (Nov 24, 2007)

From the news page: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212612



> I was today at my FLGS here in Hungary, and to my big surprise they already had the Races & Classes preview book for sale. I have no interest in buying it, and had no time to read in it for a long time (or to make notes), but here are some details I can remember.
> 
> * The book is just fluff, no game statistcs or any rules in it.
> * Diferent D&D designers have written different parts of the book, it's definatly teamwork. It is always mentioned who wrote which chapter or which paragraph.
> ...




So, Dragonborn? With Bahamut becoming THE good god, it'd make sense to have his favored children in, even if they're no longer exclusive to him.


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 24, 2007)

BTW... 

I remember how many players were template-hungry when 3e started : half-dragon and half-celestial  were among the more popular otptions. So, we have Eladrins and Dragonborns in 4e.

And I'm quite sure some of those "Tieflings" were in fact Dragonborns, asme and others hypotethised sometimes ago ! This would explain the PHB cover. It was right under our noses.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Nov 24, 2007)

Sounds like they are tying it more to their own version of "fantasy" which I think is a good thing. I remember seeing somewhere that Races of the Dragon were one of the most successful books ever and I guess they went with what worked.

As is said above, half-celestials/half-dragons were always popular choices, so by incorporating this into the base races we have a wider spread of what people like.

Also ties in with the game preview we got of the mystery race - that they were "attracted to shiny things" - like dragons who hoard their goldpieces.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 24, 2007)

Meh.  More anthropomorphic lizard-men is not something I personally think that D&D was missing.  And why invent a new race when there are already so many iconic races to choose from in the game?  If you wanted dragons/lizards, there are lizardmen, half-dragons, draconians, dragon-touched, kobolds ....  

I'll miss half-orcs as well, even though I thikn I could live with substituting full orcs if they could be a way to balance them.

I was more interested in the class information, but it doesn't sound like we really have good confirmation of what will be in the PHB.  It's encouraging to hear discussion of the druid and swordmage classes, but I'd rather have confirmation they are in the initial release rather than a teaser for another book coming out a year later!


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 24, 2007)

If the scoop is correct, I'm surprised that not all of the PHB classer are getting full exposure. I would have expected for a few pages for each and a short description for classes slated to came out later... unless they have decided to release only 5 classes in the PHB, of course.


----------



## Gundark (Nov 24, 2007)

Hmmmm Dragonborn. I suspected a dragon like race. however I expected minotaurs more. It'll be interesting to see if this rumour is true. 

I thought that WotC said there would be some mechanics in the book?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 24, 2007)

Aw, man. _Dragonborn_.


----------



## Ruvion (Nov 24, 2007)

Dragonborn.
...love the concept
...but hate the name!
   :\ 

So...
bland.

Even the Krynnish 'draconian' had better flavour to the name.


----------



## Perun (Nov 24, 2007)

I don't mind dragonborn in the PH as a core race (even though I might not use them in my games), but if it turns out gnomes were dropped in favour of the fancy humanoid lizards, I'll be upset. Of course, me being upset really won't make any kind of difference, but still  :\


----------



## Klaus (Nov 24, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Meh.  More anthropomorphic lizard-men is not something I personally think that D&D was missing.  And why invent a new race when there are already so many iconic races to choose from in the game?  If you wanted dragons/lizards, there are lizardmen, half-dragons, draconians, dragon-touched, kobolds ....
> 
> I'll miss half-orcs as well, even though I thikn I could live with substituting full orcs if they could be a way to balance them.
> 
> I was more interested in the class information, but it doesn't sound like we really have good confirmation of what will be in the PHB.  It's encouraging to hear discussion of the druid and swordmage classes, but I'd rather have confirmation they are in the initial release rather than a teaser for another book coming out a year later!



 Of course, if they are anything like 3e dragonborn, they're are members of other races that *choose* to become draconic, unlike any of the races mentioned.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 24, 2007)

sheesh....MORE dragons?!?? Next thing you know they'll name the game after them!!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 24, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> sheesh....MORE dragons?!?? Next thing you know they'll name the game after them!!




Or we could change the name of the game to "Taverns & Tieflings"!


----------



## A'koss (Nov 24, 2007)

Another interesting tidbit (if true) is that there is just one base progression for all classes which is something in the back of my mind I thought they might do since they were going a full 30 levels in the core book. Class abilities/feats providing the differences between them. They really needed to reign in those high level disparities that we were seeing in 3e...


----------



## Rykaar (Nov 24, 2007)

Regarding the new fluff book:

How to stir up conversation and interest about your product line without a shred of real detail seems like it would be a better topic for a book.  Oh, and there would have to be a chapter devoted to how they convinced people to spend $20 on the brochure.

I'm really looking forward to 4e, don't get me wrong.  But the fact that there is such a blatant lack of detail in any of what is clearly carefully edited remarks by testers and designers is really starting to dampen my enthusiasm to the point where I wonder what it is that they're hiding, or why they're hiding it.

I'm really tired of seeing the man behind the curtain.  I'm ready to see Oz.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Nov 24, 2007)

Rykaar said:
			
		

> But the fact that there is such a blatant lack of detail in any of what is clearly carefully edited remarks by testers and designers is really starting to dampen my enthusiasm to the point where I wonder what it is that they're hiding.




Would you prefer to know nothing at all?  

Dragonborn sounds interesting.  I wonder what this bodes for the Eberron setting, since dragons are handled much differently there than in most other settings...


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 24, 2007)

Rykaar said:
			
		

> I'm really tired of seeing the man behind the curtain.  I'm ready to see Oz.



You'll just have to wait then. In the meantime, there are many people for whom $20 seems small price to pay for access to the designer notes and commentary provided in the book.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Nov 24, 2007)

Meh   

At least it's not another Elf.


----------



## withak (Nov 24, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> You'll just have to wait then. In the meantime, there are many people for whom $20 seems small price to pay for access to the designer notes and commentary provided in the book.




$20? Heck, you can get it for $13 from Amazon.


----------



## tecnowraith (Nov 24, 2007)

I had a feeling this are using the 3e Dragonborn racial mechanics of standard 4e races but tthema now core is a big twist!


----------



## Rykaar (Nov 24, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> You'll just have to wait then. In the meantime, there are many people for whom $20 seems small price to pay for access to the designer notes and commentary provided in the book.




Isn't that what they're already releasing in bits and pieces?  Whoever suggested that this is the stuff for their website and not for a separate product is dead on the money.

I suspect this will backfire for them, as, while it's frustrating to read all the quotes checking for some actual rules, buying a preview book that is likewise bereft of detail is crossing the line for most people with a relatively limited budget.  Still, it's a good case study in why you should look over a book before buying it.

Also, designer notes and commentary is great when it is a companion piece to the thing being designed and commented upon.  And where might that be?  Won't know til June.

I know I'm coming across as hostile here, and I apologize for that.  I think it stems from frustration and disappointment.  I've wanted for so many years to see D&D finally get it right enough that I'd be happy with it warts and all instead of having to house rule many of its weakest points.  The early buzz, months ago, is that they were going to finally make 4e something special, and the early rumors suggested this would be the case.  But now they're several months further along in the released quotes, and very little is concrete.  I'm not sure what to conclude from this other than they're fearful to actually give us some details.  What could it seriously hurt at this point to do so?  I think the lines between the buyers and the non-buyers for 4e are already forming rather clearly.

And yes, I think someone willing to spend $20 on something that is the rulebook equivalent to the "extras disc" without purchasing the movie is a bit crazy.


----------



## Davelozzi (Nov 24, 2007)

Thumbs down.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 24, 2007)

Dragonborn, eh? I'm always up for lizardmen, so I can't complain, really. I don't know anything about 3rd Edition Dragonborn though. Anyone want to give me a quick run down of their flavor/abilities?


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 24, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Or we could change the name of the game to "Taverns & Tieflings"!



Hags & Harridans.


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 24, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Dragonborn, eh? I'm always up for lizardmen, so I can't complain, really. I don't know anything about 3rd Edition Dragonborn though. Anyone want to give me a quick run down of their flavor/abilities?




They are a kind of "template" you apply to a standard race. 
If this is still the case in 4e, then maybe there are tiefling dragonborn.   This may explain some pictures.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 24, 2007)

To think I've been sitting on a copy of the book for two week now, patiently biding my time until I can post a review when the book is released, and some stupid game store in Hungary makes it all pointless.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Nov 24, 2007)

I hate to say it but I'm disappointed by the mystery race, I was hopping for one of the many already existing D&D races or not some dragon thing, but it ain't a deal breaker.


----------



## redmagerush (Nov 24, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> To think I've been sitting on a copy of the book for two week now, patiently biding my time until I can post a review when the book is released, and some stupid game store in Hungary makes it all pointless.





So, Dragonborn huh?


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 24, 2007)

If the rumor is true and the dragonborn are core, I couldn't possibly be more disappointed.

First off, I don't really like dragonmen anyway. But then with the whole angle of "normal person crawls into an egg and emerges as a dragonman"? Yeah, no. Not at all.

Needless to say, they will be immediately stricken from my campaign barring any serious changes. I'm just disappointed that since they are a core race, they will be supported much more than other races that I don't absolutely hate, and therefore there's going to be an unfortunate amount of content that I will have to completely ignore.


----------



## The_Universe (Nov 24, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> To think I've been sitting on a copy of the book for two week now, patiently biding my time until I can post a review when the book is released, and some stupid game store in Hungary makes it all pointless.



 Post your review! There's no point waiting any longer, and your thoughts may still prove insightful.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 24, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> To think I've been sitting on a copy of the book for two week now, patiently biding my time until I can post a review when the book is released, and some stupid game store in Hungary makes it all pointless.



