Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 Running the Realms
 Origin of dragonborn race and nature's equilibrium

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Taurendil Posted - 11 Jul 2015 : 19:56:40
Is there any source that states how the dragonborn came to be? I'm really confused about their nature. I only know that they re-appeared via Returned Abeir.

I need this info because one of the PCs in my group is one, and at some point he will interact with a truly neutral druid. Will he see him as a member of a legitimate race, or as an aberration of nature?
29   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Diffan Posted - 17 Jul 2015 : 21:13:45
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


Break that underlined one out and then make your comparison.



Eh, I have and there's really nothing there that suggest to me that this particular race is somehow far better than PHB options. They basically have one significant feature and two that are extremely specific (and often times rare) and +2 Con / -2 Dex.


quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Heart (Su): Starting has a 5' breath weapon (straight line, 1d8 damage, save for half (DC 10 + 1/2 the dragonborn’s HD + her Con modifier), each use you can choose the damage type from these elements: acid, cold, electricity, or fire) that can be reused every d4 rounds. Free powers gained for leveling up include extending the area of affect up to 100' and increasing damage by 1d8 every 3 levels.


Please don't tell me that you're one of the ones that think damage die is somehow a very great feature in the context of the whole game? Next you'll be saying stuff like the Warlock or Dragonfire Adept is broken because they can deal 10d6 constant damage...


quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Mind (Ex): starting immunity to paralysis & magic sleep effects. 30' darkvision, and a +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. Free powers gained for leveling up include extending darkvision to a max 120' and 30' blindsense.


Yep about on-par with dwarves except immunity, but dwarves make up for that with stability, weapon proficiencies, and poison resistance.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


Wings (Ex): starting +10 racial bonus on Jump checks, is safe from all falling, and for each 5' of down can glide for 20' across. Free powers gained for leveling up include true flight, extended flight, overland or unlimited flight, and flying attacks.


this is, by far, the best of the three due to its practicality and versatility but even so its basically ALL they get. Further with 4e's Pixie and 5e's Aarakocra as at-will flight races, I have yet to see them own encounters. There are literally dozens of ways to hamper flight that it comes down to situational uses.

and, in all fairness, how does flight impact you're games when it becomes a more common thing? A Wizard gets flight at 6th level (surprisingly, the same time a Dragonborn would).

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


Compare these stacked with the other abilities you mentioned back to our core races again


I have. The human still remains one of, if not THE, best option in v3.5 D&D. Bonus feat and Skills are literally far better than a scaling bonus damage, vision/paralysis immunity, and flight.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


What is the advantage of playing a level 1 human vs a level 1 dragonborn?


Human has a bonus feat, no penalty to ability scores, and bonus skills. Dragonborn gets a 1d8 breath-weapon (5', 1d8) and +2 Con which is 1 extra HP and -2 Dex, -1 AC.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Level 5? Level 12? Level 20? If the dragonborn starts out better and then just keeps improving while the other race's stagnate, don't you think that's unbalanced?


I don't think the Dragonborn starts out better, like at all. I think they're comparable to other races as evident by pretty much every single optimization thread I've ever read based on 3rd Edition. And those ASSUME that something like a Dragonborn is allowed.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

For comparison's sake, a hobgoblin PC gets a +1 level adjustment for a pair of +2s to Dex & Con, a +4 racial bonus to Move Silently, and 60' of darkvision - that is all. Where do you think the dragonborn should land on this scale?


Lets see, no racial ability score penalty with two stat buffs will almost always warrent a +1 LA (like the Aasimar). Tack on steath buffs and darkvision and NO visible penalties and I see why the LA is there. Still, I don't necessarily agree with it. TO make it balanced against base-races, give it -2 to Int and -2 Cha and that LA goes away OR give it +2 to Dex OR Con and -2 to Int OR Cha and we're looking good.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Oh, and "lesser dragons" are just younger true dragons. So, if you really want to play a dragon with all of its abilities (awesome cosmic powers), you can play a dragon with appropriate level adjustments (itty-bitty living space). I hope that clears things up.


Yeah I guess? Still, Dragonborn is painly better as it's more balanced with base races AND no level adjustment. So I guess I can thank WotC for that.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

And as for relying on your game master... why should you not? The game master is not your adversary! That person is your only interface with the game world without whom there is no game. The only reason the game master is a game master is because he has players that want to interact with his game world. A player coming to the game master saying "hey, I'm really interested in <insert McGuffin>" is an impetus for that game master to create a story for that which hooks the player into becoming more invested into the game world.


OR you can have <insert McGuffin>, albeit at a far lesser power, and still do all the stuff you just said. And I personally don't want to saddle my DM with side quests just for the sake so I can get some Drought of Dragons Breath or find the recipe to make it AND THEN constantly tell the group that we have to rest / stop adventuring so I can create it. It would be easier for me, the DM running the game, and my group if I already had a version of Dragonbreath so that I can focus one things that my character wants to do that actually impacts the setting and adventure.