What stopped you from reviewing the book early?


----------



## redmagerush (Nov 24, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> What stopped you from reviewing the book early?





Legality issues stemming from official street dates perhaps?


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 24, 2007)

Hmmm. The idea of adding a template race to the core lineup is pretty bizarre. I don't like the flavor of it much either, at least from what I've been able to dig up. Granted, the flavor may well have changed--look at what they did with Tieflings after all. And if this is the same mystery race that one designer had running a  not-so popular sea-faring empire in his house-ruled setting...

  I'm just not that fond of first generation half-breeds and templated creatures. I'd rather see them made into a true breeding race like the "descendents of humans whose corrupt empire forged pacts with devils" style Tieflings. That way, they could actually have history and culture instead of being a bunch of disparate dragon emulating munchkins.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 24, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Hmmm. The idea of adding a template race to the core lineup is pretty bizarre.




Cause everyone knows how rigorously the 4e team follows 3e fluff.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 24, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Granted, the flavor may well have changed--look at what they did with Tieflings after all. And if this is the same mystery race that one designer had running a  not-so popular sea-faring empire in his house-ruled setting...




Indeed, I think this is a vital point that most people aren't considering.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 24, 2007)

Sounds like they dipped into M.C.'s Arcana Unearthed/Evolved concepts, especially if the dragon dudes can grow wings via racial prestige class levels.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 24, 2007)

... and were half-elves omitted in the book itself, or just in the overview notes?


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 24, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Cause everyone knows how rigorously the 4e team follows 3e fluff.



With so many other draconic options, why would they call it 'dragonborn' is they weren't going to roughly follow the dragonborn fluff?

I suppose it's possible someone just loved the 'dragonborn' name, but I'm not exactly all that hopeful.


----------



## redmagerush (Nov 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Indeed, I think this is a vital point that most people aren't considering.





Yeah, the news didn't seem to tell us anything about the race other than the name.


----------



## MasterGarrow05 (Nov 24, 2007)

Now the question becomes how similar they will be to the old dragonborn. I find it unlikely that they will muddy up the races section of the core PHB with "halfling/dragonborn" and "eladrin/dragonborn;" and I also find it unlikely that the race will be consigned to be good-aligned and followers of bahamut (but probably will have a natural tendency toward good to balance out the tiefling natural tendency toward evil--supposedly). So I bet the dragonborn will be more like half-dragons that breed true than the classic dragonborn. Also, they might be focused on Strength rather than Constitution based on "the gap" in strong player races. 

Along my way of thinking, I suppose color will be an issue. We know from playtest reports that dragonspawn exist in 4e. If they continue to be tiamat-aligned, chromatic type beasts, it might well be that the dragonborn will be more bahamut-aligned, metallic humanoids. They will still not be constrained by good-alignment, because 4e dragons are not as constrained (evidenced by the comments on the new "capricious copper dragon" of the mini set). We all know the exciting possibilities of feats or talent trees that might make a dragonborn "more dragon" like breath weapons, wings, etc. I'm thrilled at the semi-newness of it. Hope that some of other people's mystery race theories like orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds, and minotaurs are definitely made PC-friendly in the Monster Manual though.

(I posted part of this over at the WotC boards, but this message board is usually more stimulating).


----------



## WarlockLord (Nov 24, 2007)

Dragonborn.  Ecch.

Are you SURE we couldn't have had drow?  Dragon stuff makes me think Dragonball Z.  Blecch. Our group has a hatred of too much dragon crap.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 24, 2007)

redmagerush said:
			
		

> Legality issues stemming from official street dates perhaps?



I very much doubt the official street date can be legally enforced with end-users. If he bought a book from a store, the store is at fault for selling it to him (and by "at fault," I mean "it probably broke some sort of agreement it had to sign with the distributor"). Why should a customer know (or care) of the official street date? The burden of enforcing that lies with the manufacturer and the retailer.


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 24, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Our group has a hatred of too much dragon crap.



Dragons have a perfect metabolism. Ergo, they don't crap at all.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 24, 2007)

Hrm.  I would have preferred Minotaurs or Hobgoblins, but oh well; can't  be pleased with everything I guess.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 24, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I suppose it's possible someone just loved the 'dragonborn' name, but I'm not exactly all that hopeful.




Eladrin.


----------



## Darkness (Nov 24, 2007)

Perun said:
			
		

> I don't mind dragonborn in the PH as a core race (even though I might not use them in my games), but if it turns out gnomes were dropped in favour of the fancy humanoid lizards, I'll be upset. Of course, me being upset really won't make any kind of difference, but still  :\



 They kinda seem to be a warrior race. If so, I'd say they got the half-orcs' place rather than the gnomes'.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Nov 24, 2007)

Interesting and acceptable.
I think it goes a long way to making D&D fantasy stand alone. Now the races are 50/50 spilt between Tolkein-inspired and D&D unique:
Humans are the baseline. 
Elves, Dwarves, Halflings are Tolkein-inspired, typical fantasy fare (although the halflings are reasonably departed from hobbits.)
Then you have your D&D unique choices:
Feeling extra-good? Try an eladrin.
Want to get your angsty-goth on? Here's a Tiefling.
Want to be big and mean, but not just a dumb brick? Dragonborn! (Hey, you are playing Dungeons & _Dragons_, not Mazes and _Minotaurs!_

I do hope that Dragonborn are reimagined as a stand-alone race.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 24, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Eladrin.



Something happening once doesn't really prove anything. If I win the lottery once, that doesn't make me more likely to win the lottery in the future.

Regardless, there's nothing to indicate so far that the dragonborn in 4E will be dramatically different than the dragonborn introduced in the latter half of 3.5E, so like I said, I'm not all that hopeful.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 24, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Regardless, there's nothing to indicate so far that the dragonborn in 4E will be dramatically different than the dragonborn introduced in the latter half of 3.5E




Except for having an empire in the past, and their physical description being different.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 24, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Except for having an empire in the past, and their physical description being different.



Their physical description being different? "The Dragonborn in their picture looked like big and well muscled lizardmen. They were antropomorphic, had two legs and no wings. It looked as if their hands had claws."







As for them having an empire in the past, that doesn't strike me as dramatically different, certainly not in the sense that I would be hoping for.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 24, 2007)

...huh.

Dragonborn? So, is it like the RotD dragonborn - I was a dwarf, but I got better?

...huh.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 24, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Something happening once doesn't really prove anything. If I win the lottery once, that doesn't make me more likely to win the lottery in the future.




But the opposite is true as well no? It doesn't make you any less likely to win the lottery in the future.


----------



## tecnowraith (Nov 24, 2007)

Not unless they are dropping the whole once I was this race and now i went through the egg ritual bit, I think 4e Dragonborns are a new half-race born of dragon parent and humanoid parent. If the racial traits at certain levels is true then we might them getting breath weapon and wings at later levels.


----------



## orc food (Nov 24, 2007)

I am thinking they are just renamed Lizardmen myself. Sorry PC crowed, Lizardfolk. Maybe to make them sound cooler? Some well buy anything with the word dragon in it. Maybe a race book with each color offspring in about two years from now?


----------



## Wraith Form (Nov 24, 2007)

tecnowraith said:
			
		

> a new half-race born of dragon parent and humanoid parent



If I want to play the spawn of a powerful being that mates with a human, I already have _Scion_.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 24, 2007)

Just more proof that no matter what comes out, there will be people complaining about it.

Had it been Orcs, there would be a lot of bellyaching over "They're taking away my evil unredeemable race! It's becomign WoW!"
Had it been Minotaur, it would have been "D&D is becoming more like WoW!"
Had it been Drow, the bellyaching over "Angsty fanboys" and 4 elves in the PHB would have been heard 'round the world. 
Had it been Warforged... my lord. 

Dragon race only polled at 8% hatred.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 24, 2007)

Not the worst news I could've heard. (TG its wasn't orc. Keep them monsters!)

Woulda liked Goliaths. Glad it wasn't Warforged (love 'em, but not in core). Happy medium.


----------



## mhensley (Nov 24, 2007)

orc food said:
			
		

> I am thinking they are just renamed Lizardmen myself. Sorry PC crowed, Lizardfolk. Maybe to make them sound cooler? Some well buy anything with the word dragon in it. Maybe a race book with each color offspring in about two years from now?




I hope this is true.  Otherwise, I might just forget the three new races altogether. :\


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 24, 2007)

orc food said:
			
		

> I am thinking they are just renamed Lizardmen myself. Sorry PC crowed, Lizardfolk. Maybe to make them sound cooler? Some well buy anything with the word dragon in it. Maybe a race book with each color offspring in about two years from now?




Didn't the book "Dragon Magic" come from the fact that the two words put into a D&D book title that sell the best are "dragon" and "magic"? 

Still, wonder what their niche (I hesitate to say favorite) class is with sorcerer no where near the starting line? (human: any, dwarf: fighter, elf: ranger, eladrin: wizard, halfling: rogue, tiefling wizard, half-elf: multi-class, dragonborn: ?)


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 24, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Just more proof that no matter what comes out, there will be people complaining about it.
> 
> Had it been Orcs, there would be a lot of bellyaching over "They're taking away my evil unredeemable race! It's becomign WoW!"
> Had it been Minotaur, it would have been "D&D is becoming more like WoW!"
> ...




Imagine if it had been catfolk...


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 24, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Dragon race only polled at 8% hatred.



No, it was only 8% who said they hated draconic guys _the most_. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like myself, hated draconic guys but hated something else even more.


----------



## epochrpg (Nov 24, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> To think I've been sitting on a copy of the book for two week now, patiently biding my time until I can post a review when the book is released, and some stupid game store in Hungary makes it all pointless.




It's not pointless.  There are all sorts of things you can shed light on. What is the Marshall like?  What did he mean that all classes use the same charts?


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 24, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> No, it was only 8% who said they hated draconic guys *the most*. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like myself, hated draconic guys but hated something else even more.



Correct.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 24, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> No, it was only 8% who said they hated draconic guys _the most_. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like myself, hated draconic guys but *hated something else even more.*



Indeed.

So it could be worse, and no matter what, people would be complaining.


----------



## erf_beto (Nov 24, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Still, wonder what their niche (I hesitate to say favorite) class is with sorcerer no where near the starting line? (human: any, dwarf: fighter, elf: ranger, eladrin: wizard, halfling: rogue, tiefling wizard _warlock_, half-elf: multi-class, dragonborn: ?)



Oops 

I think the dragonborn will be paladins, since Bahamut will be the the good god, as someone mentioned earlier. Could be clerics too, but I don't think so...


----------



## Rechan (Nov 24, 2007)

erf_beto said:
			
		

> Oops
> 
> I think the dragonborn will be paladins, since Bahamut will be the the good god, as someone mentioned earlier. Could be clerics too, but I don't think so...



It was said somewhere in one of the recent playtests that the mystery race makes good clerics.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 24, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Dragons have a perfect metabolism. Ergo, they don't crap at all.



I hate to say it, but there's nothing more fun to spring on groups than dragon crap; huge, smelly and possessing the effects of the dragon's breath weapon.

Yes, I owned a large dog or two growing up, why do you ask?


----------



## fuindordm (Nov 24, 2007)

My first reaction was disappointment, but I can live with it. I think it ties into the whole "humanity rising", PoL setting they're trying to promote.

It also kinda ties into Eberron, which had the Age of Demons (source of tieflings?) followed by the Age of Dragons (source of dragonborn?), followed by the Age of Giants...

I think we've heard that the default setting is one of ancient, inhuman empires. Do you want your character to be a relic of the past, or part of the hope for the future?  I kind of like it.

Random musings, that's all...


----------



## Rechan (Nov 24, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> It also kinda ties into Eberron, which had the Age of Demons (source of tieflings?) followed by the Age of Dragons (source of dragonborn?), followed by the Age of Giants...



Not... really. The Dragons in Eberron are sequestered all by themselves. Dragon-lite races just don't work very well there.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 24, 2007)

Yeah. I think Dragonborn _could_ be cool, with the caveat that their potential coolness rises exponentially the more their new fluff coincides with lizardmen, and plummets rapidly the more 3.5 edition "Dragon-borney" they get. 

  An ancient, noble, somewhat primitive, once mighty but now declining race of lizardmen long-ago descended from dragons whose most powerful heroes sometimes display characteristics of true dragons could be cool and offer a lot of role-playing possibilities. A bunch of random Bahumut fanboys who hopped in an egg to gain dragon powers is lame. 

I'm pretty sure they're going to be more like the first idea, though...I'm pretty sure Wizards hasn't gone completely nuts yet, and I'm positive they wouldn't stick a brand new race in the first PHB without giving it a real place in the world. 

  I like the idea of them being good clerics too. Priest-Kings are just a better fit for Lizardmen than archmages, somehow.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 24, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Not... really. The Dragons in Eberron are sequestered all by themselves. Dragon-lite races just don't work very well there.



Unless you're one of the barbarians of Argonessen.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Unless you're one of the barbarians of Argonessen.



Yes, true. But it's hard to be a barbarian of Argonessen in a group of otherwise normal PCs.


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 24, 2007)

> A bunch of random Bahumut fanboys who hopped in an egg to gain dragon powers is lame.




Really lame.  Really, truly lame.  I'm hopeful that they're a true race, though.

(Side note: I think I actually voted for the dragonmen as my most hated mystery race; strangely I'm not angry at this news - they *might* be done in an interesting manner..)


----------



## Zoombaba (Nov 25, 2007)

Man, I am all over this. Sorry frustrated people, but I think this is the coolest. The Coolest.

I don't post much, but I've been following the 4th edition stuff religiously. And all I can say is, I can't wait until June. I think this has just put the icing on the cake for me.

But then again, I thought the cosmology shake-up was a great idea. So far, if something gets  a big negative reaction with the grognards, it's a huge hit with me.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 25, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, true. But it's hard to be a barbarian of Argonessen in a group of otherwise normal PCs.



 Not really. Eberron dragonborn could have nothing to do with dragons per se, but instead be "adopted" by Syberys, Eberron or Khyber. In a way, they'd be dragonmarks embodied.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 25, 2007)

I preordered this from Amazon, got it for $12+change and free shipping.

I like this kind of stuff, it's interesting reading to me, and having it in full-color, hardbound print with lots of art is more appealing to me than an EnWorld commentary.

I am baffled why people are so peeved that WOTC is selling a book that they don't want.  Just don't buy it.  No angst, no suffering.

I want it, I am glad they are printing it.  

My wife loves good, black, russian caviar.  It's very expensive at $80 for like 4 ounces.  I think it's a waste of money, but I am not posting my distaste on the caviar company website for making it.  If my wife wants it once in a while, and she can afford it with her fun-money, then go for it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 25, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> And I'm quite sure some of those "Tieflings" were in fact Dragonborns, as me and others hypotethised sometimes ago! This would explain the PHB cover. It was right under our noses.



Eh, not so sure, all the horned guys in the preview images we've seen so far seemed more demonic than draconic to me . . . but we'll all see soon enough!!!



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Meh. More anthropomorphic lizard-men is not something I personally think that D&D was missing. And why invent a new race when there are already so many iconic races to choose from in the game? If you wanted dragons/lizards, there are lizardmen, half-dragons, draconians, dragon-touched, kobolds ....



Lizardfolk and kobolds are certainly iconic creatures, but as monsters to fight rather than as PCs.  Despite the PC options in "Races of the Dragon", "Savage Species" and other books.  While I wouldn't mind seeing a PC-style writeup of those two, never in a PHB! (that goes for orcs, hobgoblins and similar races too)

Half-dragons, draconic creatures (template), draconians and the many other "dragon descended" (term from "Races of the Dragon") all share the same rough "idea space" as the dragonborn . . . basically that of dragon-men characters.  But for inclusion in the first PHB, we wouldn't want a templated race (half-dragons, draconic creatures) both due to complexity and lessening the value of having these templates as monsters in the MM.  Plus the whole concept range of "dragon descended" is a bit confusing and doesn't have a solid "hook".  Draconians are very recognizably unique to Dragonlance and again are an evil monster race to boot, not really suitable for a PC race in the PHB.

Dragonborn have a clear hook and make perfect sense as an adventuring PC race, they are heroes called to serve by Bahamut!  (well, at least in 3e they were)  I imagine the 3e "sorta-template" mechanics will be dropped for a more standard PC race writeup.  I also think that while the race will still be a "good" race, they won't be solely tied to Bahamut anymore, but perhaps good dragons in general.

And the balance of concepts works well too!  You have your "celestial" race, the eladrin; your "fiendish" race, the tieflings; and your "draconic" race, the dragonborn!  They also work well with an alignment perspective, "good" race = dragonborn, "evil" race = tiefling, and "neutral" race = eladrin.

A lot of the races some of us would prefer will be in the MM anyway, with PC stats in the appendix.  So, it's a win-win for most of us!

I'm pretty excited, as I loved the dragonborn race in 3e but found the mechanics clunky.  I can't wait to see what they've done with the race in 4e!


----------



## erf_beto (Nov 25, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> It was said somewhere in one of the recent playtests that the mystery race makes good clerics.



 That's right! forgot about that!


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 25, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I preordered this from Amazon, got it for $12+change and free shipping.
> 
> I like this kind of stuff, it's interesting reading to me, and having it in full-color, hardbound print with lots of art is more appealing to me than an EnWorld commentary.
> 
> ...



Yes, but the internet and message boards are no place for rational behavior!  You should know that by now!


----------



## Driddle (Nov 25, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Something happening once doesn't really prove anything. If I win the lottery once, that doesn't make me more likely to win the lottery in the future.




It does if you bought a ton of lottery tickets with your first big payoff.

 :\  Just sayin...


----------



## Gundark (Nov 25, 2007)

My Cognitive dissonance has kicked in....

I'm good with Dragonborn. Actually a draconic race sounds good.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 25, 2007)

Didn't the playtest also mention something about the "mystery race" liking shiny things (ya know, treasure?)

Actually, the race list isn't so bad...

You have humans (the catchall). Elves, dwarves, and halflings (all divorced from their Tolkien roles somewhat) as the classics. Half-elves are the middle-ground race. Tieflings fill the dark/evil/angsty role. Dragonborn have the "born of dragon/dragons are cool" niche (bonus for being vaguely reptilian) and Eladrin are magical and fey-like (being form Feywild and akin to the old high-elves). 

All the classics are covered, plus three new-guys (all unique to D&D). Seems like a good mix of old and new.


----------



## Kurotowa (Nov 25, 2007)

You know what I think?  I think the designers took note of just how many people in 3.5 were playing aasimars, tieflings, and half-dragons.  And they said to themselves, "If our players like using these races so much, then let's just put them in the PHB already.  It's best to listen to our audience and help them do what they're going to do anyway."

So tieflings got a bit of a makeover, and got to keep their name because it's cool and has the most history in D&D.  Aasimars got fused with the high-elf trappings, a bit more of an in-depth revision, and a new name that wasn't as dorky.  And half-dragons got a new name, dragonborn, and a new racial identity of their own.