Also, I don't rely on my DM to had out magic items either. That's why I don't build ANY character around the notion of having said magical item or enchantment because there is zero guarantee that it'll happen at a good time, if at all. Instead, as a player, I'll focus on what I can do and aspire to be rather than on what goodies I HOPE to get down the road.

Question for ya: If you have a Paladin player and he says "Yea I wanna find the the Holy Avenger." You going to revert all of your current adventure plans just to put him on the path to claim that weapon?

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


Your game master might actually be looking for that kind of input from his players. And it is not like the Forgotten Realms is devoid of these things in its canon material (Orogoth is the first that comes to mind, Devil Dragon second).



Not sure what that exactly has to do with wanting to be a dragon-like being without actually being a dragon-like creature?
SaMoCon Posted - 17 Jul 2015 : 16:45:50
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
On top of that you want it to have no penalty for awesome starting powers when compared to common humans, halflings, elves, dwarves, & gnomes?

Originally posted by Diffan
No, I'd actually like it if the race was well balanced when compared to other races presented in other books. Luckily the v3.5 Dragonborn does that fairly well.
• +2 Con, -2 Dex (pretty equal to any other race like Dwarf).
• +2 Dodge bonus to AC, which only applies to creatures of the Dragon sub-type. Eh, very situational at best.
• Immunity to frightful presence of Dragonn. Again, very situational like the bonus to AC.
Draconic Aspect: Ah, the best feature of the race which allows you to choose one of three options - Heart (breath weapon), Mind (immunity to paralysis, increasing Darkvision and other senses), or Wings (jump that progresses to flight). ALL of which are based on the character's HD.

I really see nothing here that makes me go "WHOA! This is Über-broken! Lets tack on some extra Level-Adjustments..."

Break that underlined one out and then make your comparison.
quote:
Heart (Su): Starting has a 5' breath weapon (straight line, 1d8 damage, save for half (DC 10 + 1/2 the dragonborn’s HD + her Con modifier), each use you can choose the damage type from these elements: acid, cold, electricity, or fire) that can be reused every d4 rounds. Free powers gained for leveling up include extending the area of affect up to 100' and increasing damage by 1d8 every 3 levels.
Mind (Ex): starting immunity to paralysis & magic sleep effects. 30' darkvision, and a +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. Free powers gained for leveling up include extending darkvision to a max 120' and 30' blindsense.
Wings (Ex): starting +10 racial bonus on Jump checks, is safe from all falling, and for each 5' of down can glide for 20' across. Free powers gained for leveling up include true flight, extended flight, overland or unlimited flight, and flying attacks.

Compare these stacked with the other abilities you mentioned back to our core races again - humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, & halflings. What is the advantage of playing a level 1 human vs a level 1 dragonborn? Level 5? Level 12? Level 20? If the dragonborn starts out better and then just keeps improving while the other race's stagnate, don't you think that's unbalanced? For comparison's sake, a hobgoblin PC gets a +1 level adjustment for a pair of +2s to Dex & Con, a +4 racial bonus to Move Silently, and 60' of darkvision - that is all. Where do you think the dragonborn should land on this scale?

Oh, and "lesser dragons" are just younger true dragons. So, if you really want to play a dragon with all of its abilities (awesome cosmic powers), you can play a dragon with appropriate level adjustments (itty-bitty living space). I hope that clears things up.

And as for relying on your game master... why should you not? The game master is not your adversary! That person is your only interface with the game world without whom there is no game. The only reason the game master is a game master is because he has players that want to interact with his game world. A player coming to the game master saying "hey, I'm really interested in <insert McGuffin>" is an impetus for that game master to create a story for that which hooks the player into becoming more invested into the game world. Your game master might actually be looking for that kind of input from his players. And it is not like the Forgotten Realms is devoid of these things in its canon material (Orogoth is the first that comes to mind, Devil Dragon second).
ErinMEvans Posted - 16 Jul 2015 : 21:21:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



It's not pre-3.5 but if your player is using something like the 4E background, they might be interested in these two blog posts I did on the dragonborn. These are in a sort of mushy place when it comes to canon--some of it is pulled from what's been written, mostly by me and RLB, and some of it is extrapolated. But most of it will be canonical once Ashes of the Tyrant comes out.

http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-the-forgotten-realms-part-1/
http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-forgotten-realms-part-2/

My take has always been that the dragonborn wouldn't call themselves dragonborn, that that's likely the word that Faerunians have applied to them, and they're so insular and inclined to seek allies at first that they haven't forced the subject. And on some level, it's not an incorrect term--they were created by manipulating dragons' eggs and humans. Some people would probably be unfazed by the usage.

/my 2 cents



There is some good lore, there... I would ask about one thing that I've already commented on, though, that's always bugged me: why would dragonborn join the Cult of the Dragon?



(sorry: was finishing a book. :p)

Meta answer: This is the kind of thing I mean about leaning on visual similarities. I think part of the issue is that the lore for the Nentir Vale setting is so different from the lore for FR that it gets muddled a lot. Designers definitely seem to love the Tiamat vs. Bahamut bits.

In-world answer: Well, when you have a really strict, homogenous culture and it intersects with the wider world, you have members who are absolutely going to reject what they grew up with in favor of other options. See the Platinum Cadre, right? Couple that with the fact that a clan can impose exile for going too far with this, and I could see a scenario where your evil-leaning teenagers get mad enough to just reject everything and throw in with a group that might promise them purpose and power, which just so happen to be everything that would give their elders a heartstop.

I can't imagine this results in crazy high numbers, but then you get into perception biases: we always think there are more "outliers" represented than there actually are.

Anyway, that's how I'd explain it.
Diffan Posted - 16 Jul 2015 : 15:40:53
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

So... a race needs to have dragon-like game-adjusting abilities to be linked to or be built in the image of dragons?


In my opinion, and in the context of 3rd Edition-era D&D, yes. 4E and 5E don't have to worry so much because they got races out of the gate that already do that sort of thing.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

On top of that you want it to have no penalty for awesome starting powers when compared to common humans, halflings, elves, dwarves, & gnomes?


No, I'd actually like it if the race was well balanced when compared to other races presented in other books. Luckily the v3.5 Dragonborn does that fairly well.
• +2 Con, -2 Dex (pretty equal to any other race like Dwarf).
• +2 Dodge bonus to AC, which only applies to creatures of the Dragon sub-type. Eh, very situational at best.
• Immunity to frightful presence of Dragonn. Again, very situational like the bonus to AC.
• Draconic Aspect: Ah, the best feature of the race which allows you to choose one of three options - Heart (breath weapon), Mind (immunity to paralysis, increasing Darkvision and other senses), or Wings (jump that progresses to flight). ALL of which are based on the character's HD.

I really see nothing here that makes me go "WHOA! This is Über-broken! Lets tack on some extra Level-Adjustments..."

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

I noticed, also, that you completely ignored the lesser dragons I listed along with the weaker homages.


I didn't respond to it because I'm not familiar with it or it's application to the mechanics of the game. What supplement is it from?

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

I guess playing an actual dragon with the level adjustment counts as one of those "95%... are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough" options.


Level adjustments are extremely punitive because the majority of the time class levels are better than the racial benefits. The half-dragon's +3 is a rough one to swallow, especially at later levels in the game. For campaigns that only span 1st thru 6th or 7th level, it's not bad but once you start hitting 10th level, the racial benefits just don't measure to class features and spell levels.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

You want the awesome cosmic powers but you don't want the itty-bitty living space that comes with them.


Aside from the quote coming from Aladdin I really don't understand what you're talking about? I never said anything about cosmic super-natural powers. What the Dragonborn provided was plenty fine and it runs parallel with other provided races. You apparently think that dragonborn or dragon-like beings require some sort of heavy mark up in compensation for their powers, when that doesn't have to be the case (as evident with both 4e and 5e's seemingly easy ability to balance the two). I merely think that what was provided previous to the Races of the Dragon supplement was far too steep a price for a dragon-like being.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Then, in your game, remove the level adjustments. Strip away the things you don't like or you feel are an impediment to playing the "draconic image" you have in your mind's eye. Unless you are looking for WotC's stamp of approval, I don't see what the problem is.


I don't have to do that because we received the Dragonborn race. But barring that, I do hold a somewhat strong and positive opinion on balance and stripping the penalties of Level Adjustments would greatly unbalance things. There can be a very easy middle ground, and that's what we received when Races of the Dragon debuted.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


I didn't realize I had to be class-inclusive in a thread which is being race-exclusive. Do I need to make a public apology and volunteer at the Paladins' community centers as an act of contrition?
TBH it probably couldn't hurt.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Jackassery and edition brinksmanship aside, I'm pointing out that anybody can acquire dragon abilities and powers which are not built into their characters from the moment the game starts.


Of which completely relies on the DM to put into the camapaign or make sure such options are readily present. Not only that but magical effects can: 1) be supressed, 2) are not always available, and 3) lose the imagry of a walking, draconic-looking humanoid. But if all you really care about is some breath weapons and flight, might as well just be a Wizard and reflavor all the spells...

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Even you point out the Dragonborn of Bahamut ritual as a means for an otherwise non-draconic person to acquire draconic abilities. And, YES, they are going to have to find them, buy them, or make them on their own! Considering how many stories in folk lore, children's stories, pulp novels, television shows, and movies have exactly this kind of quest line to gain the ability to defeat the bad guy I don't know why people always balk at this instead of embracing it as something to make their games either better or more character-driven.


I feel there is a stark contrast between a human drinking a drought of dragon fire, a consumable resource, then going back to being human and a walking scaled reptilian who can breath fire x/day or rounds or whatever. Maybe that's just me?

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
I guess it comes down to how you define munchkins. I think what I said applies to the dragonborn and all other playable creatures that have more advantages than drawbacks in comparison to the core races of D&D - they attract munchkins. Game designers know this and can turn a steady profit by catering to this element with easily ignorable splatbooks.


Now can you point to the areas where the v3.5 Dragonborn overshadows and/or has better advantages than any of the other races in the PHB? I just looked at it and I'm drawing a blank where they are out right better than a human (with a bonus feat, extra skills) or a dwarf (sure-footed, resistance to magic / poison, prof. with specialized weapons, darkvision) or elves (immune to sleep, bonuses to save vs. Enchantements, prof. with bows and swords, trance, low-light vision).