I have to say, I'm all for it.  Certainly I've seen more of those races played than I ever have half-orcs or gnomes.  Reworking them into PHB caliber races is a brilliant move, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 25, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I am baffled why people are so peeved that WOTC is selling a book that they don't want.



That's because you've mid-diagnosed the problem.  People are peeved because WotC is selling a book they _do_ want, but don't want to pay for.

Overall, this news sounds positive to me.

Personally I don't know where all this bellyaching over fluff comes from.  C'mon people; you can ignore fluff and rewrite it as you please.  Call them Lizardmen, or Draconians, or Drakons.  Say they're a race, or a one-off cross-breed event, or they're randomly placed under cabbage leaves by Bahamut himself.  It doesn't matter in the least, except to your campaign.  The only thing that matters is the rules, and how flexible they are, and what archetypes they support without massive house-ruling.

And since we don't have any rules at all at the moment, there is no basis for complaint.

We're going to need a bunch of threads to discuss each of these points individually, if we're going to discuss them in a rational matter.  This monster thread will only spiral out of control, as each person finds their own personal nit to gripe about, and nothing positive gets said.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Nov 25, 2007)

Initially, I was somewhat startled and put off by the dragonborn.  But I think they'll grow on me, particularly if they have shades of the "ancient reptilian precursor race" idea that's popular in a lot of sword and sorcery (and at least one modern day conspiracy theory!    )

I'm still kinda bummed it's not the orc.  WotC, if you're listening, keep the dragonborn, but drop the half-elf and put in the orc!!  

And as far as every class using the same progression, that's *hugely* *awesome* news for me.  On a thread in RPG.net, I had hoped that would be the case and now there's "evidence" this may be the case.  Rock!


----------



## Khuxan (Nov 25, 2007)

Every class using the same progression explains why the multiclass warload/wizard is still a warlord 10 - there's no need to switch classes per se, as long as you get different class features.


----------



## ruemere (Nov 25, 2007)

Personally, I don't like any race which is heavily biased toward any class. In 3.* you can have Dwarven Wizards and Halfling Fighters, but you're unlikely to play Orc Sorcerers.
I'm fine with Dragonborn as long playing one would not be equal to becoming party's red headed stepchild. 

Another possible problem comes with damage reduction (if that still exists in 4.0). Monks, natural weapon specialists, were severely handicapped when facing higher level extraplanars:
- low basic attack bonus against high armor class,
- low damage per hit against damage reduction,
- builds favouring low strength,
- magic implements supplementing these weak points were scarce in most game worlds.
Dragonborn, if they replace Monks as natural weapon specialists, will suffer from the same weaknesses as monks. 

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. I don't like any half-something races with no means of propagation.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 25, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Or we could change the name of the game to "Taverns & Tieflings"!



       

_I can't breathe, I can't breathe..._

 

 

 

 

 

 

OW! I think I cracked a rib.  :\


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't like any race which is heavily biased toward any class. In 3.* you can have Dwarven Wizards and Halfling Fighters, but you're unlikely to play Orc Sorcerers.



1) I think that the designers said there would no longer be minuses to stats, just positives. I really hope so, that way your Half-Orc just has a plus to str, but otherwise isn't a walking lump. 

2) Since the Tieflings had an empire, I'm willing to bet they 'breed true', like Eberron's half elves and half-orcs.


----------



## Goobermunch (Nov 25, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Something happening once doesn't really prove anything. If I win the lottery once, that doesn't make me more likely to win the lottery in the future.
> 
> Regardless, there's nothing to indicate so far that the dragonborn in 4E will be dramatically different than the dragonborn introduced in the latter half of 3.5E, so like I said, I'm not all that hopeful.




So wait a minute.  We're comparing an entirely random ordering of numbers (the lottery) with the activities of a relatively small group of people with rational motivations and an overriding theory of design to determine that the actions of the people will be like the numbers?  This seems foolish to me.

The fact is that the design team is nothing at all like a lottery.  They've got reasons for what they do and they've got a plan (the fact that we may  not like the plan is irrelevant for this discussion).  I think it's more than fair to infer that their actions and decisions with regard to the eladrin race may shed some light on their decisions with regard to the dragonborn.

Just sayin'.

--G


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Nov 25, 2007)

Just in case anyone has any doubt left about the truth of the scoop: Here are some images that show the differences between Tieflings and Dragonborn in the concept (and final) sketches. Tieflings have fairer skin, curved horns (like a satyr's) and a plain tail. Dragonborn have scaly skin, with "spikes" in their chin and tail, they have almost straight horns (at least what seems to be the "red dragonborn").

[sblock=Tieflings










[/sblock]

[sblock=Dragonborn


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 25, 2007)

I still think both of those pics are Tieflings. Wizards isn't going to create two new races that look similar enough to confuse people. Besides, they're both using the same style of wavy "flame" daggers which were mentioned as a signature Tiefling weapon. 

  Dragonborn looked basically like lizardmen in 3.5, and the original posted stated the same thing.


----------



## Gundark (Nov 25, 2007)

yeah I think so are all tieflings.....they do draconic though...

That said straight horns vs. curvy horns? Come on they would need more difference than that.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> You know what I think? I think the designers took note of just how many people in 3.5 were playing aasimars, tieflings, and half-dragons. And they said to themselves, "If our players like using these races so much, then let's just put them in the PHB already.



The missing piece of thinking there is that people were playing them _because_ they were different and unusual.  Now that they're mainstream they're no longer as interesting, and their place will be taken by other "exotics".  And we're stuck with a draconic furry in the PHB.  Thanks a lot WOTC.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The missing piece of thinking there is that people were playing them _because_ they were different and unusual.  Now that they're mainstream they're no longer as interesting, and their place will be taken by other "exotics".  And we're stuck with a draconic furry in the PHB.  Thanks a lot WOTC.



Not everything is about fashion. Some people actually like them on their merits. The fact that they gravitated to those specific things is what matters.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Not everything is about fashion. Some people actually like them on their merits. The fact that they gravitated to those specific things is what matters.



No, the fact that every D&D world will now have to cater for dragon halfbreeds as a default part of society because WOTC has seen fit to put them in the PHB is what matters.  Your worldbuilding is being dictated to you.

It's frustrating.  I think the designer's handle on rules is much better than their handle on aesthetics and "flavour", but it seems that MMORPGs have changed the goal posts around as far as they're concerned, so the gimmicks are coming out.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> No, the fact that every D&D world will now have to cater for dragon halfbreeds as a default part of society because WOTC has put them in the PHB is what matters.



That is bull. 

Just because it's in the PHB doesn't mean it has to be in there. As Wyatt said about Eberron, "Just because there are tieflings in the PHB doesn't mean suddenly a tiefling city is going to pop up." There are tieflings in there, but to such a low degree that it's not a problem. 

I fully expect them to just offer very little in the way of dragon-things, simply because Eberron doesn't accommodate it due to what Dragons are in the setting. 

Eberron will do fine despite there being no gnomes in the PHB.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> That is bull.
> 
> Just because it's in the PHB doesn't mean it has to be in there. As Wyatt said about Eberron, "Just because there are tieflings in the PHB doesn't mean suddenly a tiefling city is going to pop up." There are tieflings in there, but to such a low degree that it's not a problem.
> 
> ...



Be that as it may (and not that I care one iota about whatever happens to Eberron which should be used to freakazoid PCs by now), what if you don't want dragonfolk in every game for flavour reasons?

Stiff biccies.  They're in the PHB, you'll have to ban them overtly.  Why they couldn't just farm them out to a supplement is a mystery.  Oh yeah, gimmicks.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Be that as it may (and not that I care one iota about whatever happens to Eberron which should be used to freakazoid PCs by now), what if you don't want dragonfolk in every game for flavour reasons?



The same thing you do if you don't want anything else in your game: be a man and tell the players no.

And, could you try to be a little more condescending? The colors on my screen aren't running from all the vitriol yet.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The missing piece of thinking there is that people were playing them _because_ they were different and unusual.  Now that they're mainstream they're no longer as interesting, and their place will be taken by other "exotics".  And we're stuck with a draconic furry in the PHB.  Thanks a lot WOTC.




I look at it this way:

Let's take 5 of the most popular fantasy worlds of the last few centuries- Arthurian Britain, Middle Earth, Hyboria, Nehwon (the world where Lankhmar is) and Thieves World. 

Dragonborn fit in three (Hyboria, Nehwon and Lankhmar), Tieflings in 4 (everything but Middle Earth).

Halflings and Elves on the other hand, fit in only one, Middle Earth.

So maybe some of these racial changes are an attempt to make D&D more of a toolkit for emulating fantasy fiction and less of an attempt to make a LOTR game with the serial numbers filed off?


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> The same thing you do if you don't want anything else in your game: be a man and tell the players no.



...and what else?  Spiked chain wielding warlords?  Eladrin?  Emerald frost?  It gets to the point where you go, "why am I playing this game?"  The frustrating thing is that it's all so easily preventable by WOTC, if they actually wanted to prevent it.  But they don't.  Eberron shows their specific taste in the game, and now it's being injected into 4E, which is fine, there's room for Eberron for some.  Problem is, by going specific, and objectionable, they shut out other tastes that would be served by something more generic.  

They could just leave things generic and leave the specific to a supplement as the other editions saw fit to do mostly, but no, we're getting specific in the PHB, so their aesthetics can be specifically rejected, and are harder to ignore or ban.  It's a pity that their decision is final.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 25, 2007)

There's nothing generic about the selection of races in the 3e PHB.