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

But the dragonborn are not off in some unknown corner of Faerûn like others of their ilk and they are not sidelined into an ancillary splatbook. The dragonborn are in the 4e player's handbook, 4e monster manual, 4e Forgotten Realms campaign guide, and the 4e Forgotten Realms player's guide. My personal experience has shown that disallowing material from non-core & non-setting books is easy and players readily accept that while the opposite is contentious and requires explaining during a time that I would rather spend gaming.


I find that players who feel entitled to every/all options under the sun (core or not) are far more the problem than any option presented in a book. There are a few reasons to hate/dis-allow Dragonborn into a game or campaign (4e or otherwise) but balance or brokenness sure as heck never was one.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Also, there is an established nation where these things exist in numbers with outliers spread far and wide in the Forgotten Realms. That's kinda' hard to ignore.


I, quite easily I might add, completely ignored Maztica along with Mulhorand and Unther with all their weird Egyptian gods in every single one of my Forgotten Realms games and it never came up once. I don't see why that's a problem?

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon


And, for clarification, I confused dragonspawn with draconian. My mistake.



Understandable. While I see "level adjustment" in their stat-block I'm fairly certain they are not actual PC options as there is no "...as Characters" written down like there are for Monsters as PC in the Monster Manual.
SaMoCon Posted - 16 Jul 2015 : 11:26:27
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Yeah, but are dragons so cool that they need yet another PC race that is a weak facsimile?...

Originally posted by Diffan
... So out of all of that we have two ways to gain draconic-like elements but they come with extremely hefty penalties tied to them. Or you could grab a Dragonborn ritual, become one, and lose no levels. I know which one I'd pick.

...I'd say 95% of those options are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough.
So... a race needs to have dragon-like game-adjusting abilities to be linked to or be built in the image of dragons? On top of that you want it to have no penalty for awesome starting powers when compared to common humans, halflings, elves, dwarves, & gnomes? I noticed, also, that you completely ignored the lesser dragons I listed along with the weaker homages. I guess playing an actual dragon with the level adjustment counts as one of those "95%... are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough" options.

You want the awesome cosmic powers but you don't want the itty-bitty living space that comes with them. Then, in your game, remove the level adjustments. Strip away the things you don't like or you feel are an impediment to playing the "draconic image" you have in your mind's eye. Unless you are looking for WotC's stamp of approval, I don't see what the problem is.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Aren't there already enough ways for PCs to become dragons through magical emulation (i.e., Draughts of Fiery Breath or Polymorph spells) or class level abilities (Sorcerer PrC Dragon Blood Sorcerer) without needing this latest pile-on?

Originally posted by Diffan
Ah, so you either have to hope to find/buy magical items or be a magic-user yourself to have dragon-like effects. Nice to know we're being ever-so inclusive of the other half of classes out there that don't wield magic around 24/7. Though I'm not totally surprised since most non-magical classes are trap options later on in the game when it comes to 3e. At least 4e and 5e got it right in those regards.
I didn't realize I had to be class-inclusive in a thread which is being race-exclusive. Do I need to make a public apology and volunteer at the Paladins' community centers as an act of contrition?

Jackassery and edition brinksmanship aside, I'm pointing out that anybody can acquire dragon abilities and powers which are not built into their characters from the moment the game starts. Even you point out the Dragonborn of Bahamut ritual as a means for an otherwise non-draconic person to acquire draconic abilities. And, YES, they are going to have to find them, buy them, or make them on their own! Considering how many stories in folk lore, children's stories, pulp novels, television shows, and movies have exactly this kind of quest line to gain the ability to defeat the bad guy I don't know why people always balk at this instead of embracing it as something to make their games either better or more character-driven.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
There is a fetish at play though I wouldn't say it is necessarily "furry" so much as "wannabe badass" and/or munchkinism in nature depending on whether it is the imagery or the stats that attracts the player.

Originally posted by Diffan
I'm fairly certain you don't understand the term "munchkinism" as it doesn't necessarily apply in this context. Also, how are more options bad when no one is being forced to use/buy them?

I guess it comes down to how you define munchkins. I think what I said applies to the dragonborn and all other playable creatures that have more advantages than drawbacks in comparison to the core races of D&D - they attract munchkins. Game designers know this and can turn a steady profit by catering to this element with easily ignorable splatbooks.

But the dragonborn are not off in some unknown corner of Faerun like others of their ilk and they are not sidelined into an ancillary splatbook. The dragonborn are in the 4e player's handbook, 4e monster manual, 4e Forgotten Realms campaign guide, and the 4e Forgotten Realms player's guide. My personal experience has shown that disallowing material from non-core & non-setting books is easy and players readily accept that while the opposite is contentious and requires explaining during a time that I would rather spend gaming. Also, there is an established nation where these things exist in numbers with outliers spread far and wide in the Forgotten Realms. That's kinda' hard to ignore.