It fits one and exactly one fantasy world: Middle Earth.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Be that as it may (and not that I care one iota about whatever happens to Eberron which should be used to freakazoid PCs by now), what if you don't want dragonfolk in every game for flavour reasons?
> 
> Stiff biccies.  They're in the PHB, you'll have to ban them overtly.  Why they couldn't just farm them out to a supplement is a mystery.  Oh yeah, gimmicks.



Look, there is nothing wrong with being disappointed about not liking dragonborn. But all the arguments you're making are the kind someone makes when they are disappointed when their favorite didn't get picked. The racial list has changed before, and there is a LOT of variety between tables. So much variety that it would _destroy your brain!_ I can respect them for perhaps doing some detailed research on what people are playing and then giving their fans what they want.

I mean you always include the PHB races? ALL of them, in every campaign? Personally, I can do with out some of them sometimes, and have. That doesn't mean I hate 3.5.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Well, at least you did as I requested, so I guess I should thank you.

Your kvetching is acknowledged. See you for 5e.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 25, 2007)

Point One: Can we do something about those pics? They're stretching my screen all to hell.

Point Two: I'd be _stunned_ if the dragonborn in 4E had the same "You used to be something else on were changed" aspect of the dragonborn in 3E. It's an added complication in what's supposed to be a streamlined, easy-to-learn system. (And it doesn't lend itself to an ongoing empire.)


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Nehwon and Lankhmar



Lankhmar is a city in Nehwon.  But whatever.

What if I like demonpeople but not dragonpeople because the latter are lame-o furries?  Well, you're kind of stuck with banning them, because WOTC didn't put them in a supplement.

Furries are popular, amongst people who like furries.  But a lot of people HATE them.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There's nothing generic about the selection of races in the 3e PHB.
> 
> It fits one and exactly one fantasy world: Middle Earth.



Not even. Center World, maybe. Or Ends Planet. The point is that it's more like a knock off of Middle Earth. D&D is really its own genre, and it evolves.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Lankhmar is a city in Nehwon.  But whatever.
> 
> What if I like demonpeople but not dragonpeople because the latter are lame-o furries?  Well, you're kind of stuck with banning them, because WOTC didn't put them in a supplement.




I meant Lankhmar and Sanctuary.

But whatever.

What if I'd rather not run a Middle Earth clone.

Because there's one, and ONLY ONE fantasy world that the races in the 3e PHB fit.

Sorry, this change is long overdue.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> But all the arguments you're making are the kind someone makes when they are disappointed when their favorite didn't get picked.



No, it's the opposite - I want stuff not there, rather than there.  There is a difference.  It's like an unwelcome houseguest who you can't shut the door on without bodily throwing them out.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Because there's one, and ONLY ONE fantasy world that the races in the 3e PHB fit.
> 
> Sorry, this change is long overdue.



Then you buy a supplement! The PHB should be the bland crap that is GURPS, because everything else is for fanboy anime furry videogame kiddies that obviously is where the market is going.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Because there's one, and ONLY ONE fantasy world that the races in the 3e PHB fit.



No, you're forgetting that Raymond E Feist Riftwar world whose name escapes me (but that's kind of cheating on my part because it's based on a D&D world).  And I think there's elves kicking around in at least one of the older author's worlds.  Can't recall his name.  Very popular though, still seeing his books on shelves for decades now.

Are there gnomes in Middle Earth?

And anyway, the only reason why modern fantasy authors avoid the set of elves, dwarves etc. like the plague (generally) and come up with pseudo-name solutions like Trolloc or human variations with such specific differences that they sub in for dwarves and elves ala Eddings is because Tolkien Did It, and they want to be considered Original.  DMs do this too and change the list for sake of being Original, but the default is a good generic default to fall back on.  Make it less-than-generic and this changes somewhat.  Actual dragons = classic...dragon furries = a bit like anchovies.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> are lame-o furries?




Dragons don't have fur dude.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Dragons don't have fur dude.



Scalies, then.  Whatever.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Scalies, then.  Whatever.



They make creams for that now.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> No, you're forgetting that Raymond E Feist Riftwar world whose name escapes me (but that's kind of cheating on my part because it's based on a D&D world).




Right, and there's elves and dwarves in Sword of Shannarra too. But no Halflings, no Half-Orcs (or Orcs if I recall correctly).

And there's Dwarves in Arthurian legends

But Halfings and Half-Orcs are the real keys. They are MUCH less common in fantasy fiction as whole (especially sword and sorcery fiction) than lizard men (which I think Dragonborn could pass for) or demon-bloods.



> Are there gnomes in Middle Earth?




Yeah, gnomes are sort of an attempt to bring a different sort of woodland demihuman into the game.

I think if you look at some traditions, you'd see things called elves that are pretty close to D&D gnomes.



> And anyway, the only reason why modern fantasy authors avoid the set of elves, dwarves etc. like the plague (generally) and come up with pseudo-name solutions like Trolloc is because Tolkien Did It, and they want to be considered Original.




That's one reason yes. Another reason is that Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth is a more or less entirely new fantasy tradition. And because his shadow is so large, its easier to emulate Howard's Hyboria, as Nehwon and Sanctuary did. 

But still, lizard/dragon blood and demon blood characters are much more to the sword and sorcery side of D&D's roots, and I am very happy about that.

Too much high fantasy in D&D imo. 

YMMV and all that.


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 25, 2007)

Dragonborn?  What cool roleplaying opportunities! A race that has congenital amnesia but gains secret abilities or powers that can only be discovered in play!  

I can't wait for the sourcebooks:

The Dragonborn Identity
The Dragonborn Supremacy
The Dragonborn Ultimatum

Too bad they had to spell the name that way, though.  I think the other spelling would have been cooler.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> They make creams for that now.



Next you'll be telling me that crabmen are in there.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Nov 25, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The PHB should be the bland crap that is GURPS




I disagree, a lot.
1) Bland does not get people interested.
2) D&D needs its own clear identity. I like the direction they are taking it. Plenty of recognizable stuff, now homogeneously blended instead of being LotR with every other cool (or no so) idea that some gamer had in the last 30 years grafted on to it.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Shannarra



That's teh one.


> That's one reason yes. Another reason is that Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth is a more or less entirely new fantasy tradition.



Bollocks.

Absolute and utter bollocks.

Go read _The King of Elfland's Daughter_, _Three Hearts & Three Lions_, and then maybe consider stopping to think that it all came from MYTHOLOGY anyway, which means that TOLKIEN DIDN'T COME UP WITH IT, he just stole it from the real world, just like his languages.  Which makes it GENERIC FANTASY.  BY DEFINITION.

Can't recall dragonborn in mythology.  Maybe they were hiding behind the crabmen.  Yeah, that's gotta be it.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I disagree, a lot.



Rechan wasn't serious.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 25, 2007)

By the way, in regards to the "Horned Folk" images.

The spikier ones that some said might be dragonborn?  All male.
The smoother ones?  Female.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky, I don't think genres are prescriptive. They are descriptive. There is no one ultimate "generic" Bible with all the genre rules in them. You can break rules, but that's only because people have individually made up their own. In reality, everything is in flux. Chaotic, messy flux. It's the same with language as a whole, really.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 25, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> A race that has congenital amnesia but gains secret abilities or powers that can only be discovered in play!




That actually sounds good to me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm SO GLAD that I was SO WRONG.

Dragonborn win. They have a lame name, but I have the foreboding impression that EVERYTHING will have a lame name in the 4e core because the crew defaults to the compound word like a security blanket.

But even more interesting to me....even more compelling....is what I see in the classes list....

Didja see that?

DRUID

Woah.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I disagree, a lot.
> 1) Bland does not get people interested.
> 2) D&D needs its own clear identity. I like the direction they are taking it. Plenty of recognizable stuff, now homogeneously blended instead of being LotR with every other cool (or no so) idea that some gamer had in the last 30 years grafted on to it.



Adjust your sarcasm meter. I was being facetious.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Tquirky, I don't think genres are prescriptive.



And WOTC is *prescribing* every D&D game eladrin, and dragondudes.  Oh and "warlords".  By default.  

I hope they BYO their own spiked chains.  It must be tough being a "warlord" and all with no army.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> And WOTC is *prescribing* every D&D game eladrin, and dragondudes.  By default.



Well, then you could argue that all the way to, "New Editions are Bad!"

edit: And that's fine. But we might as well skip to the chase.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Well, then you could argue that all the way to, "New Editions are Bad!"



You could argue, also, that what you've said right there is one humdinger of a straw man, too.

I think WOTC has got some really good ideas for 4E, and I'm looking forward to the majority of them.  I can't fault them from anything they've said re: mechanics, or cleaning up the game generally.  I just wish they'd get the flavour of some of the specifics under control, though, because it has issues (IMO).  Or at least put them in a supplement where they can be ignored.  But no.


> edit: And that's fine. But we might as well skip to the chase.



Because everyone who isn't on-board with absolutely everything is an unreasonable grognard.  Loook, we can't all be MerricB, you know?


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Kintara said:
			
		

> Well, then you could argue that all the way to, "New Editions are Bad!"
> 
> edit: And that's fine. But we might as well skip to the chase.



Oh, new editions are fine. Just as long as they're the same as the last one.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Oh, new editions are fine. Just as long as they're the same as the last one.



Because to be a true 4E fan, you have to like ALL of it.  Or did I miss that memo?


----------



## Rechan (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Because to be a true 4E fan, you have to like ALL of it.  Or did I miss that memo?



Yeah. The memo also said "To be interested in the 4e fluff, you must be a freakazoid furry, and therefore you are bad".


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Nov 25, 2007)

EDIT - Really not worth it, I'm sorry I posted.