And, for clarification, I confused dragonspawn with draconian. My mistake.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 15 Jul 2015 : 18:02:01
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


• Draconians are not a PC race, though I could be wrong as I don't have access to my DL setting material for v3.5.



I don't recall if the War of the Lance-style draconians were playable in 3.5, but I know the "noble draconians" were. They were the flip side of the evil draconians -- they were draconians created from the eggs of evil dragons, who thus came out good in alignment. They were obviously fewer in number, and still got a lot of bad PR because of their more numerous kin.
Diffan Posted - 15 Jul 2015 : 15:33:06
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Yeah, but are dragons so cool that they need yet another PC race that is a weak facsimile? Kobolds, urds, dragonkin, dracotaurs, draconians, dragonbloods, half-dragons, lesser dragons, etc..., etc...


•Kobolds can not, in my opinion, hold any semblance to a dragon in the sense of wanting to play a dragon-like being.
• Urds are just Kobolds with wings.
• Dragonkin, as detailed in the Monsters of Faerûn supplement, are not a PC options. Maybe they're detailed somewhere else?
• Dracotaurs are a possible PC race, with a laughable +5 Level Adjustment...
• Draconians are not a PC race, though I could be wrong as I don't have access to my DL setting material for v3.5.
• Dragonbloods, if you're meaning the sub-type found in Races of the Dragon / Dragon Magic supplement, don't really confer any of the traits I'd qualify with as playing a "Dragon-based" character. It's like grabbing a Dhampyr feat and saying "Look! I'm a Vampire!! Rawr!"
• Half-Dragons are one of probably the only reasonable solutions you've mentioned so far that confers the normal traits I'd say most people imagine when you play a dragon-like character. But they too come with a very hefty +3 Level Adjustment.

So out of all of that we have two ways to gain draconic-like elements but they come with extremely hefty penalties tied to them. Or you could grab a Dragonborn ritual, become one, and lose no levels. I know which one I'd pick.


quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

are already dragon related playable character races which were already created prior to this offering?


I'd say 95% of those options are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Aren't there already enough ways for PCs to become dragons through magical emulation (i.e., Draughts of Fiery Breath or Polymorph spells) or class level abilities (Sorcerer PrC Dragon Blood Sorcerer) without needing this latest pile-on?


Ah, so you either have to hope to find/buy magical items or be a magic-user yourself to have dragon-like effects. Nice to know we're being ever-so inclusive of the other half of classes out there that don't wield magic around 24/7. Though I'm not totally surprised since most non-magical classes are trap options later on in the game when it comes to 3e. At least 4e and 5e got it right in those regards.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

There is a fetish at play though I wouldn't say it is necessarily "furry" so much as "wannabe badass" and/or munchkinism in nature depending on whether it is the imagery or the stats that attracts the player.


I'm fairly certain you don't understand the term "munchkinism" as it doesn't necessarily apply in this context. Also, how are more options bad when no one is being forced to use/buy them?

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Somewhere, Fonzi is strapping on his waterskis and muttering darkly about having jumped this shark a couple times already.



Well you can always just ignore all the splats that come out after each and every core-books. Luckily no one from WotC (or any other publisher for that matter) is sending lead-booted thugs to peoples homes demanding they purchase and use "shark-jumping, munchkin-pandering" options at their tables.
SaMoCon Posted - 15 Jul 2015 : 12:55:30
Yeah, but are dragons so cool that they need yet another PC race that is a weak facsimile? Kobolds, urds, dragonkin, dracotaurs, draconians, dragonbloods, half-dragons, lesser dragons, etc..., etc... are already dragon related playable character races which were already created prior to this offering? Aren't there already enough ways for PCs to become dragons through magical emulation (i.e., Draughts of Fiery Breath or Polymorph spells) or class level abilities (Sorcerer PrC Dragon Blood Sorcerer) without needing this latest pile-on? There is a fetish at play though I wouldn't say it is necessarily "furry" so much as "wannabe badass" and/or munchkinism in nature depending on whether it is the imagery or the stats that attracts the player.

Somewhere, Fonzi is strapping on his waterskis and muttering darkly about having jumped this shark a couple times already.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 15 Jul 2015 : 04:38:09
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


I'm not sure I fully understand? What, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?

Now I agree that their inclusion was ham-fisted into the Realms.

Those are two parts of one issue. And the name of this issue is: "furry fetish". If the dragonkobolds weren't enough of a hint.


I'd say that's a rather unfair characterization. It's pretty much a given among fantasy fans that dragons are really cool. Thinking that it's also cool to have humanoid dragons is not any kind of fetishizing -- it's just exploring the coolness of the concept in another way.

It's like enjoying Transformers. Making humanoid versions of vehicles isn't a fetish thing - it's just putting a different spin on something enjoyed.
TBeholder Posted - 15 Jul 2015 : 04:05:39
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


I'm not sure I fully understand? What, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?

Now I agree that their inclusion was ham-fisted into the Realms.

Those are two parts of one issue. And the name of this issue is: "furry fetish". If the dragonkobolds weren't enough of a hint.

quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil
quote:
If a critter isn't any more prone to overhunting or deforestation than humans or dwarves are, why a druid would give a fig about one?

Because of [from D&D PHB] "But though druids may have accepted cruelty in nature, they abhorred that which was alien to it, violently opposing the existence of aberrations and undead, both of whom were affronts to the natural order."

The point remains that it obviously has nothing to do with "nature's equilibrium".
Okay, so attentive reading shows PHB has one more stupid thing in it than previously assumed. In this case, of Green iPants with MacBook Elfy sort.
Luckily, generic to the point of meaningless PHB "fluff" is easy to ignored in a setting with meat of its own.

And now, to FR material that, as a bonus, actually makes sense.
quote:
Bara's First Rule of Nature
A natural force can be generated by unnatural means.
Mages of all types, and even druids, have been known to use spells to create wind, rain, or even lightning.
All these are natural forces, yet they can be produced by unnatural means. In the High Moor, the fire swamps are
one example of this. Fire is a natural phenomenon, yet the fires in these marshes are produced by lingering magic.
And look at the Undermoor, with rivers that flow upward.
[...]
Bara's Second Rule of Nature
An unnatural force can become part of the natural environment.
Suppose some unthinking mage opens a gate to the Elemental Plane of Fire, creating a sea of fire. (There are a lot of
ye thoughtless types out there, so give a listen.
-Elminster) For a time this unnatural force causes a lot of problems in
the local environment. Animals and plants die, others move to new homes, and the weather is affected by a permanent
source of heat. (This would irritate me, by the way. Don't do it.)
After a while, though, the surrounding environment and the organisms living within it would adapt to this strange incursion.
Creatures accustomed to heat and fire would move in, and everything would adjust to accommodate the sea of fire.
At this point, which occurs only after years of pain, death, and adaptation, the sea of fire would become a "normal" part of
the environment. Removing it would have the same effects as its original introduction: a lot of creatures and plants
would die, the ecology would be upset, and a long period of adaptation to the new conditions would follow.
- Elminster’s Ecologies, Appendix 2

Ayrik Posted - 15 Jul 2015 : 03:57:41
2E half-dragons were not too different from dragonborn. Mutated dragon-human offspring could also be found in the Dark Sun setting (although perhaps in only one sourcebook and related mini-campaign). The origins of these proto-dragonborn species were far less than divine, lol.

I dont personally think mainstream dragonborn fit well in the Realms, I remember the days when it was a Really Big Deal to have a small village of scaly saurials living nearby.
Taurendil Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 22:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is some good lore, there... I would ask about one thing that I've already commented on, though, that's always bugged me: why would dragonborn join the Cult of the Dragon?



Quick idea: Stockholm syndrome

quote:
Originally posted by DiffanWhat, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?


For me it is too forced, basically the same idea that you stated. But maybe it is just that I don't know the background given for the race in 4th ed.

quote:
Originally posted by TBeholderIf a critter isn't any more prone to overhunting or deforestation than humans or dwarves are, why a druid would give a fig about one?


Because of [from D&D PHB] "But though druids may have accepted cruelty in nature, they abhorred that which was alien to it, violently opposing the existence of aberrations and undead, both of whom were affronts to the natural order."

That's a general description, I know. But in this specific druid, he is an extreme version of that idea.

Wooly Rupert Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 21:55:56
quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



It's not pre-3.5 but if your player is using something like the 4E background, they might be interested in these two blog posts I did on the dragonborn. These are in a sort of mushy place when it comes to canon--some of it is pulled from what's been written, mostly by me and RLB, and some of it is extrapolated. But most of it will be canonical once Ashes of the Tyrant comes out.

http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-the-forgotten-realms-part-1/
http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-forgotten-realms-part-2/

My take has always been that the dragonborn wouldn't call themselves dragonborn, that that's likely the word that Faerunians have applied to them, and they're so insular and inclined to seek allies at first that they haven't forced the subject. And on some level, it's not an incorrect term--they were created by manipulating dragons' eggs and humans. Some people would probably be unfazed by the usage.

/my 2 cents



There is some good lore, there... I would ask about one thing that I've already commented on, though, that's always bugged me: why would dragonborn join the Cult of the Dragon?
Diffan Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 20:31:01
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

I have always thought that dragonborn are kind of a far-fetched choice for a major race in D&D. Even goblins sound more like it to me, at least statistically.



I'm not sure I fully understand? What, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?

Now I agree that their inclusion was ham-fisted into the Realms. Its unfortunate since they already had previously established reptile/dragon-like beings in the Realms like "half"-dragons, Dragonkin, & Saurials. It would've been extremely easy to re-flavor the Dragonborn into an existing race and give a more extensive background for that race. Alas, no such treatment was done and we got Dragonborn, precisely like they were depicted in the PHB. AT least they learned their error with Dark Sun and we got the Dray.
TBeholder Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 20:20:58
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

how the dragonborn came to be?
[...]
I need this info because one of the PCs in my group is one, and at some point he will interact with a truly neutral druid. Will he see him as a member of a legitimate race, or as an aberration of nature?