----------



## withak (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> You could argue, also, that what you've said right there is one humdinger of a straw man, too.
> 
> I think WOTC has got some really good ideas for 4E, and I'm looking forward to the majority of them.  I can't fault them from anything they've said re: mechanics, or cleaning up the game generally.  I just wish they'd get the flavour of some of the specifics under control, though, because it has issues (IMO).  Or at least put them in a supplement where they can be ignored.  But no.




I'm pretty much "meh" about Dragonborn as well, but we have so little info about what they're going to be like in 4e. (Or at least I hope we don't -- if they're not too dissimilar from their 3.5e counterparts, I don't think I'll be using them at all.) I'm going to wait and see what comes out of the first preview book. Who knows, it could be really cool stuff.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But even more interesting to me....even more compelling....is what I see in the classes list....
> 
> Didja see that?
> 
> ...




Right next to Swordmage, which is NOT in the PH.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> You could argue, also, that what you've said right there is one humdinger of a straw man, too.
> 
> I think WOTC has got some really good ideas for 4E, and I'm looking forward to the majority of them.  I can't fault them from anything they've said re: mechanics, or cleaning up the game generally.  I just wish they'd get the flavour of some of the specifics under control, though, because it has issues (IMO).  Or at least put them in a supplement where they can be ignored.  But no.



No, my point is that you are implying that they are getting D&D wrong, when, really, it's just that it's changing in a way you don't like. That's fine. You deserve to have the version of D&D you want as much as I do. It's just that the version we're getting is the one we're getting. I think it makes more sense to argue with that established.

Edit: In other words, I would respect what you were saying if you said, "I don't like the idea of Dragonborn, and I don't like that 4e will have Dragonborn in it. It's a waste of space for me because they won't be in my campaign." Fine. I get that. I'll use them, though. Or at least someone at my table will, and I won't begrudge them for it.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 25, 2007)

> And WOTC is prescribing every D&D game eladrin, and dragondudes. Oh and "warlords". By default.




  I thought you liked generic fantasy? Seriously, reptile-men are one of the oldest fantasy races around, especially in sword and sorcery type stuff. Didn't show up in Tolkein, granted, but all over the place. And Eladrin sound like they're going to be closer to Tolkein-esque high elves than D&D elves have ever been. The Warlord is a very recognizable archtype that's never been doable in D&D. 

  I just don't see the tragedy here. Should every edition of D&D have the exact same races and classes? Even the ones nobody really plays anymore except out of habit? They're introducing new races and classes, but it all strikes me as very archtypical stuff that is very common in fantasy outside of D&D. I like that, personally.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> No, my point is that you are implying that they are getting D&D wrong



I'm arguing that they've got D&D's core wrong.  Not necessarily D&D, but the core, yes.  And I'm making my case.  You don't have to agree, but there it is.


> I think it makes more sense to argue with that established.



And in other news, the sky is usually blue during the day.


> but all over the place



As monsters, rather than "our heroes".  Yeah.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> I'm arguing that they've got D&D's core wrong.  Not necessarily D&D, but the core, yes.  And I'm making my case.  You don't have to agree, but there it is.



Okay, fine. I misunderstood.

Are the 3.5 races what you consider core D&D? Edit: Oh, this was the problem last time. It's because they are "generic." I don't think they are. I don't even really think there is such a thing. I think maybe we just don't think about this stuff the same way....


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Are the 3.5 races what you consider core D&D?



Nope.  Half-elf and half-orc could be gone without being missed by me (and maybe gnome - they seem redundant...apparently the designers agree).  I'd welcome aasimar and tiefling sooner than them, but maybe with better names (aasimar sounds a lot made up).  Wouldn't miss halflings either, they're truly Tolkien.

I'd welcome lizardfolk sooner than dragondudes, and the reasons aren't logical.  But that's aesthetics for you.

But anyway, this is academic - the core should serve the most people, and it's getting specific.  Elves and dwarves, with mythological basis, can't really be considered anything but generic.  Dragondudes also bring the whole "monsters as PCs" can of worms into things, but a lot of people see no problem with the heroes and monsters being cut from exactly the same cloth.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> But anyway, this is academic - the core should serve the most people....



See, this is where we agree. Unfortunately, there's not much more we can say, though, because my opinion doesn't match yours after that. 

Edit: You think historically, and think the races should be safer representations from sources like Tolkien and earlier. I personally think that tastes have changed, are changing, and will change more later. If that means Dragonborn, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I look at it this way:
> 
> Let's take 5 of the most popular fantasy worlds of the last few centuries- Arthurian Britain, Middle Earth, Hyboria, Nehwon (the world where Lankhmar is) and Thieves World.
> 
> ...




It's been a while since I've read some of the materal you're talking about, but in both cases, wouldn't dragonborn and tieflings be the types of things players are killing? No dragonborn is going to walk into a Lankhimar. Maybe Santuary if you're GM is feeling generous that day. In Hyboria, if the GM doesn't describe every human meeting one of those races as having an instant and total distruct of the "inhuman" nature of these outsiders, then you're not really using Hyboria.

I'm not saying you're wrong in other aspects, that say, halflings and gnomes, as written, are a D&D thing, but ironically enough, you've left out one of the biggest fantasy series of all. The Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. Both have dozens, if not hundreds of books.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> See, this is where we agree. Unfortunately, there's not much more we can say, though, because my opinion doesn't match yours after that.



We've established that, and I'm happy to agree that you're wrong, and you're happy to agree that I am.

Anyway, back to the real issue at hand:

Crabmen = new hotness
Dragonborn = old and busted

Clearly, crabmen in the core serves the most people.  It's subjective, but just as appropriate as dragonborn in the core, because they both belong in every D&D campaign and world equally as much.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> We've established that, and I'm happy to agree that you're wrong, and you're happy to agree that I am.



As long as we're happy.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> As long as we're happy.



"Cra-a-ab people, cra-a-ab people, taste like crab, talk like people."

Coming to your game, soon!  Whether you want them or not!  Only, less crabby, more dragony.  Or something.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> "Cra-a-ab people, cra-a-ab people, taste like crab, talk like people."
> 
> Coming to your game, soon!  Whether you want them or not!  Only, less crabby, more dragony.  Or something.



I could TOTALLY PLAY a Dragoncrab!


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> I could TOTALLY PLAY a Dragoncrab!



There's *only* one class for you then: Warlord!  It makes about as much sense in an adventuring party as a dragoncrab PC does, so it's perfect!  Those WOTC guys, always thinking ahead!

(Actually, it does have a certain illogical beauty to it, in a sort of half-vampire half-cow half-godzilla kind of way, as was the style at the beginning of 3E.)


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> What if I like demonpeople but not dragonpeople because the latter are lame-o furries?  Well, you're kind of stuck with banning them, because WOTC didn't put them in a supplement.




What if I like halflings but not gnomes? What if I like elves but not half-elves? What if I don't like half-orcs? Or monks, or spiked chains, say? Well, I was stuck with them in 3.5 in exactly the same way that people will be stuck with tieflings and dragonborn in 4e. 

The previous editions always made choices about what was in the basic rule books. While 4e is obviously making some big changes, I'm not sure that they're any bigger than the changes between OD&D and 1st ed AD&D.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> There's *only* one class for you then: Warlord!



He'd be a WarKING. Because he'd be King Crabantula! Inspirational Monster from the Depths of the Ocean!


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Well, I was stuck with them in 3.5 in exactly the same way that people will be stuck with tieflings and dragonborn in 4e.



Yes...and WOTC have a choice - they could add to the pile of stuff in the core which is questionable whether it should be there, or put it in a supplement.  I didn't like spiked chains either, but that's not an invitation to put in more of them.  I don't hear anyone complaining about longswords in the core game though...maybe because, they fit.


----------



## redmagerush (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Yes...and WOTC have a choice - they could add to the pile of stuff in the core which is questionable whether it should be there, or put it in a supplement.  I didn't like spiked chains either, but that's not an invitation to put in more of them.  I don't hear anyone complaining about longswords in the core game though...maybe because, they fit.





Well, I do know people who complained because in reality a longsword was more a DnD great sword. So there is that.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Well, I do know people who complained because in reality a longsword was more a DnD great sword. So there is that.



No, there isn't that.  Most people can't agree on the difference between a flail, ball & chain, mace and morningstar (and yes, I know what the D&D definitions are), but that's neither here nor there with regard to the appropriateness of a spiked chain versus a long sword.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Yes...and WOTC have a choice - they could add to the pile of stuff in the core which is questionable whether it should be there, or put it in a supplement.



Come over to the happy side where the cool people love the new dragon people and are excited to populate their Points of Light with them as they play their Eladrin _War_lords and Dragonborn _War_locks! We also love words with "war" in them. Warband! Awesome! Warlike! Yes, please! Warriors? Yaay! World of Warcraft? Oooooh, yeah!


----------



## Sammael (Nov 25, 2007)

It bears mentioning that neither of the two tiefling minis from Desert of Desolation looks anything like the tiefling illustrations we were shown thus far. Both are red skinned humans with white hair, small white horns, and long devilish tails.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Come over to the happy side where the cool people love the new dragon people and are excited to populate their Points of Light with them as they play their Eladrin Warlords and Dragonborn Warlocks! We also love words with "war" in them. Warband! Awesome! Warlike! Yes, please! Warriors? Yaay! World of Warcraft? Oooooh, yeah!



Well...I do like warlocks.  And Points of Light.

Over there on the happy side...do you have balloons?  And puppies?