Er... do you mean "druid" or "elf"?
Why would a druid ever care about how anything "came to be"? If a critter isn't any more prone to overhunting or deforestation than humans or dwarves are, why a druid would give a fig about one?
ErinMEvans Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 17:09:05
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



It's not pre-3.5 but if your player is using something like the 4E background, they might be interested in these two blog posts I did on the dragonborn. These are in a sort of mushy place when it comes to canon--some of it is pulled from what's been written, mostly by me and RLB, and some of it is extrapolated. But most of it will be canonical once Ashes of the Tyrant comes out.

http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-the-forgotten-realms-part-1/
http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-forgotten-realms-part-2/

My take has always been that the dragonborn wouldn't call themselves dragonborn, that that's likely the word that Faerunians have applied to them, and they're so insular and inclined to seek allies at first that they haven't forced the subject. And on some level, it's not an incorrect term--they were created by manipulating dragons' eggs and humans. Some people would probably be unfazed by the usage.

/my 2 cents
Wooly Rupert Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 14:57:06
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

I have always thought that dragonborn are kind of a far-fetched choice for a major race in D&D. Even goblins sound more like it to me, at least statistically.



I liked the 3E dragonborn, where they were not as much a proper race as the products of extreme dedication to a cause.

I was less fond of the 4E dragonborn, but a large part of that was their introduction... They were suddenly there, out of the blue, with no real story on their origin. They hated dragons, but the racial name implies a descent from dragons... And it was also stated that the Cult of the Dragon had a lot of success recruiting dragonborn members.

So an entirely new race that hates yet willingly serves their namesakes... Yeah, that's problematic.

That's why I rewrote them the way I did: I gave them a racial backstory, a connection to mainland Faerûn, and had I ever finished, a different name. Plus, my approach would have also intro'ed the race to the Heartlands in smaller numbers, rather than having an entire established society dropping out of the sky. I did a similar thing with my Realmsified warforged: enough that the possibility was there, but few enough in number to keep them from suddenly popping up everywhere.
Taurendil Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 13:59:31
I have always thought that dragonborn are kind of a far-fetched choice for a major race in D&D. Even goblins sound more like it to me, at least statistically.
Diffan Posted - 14 Jul 2015 : 08:41:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha

The dragonborn were a mid-to-late 3e invention. We had half-dragons in earlier editions going back to at least 2e's Council of Wyrms setting, and of course tieflings and genasi are from 2e's Planescape and earlier. But the dragonborn were, I believe, the newest "major" race, and were added relatively late in 3e.



Indeed. They (the dragonborn) were introduced in Races of the Dragon, I believe, when WotC was on its kick of "hey, let's sell more books by coming up with a buttload more playable races, even if they're ridiculous or only slightly different than existing races!"



Or it could be that the designers realized how terrible most of the monster manual templates were and how significant level adjustments were that a less punitive approach was what players wanted? Sometimes I wonder why some people even bother pursue a system past the initial core books if the options are often considered "money grabs"?
Wooly Rupert Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 17:08:47
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha

The dragonborn were a mid-to-late 3e invention. We had half-dragons in earlier editions going back to at least 2e's Council of Wyrms setting, and of course tieflings and genasi are from 2e's Planescape and earlier. But the dragonborn were, I believe, the newest "major" race, and were added relatively late in 3e.



Indeed. They (the dragonborn) were introduced in Races of the Dragon, I believe, when WotC was on its kick of "hey, let's sell more books by coming up with a buttload more playable races, even if they're ridiculous or only slightly different than existing races!"
Hoondatha Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 17:03:40
The dragonborn were a mid-to-late 3e invention. We had half-dragons in earlier editions going back to at least 2e's Council of Wyrms setting, and of course tieflings and genasi are from 2e's Planescape and earlier. But the dragonborn were, I believe, the newest "major" race, and were added relatively late in 3e.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 17:01:30
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



Dragonborn -- of either variety -- did not exist pre-3E.

2E did introduce half-dragons as a playable race; they were humanoids that were the offspring of a human or demihuman and a metallic dragon.

3E expanded that and made dragons seems like Zeus -- having sex with and impregnating anything that held still for longer than a breath or two. 3E and its templates for everything certainly made things easier for DMs to create customer monsters, but it also lead to goofy things like The Snail from one or two strips of Order of the Stick.
Taurendil Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 16:39:49
Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?
Diffan Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 07:09:41
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Is there any source that states how the dragonborn came to be? I'm really confused about their nature. I only know that they re-appeared via Returned Abeir.

I need this info because one of the PCs in my group is one, and at some point he will interact with a truly neutral druid. Will he see him as a member of a legitimate race, or as an aberration of nature?



Two ways: blessed by Bahamut (which is a ritual to a deity that probably won't be considered "natural" by druidic standards) and being a native of Returned Abeir (which would be natural). You can make the two distinguished thematically (like coloration or markings) and the druid will most likely know the difference between the two. Good thing is the player can decide which background to implement.
SaMoCon Posted - 12 Jul 2015 : 21:15:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertI would disagree, since we had dragonborn established...

Established might be too strong of a word. I can only find reference to 3 books that have the 3e variety and those were released 2006-2008. The 4e dragonborn were revealed in 6 books & 1 Dragon magazine article printed 2007-2009. That was hardly enough time for the 3e specialty material to make an impact on the RPG community before being overwritten by 4e products which were necessary to have for 4e players to play the game in the Forgotten Realms.

The 3e version seems to be a divine gift that can be taken away and is in no way conferred to others through progeny or infection. They are no more an aberration than a druid's wildshape ability. I don't believe the druids would have a problem with such a vessel of a god's will unless it was taking action to destroy the local habitat, which puts them on a case-by-case basis with all other native humanoids.

The 4e version, I don't know. Are they considered transplanted humanoids like dwarves and orcs? Are they native outsiders like aasimar and tieflings? Or are they supposed to be as natural to the world as lizardmen, saurials, & dragonkin except just having returned from an extended holiday?
Wooly Rupert Posted - 12 Jul 2015 : 04:16:27
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

WotC's odd insistence on reusing names has been worked into canon before with tieflings, no real confusion about new vs old tiefling types - aside from a little implicit "sweep it under the rug" handwavium.

"Dragonborn" is a cool name, worth reusing. "Draconians" and "saurials" have already been too firmly established in D&D and FR lore, but "dragonborn" (like "tiefling" and "warforged" etc) never saw enough use to cause much confusion if redesignated onto something new.



I would disagree, since we had dragonborn established as followers of Bahamut who who reborn in scaly format, and then an entirely different type of dragonborn with wholly different looks, origins, and mindsets. Heck, it's explicitly stated that 4E dragonborn hate dragons -- while the 3E ones were so dedicated to a deity of dragons that they'd left their birthrace behind.

Tieflings weren't changed from one thing into a wholly unrelated thing -- they just went from "each one is unique and may or may not be able to pass for human" to "every single one of them looks the same, because that's somehow kewler than individuality."
Ayrik Posted - 12 Jul 2015 : 02:07:49
WotC's odd insistence on reusing names has been worked into canon before with tieflings, no real confusion about new vs old tiefling types - aside from a little implicit "sweep it under the rug" handwavium.

"Dragonborn" is a cool name, worth reusing. "Draconians" and "saurials" have already been too firmly established in D&D and FR lore, but "dragonborn" (like "tiefling" and "warforged" etc) never saw enough use to cause much confusion if redesignated onto something new.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 12 Jul 2015 : 00:23:00
There's actually a bit of confusion, here, caused by WotC's odd insistence on reusing names.

There are two types of dragonborn. There are the ones from 3E, that Hoondatha describes, and then there are the 4E ones, from the original question. There is no apparent connection between the two races, which of course begs the question of why in the heck WotC decided to reuse the racial name.

I read most of the 4E FR source material, but I don't recall a discussion of the racial origins of the dragonborn.

Here's what I think is the best angle: some isolated area with a lot of humans and dragons, and some outside factor that caused a lot of interbreeding betwixt the two.

Here's my spin. Keep in mind two things: my spin was a combination of my desire to use the idea of a far-traveled Netherese enclave, and my desire to come up with a way to incorporate some 4E FR elements without having the Spellplague. I'll not rehash that argument; suffice it to say that I was no fan of the 4E Realms.

None of what follows is canon; nothing even suggests this could be the actual origin. This is purely my own creation.

So, there was a Netherese enclave that was over another continent when Netheril fell. This enclave somehow managed to land without killing everyone, but was no good for going back -- so the stranded Netherese had to make due with their new home. Their new home also had a sizable population of native dragons.

And it was also home to this seriously scary nastybad. Something really big and scary, like a cross between the Cloverfield monster and the tarrasque. And this thing spawned a lot of smaller nastybads, like the WH40k genestealers.

So this thing forced the dragons and the humans to work together to survive. And eventually, there was a lot of interbreeding between the two.

As these human/dragon hybrids became more and more common, some nasty plague or something wiped out most of the human population. The end result was be a society dominated by the half-dragons, who bred with each other and thus created a stable race.

Eventually the remaining humans died out, leaving only the growing population of human-dragon hybrids.

The dragons, too, were decimated in the fight against the grand nastybad. They eventually took it out, with the help of the humans and the half-dragons, but there were no longer enough dragons to form any kind of stable society.

So, a few centuries after the Fall, all that was left on this continent were a few dragons and this new race of dragon-descended humanoids. And then this new race (draeneth, perhaps?) made it back to their legendary ancient homeland, Faerûn, where they were immediately and unfortunately dubbed "dragonborn."
Hoondatha Posted - 11 Jul 2015 : 20:28:22
Dragonborn are not a natural race. They're created by Bahamut after a being of another race volunteers for the war against Tiamat. Though it's not explicitly stated, it's heavily implied that dragonborn are all sterile.

So among other things, your PC needs to decide what race they were before becoming dragonborn, and why they decided to take up the fight.

As for the druid, it's entirely possible that they would think of dragonborn as an aberration. At the very least, they're prime evidence of godly meddling in the natural world for their own reasons. On the other hand, the monstrosities that Tiamat creates are worse, so the druid might decide that the dragonbord are a just balance.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000