----------



## redmagerush (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> No, there isn't that.  Most people can't agree on the difference between a flail, ball & chain, mace and morningstar (and yes, I know what the D&D definitions are), but that's neither here nor there with regard to the appropriateness of a spiked chain versus a long sword.




::shrug::

If you say so. 

Personally I hate that DnD forces you to have multiple sentient races in your setting. The generic baseline should be human only.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Well...I do like warlocks.  And Points of Light.
> 
> Over there on the happy side...do you have balloons?  And puppies?



Yes, but the balloon-puppies are reserved for the Eladrin Warlords to ride into battle!


----------



## Ander00 (Nov 25, 2007)

If this is true, my guess was right. Damn.

Oh well, at least it's not spellscales.


cheers


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> Yes, but the balloon-puppies are reserved for the Eladrin Warlords to ride into battle!



That makes sense...

I'm in.


----------



## redmagerush (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> That makes sense...
> 
> I'm in.





Yay, something we can all agree on.

As long as they aren't poke-mounts that is.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> No, the fact that every D&D world will now have to cater for dragon halfbreeds as a default part of society because WOTC has seen fit to put them in the PHB is what matters.  Your worldbuilding is being dictated to you.
> 
> It's frustrating.  I think the designer's handle on rules is much better than their handle on aesthetics and "flavour", but it seems that MMORPGs have changed the goal posts around as far as they're concerned, so the gimmicks are coming out.



You're argument doesn't float.  I don't have to include dragonborn in my 4e campaign.  Doesn't matter if they are in the PHB, I just don't if I don't want them.  Will I have players ask to play them?  Yes.  But I can still say no.

Just as I never used gnomes in my 3.0/3.5 games (then again, nobody ever asked to play a gnome in my games anyway).  If I decided to move away from a tolkieny setting and rule out elves and dwarves, easy peasy, I did it.

My only worry is when the dragonborn and tieflings are added to D&D Online: Stormreach (or its successor).  Then you will see dragony and demony dudes running all over the place!

But my tabletop campaign is under my control.  No problems.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 25, 2007)

Ander00 said:
			
		

> Oh well, at least it's not spellscales.



I thought the spellscales were pretty cool in concept . . . . but that terrible artwork!!!


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 25, 2007)

> You're argument doesn't float.



It depends on how many "gnomes" in the game that there are to throw out, though.  Just ranting that maybe it would be an idea to keep them to a minimum.  Luckily, things like classes, races and weapons don't tend to have other components of the game dependent on them, so you're right, they can be removed.

In any case, I'm just micturating into the zephyr here, as has been pointed out.


----------



## Goobermunch (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Well...I do like warlocks.  And Points of Light.
> 
> Over there on the happy side...do you have balloons?  And puppies?




Of course we have puppies.  What do you think the tieflings eat?

--G


----------



## DarkWhite (Nov 25, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> It bears mentioning that neither of the two tiefling minis from Desert of Desolation looks anything like the tiefling illustrations we were shown thus far. Both are red skinned humans with white hair, small white horns, and long devilish tails.



I hope that doesn't mean that ALL tieflings are now red-skinned, white-haired, with horns and tails?  I kind of like the idea that tielfings have decended from multiple demonic sources, and therefore are wildly varied - I like my Tiefling Blademaster (WarDrums) - and their racial abilities and resistances should likewise be varied - when you encounter a tiefling, they should be unpredictable, you don't know what to expect from them as a race.  Otherwise, they're the new drow - they all look alike, I just can't tell them apart.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 25, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> By the way, in regards to the "Horned Folk" images.
> 
> The spikier ones that some said might be dragonborn?  All male.
> The smoother ones?  Female.



What are you saying?  That there's some subliminal message in the concept art about females having curves and males having something that's straight, hard, and protrudes at an acute angle ... from their head?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 25, 2007)

So, if the dragonborn are real, instead of just a catchy rumor, I'm perfectly okay with them.

As others have said, reptilian people are an old stand-by of both sword and sorcery novels and of D&D (see yuan-ti and lizardfolk). Having a detailed, scaly race in the PHB (for use either as PCs or NPCs) is a pretty good idea, I think; it's getting further from the "all Tolkien, all the time"  racial line-up of the earlier (A)D&D editions, but that's not a bad thing. 

Linking them with dragons seems also like a good idea; the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, after all, and dragons are _the_ iconic monsters, both in D&D and in reality. A lot of people like dragons, and would undoubtedly find a dragonborn race interesting. (I think this is another case of WotC re-using or re-imagining a name used earlier; I really don't think the DB are going to be templated creatures in 4e.)

I also hope this will ease the worries of those people who were concerned about the supposed focus on fiends w. tiefling, warlock etc.; if dragonborn are in the PHB, you are going to see a lot of emphasis on dragons as well. (And the eladrin are probably going to be the fey/celestial race.)

Finally, what is it with people complaining about names? With eladrin, there were complaints it didn't mean anything; with dragonborn, it's a "lame compound word". Would you be any happier if they'd been named "draccaryn" or something similar? I doubt so.


----------



## epochrpg (Nov 25, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> I thought the spellscales were pretty cool in concept . . . . but that terrible artwork!!!




I had a player who insisted on playing a spell-scale in my campaign and I begrudgingly agreed.  He also declared his character (who was supposed to be a knight) wore sequined rainbow suits to match his scaly, iridescent skin.  In order to avoid dealing with more such freakshows, I declared he was unique-- there were no other members of his species on the planet.  I hated all that stuff about the town's "Spell-scale district" as if they had always been around.  

I think that the dragon bloodline would have been a better way of dealing with a race of humans with draconic blood.  

As for tieflings, I suppose we'll have to rely on 2nd ed resources & tables to make the cool wacky random tieflings of the past.  Every game I've been in with tieflings has done this anyway in 3.x so it will not be an issue in 4e.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 25, 2007)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> Dragonborn have scaly skin, with "spikes" in their chin and tail, they have almost straight horns (at least what seems to be the "red dragonborn").




Then there's this picture on the Wizards site, which is handily labeled "Tiefling Warlock." Note the spiky chin. And if the horns aren't straight, they're less curvy than the female's.

I think the pictures you're identifying as dragonborn are all male tieflings.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Nov 25, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Then there's this picture on the Wizards site, which is handily labeled "Tiefling Warlock." Note the spiky chin. And if the horns aren't straight, they're less curvy than the female's.
> 
> I think the pictures you're identifying as dragonborn are all male tieflings.




Ok, ok, my bad. Was a wrong guess. It must be that I got to see the 3e dragonborn AFTER I posted those images. The spiky chin must be like beard or something.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 25, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Then there's this picture on the Wizards site, which is handily labeled "Tiefling Warlock." Note the spiky chin. And if the horns aren't straight, they're less curvy than the female's.
> 
> I think the pictures you're identifying as dragonborn are all male tieflings.



Either that, or they figured that the dragonborn resemble tieflings enough that they can pass for them, and since dragonborn are the mystery race, they weren't about to label the picture "Dragonborn Warlock".  The reason that the pictures exist in the first place may be because someone thought it would be clever to hide them in plain sight, to reduce the chance of leaks.  They can always just say, "no, no, that's a tiefling, not whatever it was you thought."

Anyway, just devil's advocate here.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2007)

1. Okay, first I wish I had proofread my letter to Morrus a few times, there are some really embarrassing typos left in it. 

This sentence: "I no that I all this might soun a strange..." for example makes me cry.   

I wrote the email well after midnight, but really should have payed better attention. 

2. "I couldn't find any passage saying that those and only those detailed would be in the PHB. (Five base classes certainly seem to much.)"  should read:

"I couldn't find any passage saying that those and only those detailed would be in the PHB. (Five base classes certainly DON'T seem TOO much.)" As in "I would be very surprised if there were only five core classes in the PHB."

Oh, and the Dragonborn pictures I remember didn't look anything like the "possible Dragonborn" picture linked to before. I'd say that is simply a Tiefling. Although the Tiefling in the picture I remember had curved, not spiky horns.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Either that, or they figured that the dragonborn resemble tieflings enough that they can pass for them, and since dragonborn are the mystery race, they weren't about to label the picture "Dragonborn Warlock".  The reason that the pictures exist in the first place may be because someone thought it would be clever to hide them in plain sight, to reduce the chance of leaks.  They can always just say, "no, no, that's a tiefling, not whatever it was you thought."




That's been my working theory, and still is.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 25, 2007)

I think it's much more likely that they haven't leaked any pictures of the dragonborn, period.

If they did look like "spikelings," that would be lame to the max.


----------



## Tewligan (Nov 25, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> "Cra-a-ab people, cra-a-ab people, taste like crab, talk like people."
> 
> *The option to play them* coming to your game, soon!  *In case* Whether you want them or not!  Only, less crabby, more dragony.  Or something.



FIFY.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Nov 25, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> 1. Okay, first I wish I had proofread my letter to Morrus a few times, there are some really embarrassing typos left in it.
> 
> This sentence: "I no that I all this might soun a strange..." for example makes me cry.
> 
> ...




Let's put it simple, then. Did dragonborn in the R&C have dragon heads like their 3e versions? (please say no!)


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 25, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> 1. Okay, first I wish I had proofread my letter to Morrus a few times, there are some really embarrassing typos left in it.
> 
> This sentence: "I no that I all this might soun a strange..." for example makes me cry.
> 
> ...




Thank you very much for the clarifications.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 25, 2007)

> No, the fact that every D&D world will now have to cater for dragon halfbreeds as a default part of society because WOTC has seen fit to put them in the PHB is what matters.




That's funny, because Dark Sun doesn't cater to gnomes, who were in the PHB for 2nd Edition when Dark Sun was released. And Dragonlance dropped halflings for kender back in the 1980s. And Birthright really altered those races away from the PHB core interpretation.



> Your worldbuilding is being dictated to you.




That's right. WotC is standing over my shoulder while I do the latest revision to my personal campaign setting and forcing me to replace the races I've been using for over 10 years with the ones in the PHB instead.

...


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2007)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> Let's put it simple, then. Did dragonborn in the R&C have dragon heads like their 3e versions? (please say no!)




I didn't even know there were creatures called Dragonborn in 3E. Where did they appear? 

I'd say the ones in R&C had "dragonlike" heads. No horns for example that I can remember, but the heads looked like I could imagine the head of a dragon. Their whole body (as far as you could see) was covered by scales.  

The best way to describe them would be antropomorphic dragons (without wings).


----------



## Rechan (Nov 26, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> I didn't even know there were creatures called Dragonborn in 3E. Where did they appear?



Races of the Dragon.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 26, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> I didn't even know there were creatures called Dragonborn in 3E. Where did they appear?



Races of the Dragon, they were a templated race with some progressive feats that could be used to add dragon themed power as level increased.  If you remove the template part that's probably fairly similar to how they're being implemented in 4e.



			
				morbiczer said:
			
		

> I'd say the ones in R&C had "dragonlike" heads. No horns for example that I can remember, but the heads looked like I could imagine the head of a dragon. Their whole body (as far as you could see) was covered by scales.  The best way to describe them would be antropomorphic dragons (without wings).



Pretty much like the default 3.5e version, though they tended to have horns as well.
Picture here http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rodragon_gallery/94117.jpg


----------



## rounser (Nov 26, 2007)

> Finally, what is it with people complaining about names? With eladrin, there were complaints it didn't mean anything; with dragonborn, it's a "lame compound word". Would you be any happier if they'd been named "draccaryn" or something similar? I doubt so.



Well, "neither" is an option too.  They could *do some research into mythology* or maybe, buy a good thesaurus.  Why isn't tiefling named "cambion"?  That's the english word for it.  There are lots of forgotten words like "hobbit" out there in ye olde english which it wouldn't be too much trouble to find.  For example "trow" isn't used in D&D yet (Hackmaster picked it up though, cool word).

I'd be very surprised if there isn't some mythological reptile people name somewhere out there.  And something real like sidhe would have been better than eladrin...maybe not exactly sidhe, too many puns.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 26, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Well, "neither" is an option too.  They could *do some research into mythology* or maybe, buy a good thesaurus.  Why isn't tiefling named "cambion"?  That's the english word for it.  There are lots of forgotten words like "hobbit" out there in ye olde english which it wouldn't be too much trouble to find.  For example "trow" isn't used in D&D yet (Hackmaster picked it up though, cool word).
> 
> I'd be very surprised if there isn't some mythological reptile people name somewhere out there.  And something real like sidhe would have been better than eladrin...maybe not exactly sidhe, too many puns.




Why isn't "tiefling" named "cambion"? My guess is because "tiefling" is Wizards' intellectual property, but cambion, as the english word for a half-demon, can't be made into it. There was a quote a while ago from one of the developers that said that's why they produce so many compund names for monsters, Hasbro legal want unique names that haven't already been used elsewhere. That's the problem with all the classical names as well.

I'm noting that Tiefling, Eladrin and Dragonborn are all original TSR or WotC names.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 26, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Well, "neither" is an option too.  They could *do some research into mythology* or maybe, buy a good thesaurus.  Why isn't tiefling named "cambion"?  That's the english word for it.



Tiefling comes from the German word Teufel, yes it essentially comes out to mean Devil-ling or Deep-ling, but really to a lot of people German just sounds better.


----------



## Derren (Nov 26, 2007)

The word "Tief" means "deep" in german.

So in modern day "germanification" "Tiefling" would mean "Deepling" and not "Devilling"


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The same thing you do if you don't want anything else in your game: be a man and tell the players no.
> 
> And, could you try to be a little more condescending?




And who says irony is dead?

Again, this all seems much ado about nothing. There isn't actually any real information to go off. It's all just conjecture, some it wild, based on a few column inches of fluff text that most people haven't read.

My color is still unimpressed.


----------



## Koewn (Nov 26, 2007)

Dragonborns are the new kobold.


----------



## Ander00 (Nov 26, 2007)

Teufling probably wouldn't have worked quite so well but the name's still likely intended to be based on the word "Teufel". As far as I'm concerned, Tiefling is a perfectly fine name for the race.

I am not thrilled about a name like Dragonborn (and if I had dared hope, I would've hoped for something else as the mystery race). In any case, the name's still a fair bit better than Spellscales, Raptorans or Goliaths.

Goofy names are by no means a new feature of 4E.


cheers


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 26, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> For example "trow" isn't used in D&D yet (Hackmaster picked it up though, cool word).



It is. Remember those black-skinned elves? Yep, it's the drow - just a different spelling for trow.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 26, 2007)

When I was DMing (way back in the day) I changed the names of all the races except Humans anyway, and assumed that the names in the book were the names for them in the Human language.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Nov 26, 2007)

Rumor confirmed: another Hungarian poster in the wizards forum, *kunadam* (who is a very active poster -no "plant" as many have called morbiczer) has bought the book and is reading it tonight: he will post tomorrow. He says the art is like 3e art (only better, says he). here's the link http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=957107&page=5


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 26, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> . . .the fact that every D&D world will now have to cater for dragon halfbreeds as a default part of society because WOTC has seen fit to put them in the PHB is what matters.






			
				Tquirky said:
			
		

> Problem is, by going specific, and objectionable, they shut out other tastes that would be served by something more generic.
> 
> They could just leave things generic and leave the specific to a supplement as the other editions saw fit to do mostly, but no, we're getting specific in the PHB, so their aesthetics can be specifically rejected, and are harder to ignore or ban.  It's a pity that their decision is final.






			
				Tquirky said:
			
		

> It's like an unwelcome houseguest who you can't shut the door on without bodily throwing them out.






			
				Tquirky said:
			
		

> I'm arguing that they've got D&D's core wrong.  Not necessarily D&D, but the core, yes.




I thought this read better strung together.  QFT.  

D&D has been a generic rules set that could be used to run any old homebrew D&D game.  4e can still be used to run any old homebrew D&D game but there is now to be more that is specific, not generic, that will have to be ignored than in any other prior edition.

Take the Hommlett test -

A human PC walks into Hommlett - nobody notices (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
An elf PC walks into Hommlett - nobody much notices (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
A dwarf PC walks into Hommlett -nobody much notices (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
A halfling PC walks into Hommlett - nobody much notices (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)

A gnome PC walks into Hommlett - nobody much notices (1E, 2E, 3E)
A half-elf PC walks into Hommlett - nobody much notices (1E, 2E, 3E)

A half-orc PC walks into Hommlett - people notice (1E, 2E, 3E)
An eladrin PC walks into Hommlett - people notice (4e)

A tiefling PC walks into Hommlett - people panic (4e)
A dragonborn PC walks into Hommlett - people panic (4e)

Hommlett doesn't lie.  4e is a large move away from any prior edition in terms of race -

1) 4e removes traditional D&D races that are pretty much generic and accepted in D&D; and
2) 4e adds non-traditional races that are not generic and are not likely to go without notice in D&D.

Over its history, D&D has developed its "classic" bits in terms of race.  4e is a departure from this "classic."  A new classic?  Where have I heard that before?


----------



## Blastin (Nov 27, 2007)

""A half-orc PC walks into Hommlett - people notice (1E, 2E, 3E)""

Half-orcs were not a players handbook race in 2E


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 27, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> A tiefling PC walks into Hommlett - people panic (4e)



Ever heard of a hood, or a robe?  That usually hides most tiefling features, and allows them to pass as human.  

Besides has there been anything posted about how tieflings are in the world, beyond having an ancient empire?


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 27, 2007)

Blastin said:
			
		

> ""A half-orc PC walks into Hommlett - people notice (1E, 2E, 3E)""
> 
> Half-orcs were not a players handbook race in 2E





Got anymore Pics you need to nit.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 27, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Ever heard of a hood, or a robe?  That usually hides most tiefling features, and allows them to pass as human.
> 
> Besides has there been anything posted about how tieflings are in the world, beyond having an ancient empire?




Have you seen the pictures of the 4e tieflings?

   You couldn't hide that ugly with a paper bag.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 27, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Well, "neither" is an option too.  They could *do some research into mythology* or maybe, buy a good thesaurus.  Why isn't tiefling named "cambion"?  That's the english word for it.  There are lots of forgotten words like "hobbit" out there in ye olde english which it wouldn't be too much trouble to find.  For example "trow" isn't used in D&D yet (Hackmaster picked it up though, cool word).
> 
> I'd be very surprised if there isn't some mythological reptile people name somewhere out there.  And something real like sidhe would have been better than eladrin...maybe not exactly sidhe, too many puns.




Hi rounser.

I suggest you read my post/essay as to my theory on naming, rules, and funny-looking dryads.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212712

Love to hear your take.

[/shameless plug]


----------



## rounser (Nov 27, 2007)

> It is. Remember those black-skinned elves? Yep, it's the drow - just a different spelling for trow.



Yeah, I know.  And troll comes from the same root as drow and trow, didn't stop it from being a different critter.

Even if you're technically correct, the distinction is easily steamrollered and redefined.  Hobbit is probably from the same root as hobgoblin etc.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 27, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Have you seen the pictures of the 4e tieflings?
> 
> You couldn't hide that ugly with a paper bag.




It's true, they did add a large whopping tail.  I guess the tiefling could wear a long bridal gown...


----------

