How about "Blood of Dragons"?


Pathfinder Player Companion

51 to 100 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I had very good moments with draconic characters in 3.5, i played a half dragon fighter there, amking use of some excellent feats and racial levels, giving me wings and being able to lift others. Was real fun.
But it does make the game very different if you can do such things on level 3-5. From a design perspective as well as from a power and game-feel perspective. There is no personal griefing here. I just don´t really see this.

Then, what happened in a later edition, i really didn´t like the flavor of that. That´s a personal opinion though.
A dragonborn flavor like it was installed by wotc would simply not fit Golarion in my eyes. The only place left to have something similar would be Arcadia or one of the unmentioned continents. A very splatty splatbook then.

Also, to me that feels a lot like dragonlance somehow. Which had a clever fluff there, abusing the eggs of good dragons to hatch evil dragonborn and use those to conquer the world.


Yeah,

Aasimars aren't Celestial/Half-Celestial.
Tieflings aren't Fiend/Half-Fiend.
Ifrits, Oreads, Sylphs and Undines aren't Elementals/Half-Elementals.
Dhampirs aren't Vampires.
Skinwalkers aren't Lycanthropes.
Kobolds aren't Dragons/Half-Dragons.
Etc...


Hayato Ken wrote:

Then, what happened in a later edition, i really didn´t like the flavor of that. That´s a personal opinion though.

A dragonborn flavor like it was installed by wotc would simply not fit Golarion in my eyes. The only place left to have something similar would be Arcadia or one of the unmentioned continents. A very splatty splatbook then.

Oh... I get it now...

Ok, for me, I honestly don't want a carbon copy of WotC 3E's Dragonborn. I didn't like the idea of having your character become a draconic servant of Bahamut out of absolute loyalty. That concept was too farfetched for me and it should technically have been a Template rather than a full-fledged race.

What I'd like to get to something akin to the 4E's Dragonborn. In short, the race was born when Io was killed and his blood was splattered across the lands. That actually would make more sense as a creation myth.

It can be anything though... except having humanoids becoming one...

Hayato Ken wrote:
Also, to me that feels a lot like dragonlance somehow. Which had a clever fluff there, abusing the eggs of good dragons to hatch evil dragonborn and use those to conquer the world.

Yeah, I heard about, but in Golarion, it wouldn't fit much. The Dragon Gods aren't are present and if a devilish republic won't get you, a portal to the Abyss will.

Guy St-Amant wrote:

Yeah,

Aasimars aren't Celestial/Half-Celestial.
Tieflings aren't Fiend/Half-Fiend.
Ifrits, Oreads, Sylphs and Undines aren't Elementals/Half-Elementals.
Dhampirs aren't Vampires.
Skinwalkers aren't Lycanthropes.
Kobolds aren't Dragons/Half-Dragons.
Etc...

They're close enough though...


Quote:
Ok, for me, I honestly don't want a carbon copy of WotC 3E's Dragonborn. I didn't like the idea of having your character become a draconic servant of Bahamut out of absolute loyalty. That concept was too farfetched for me and it should technically have been a Template rather than a full-fledged race.

See, I was the exact opposite. I loved the "devoted servants who undergo metamorphosis to become more like their god" theme much, much more than 4E's "just a race of draconic humanoids" version.

Thankfully it's pretty easy to convert up the 3.5 version into PF mechanics.

I'm pretty sure if Paizo creates a draconic race, though, it'll be unique from both versions of WOTC's Dragonborn.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orthos wrote:


I'm pretty sure if Paizo creates a draconic race, though, it'll be unique from both versions of WOTC's Dragonborn.

One can only hope so. There seem to be some intelligent people with enough creative imagination power at Paizo to do that.

Only before that, there are so many other very urgent construction sites, like more backup for Kitsune, Nagaji, a guide to the kraken despotry in Tian Xia, the catfolk in Arcadia, and oh Arcadia at all, etc.

Anyway talking about Nagaji, why don´t you play a Nagaji?
Combine it with racial heritage kobold?


Mostly because Nagaji are less dragonkin, more Yuan-Ti.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nah come on. Nagaji aren´t half as cool as yuan ti. They don´t even look like it. They´re just green and have scales. That spit poison feat could be the inheritance of green dragons^^


Normally I would like a race like the Nagaji, but the fact that the Naga are technically abberations turns me off a bit. The flavor isn't right.


@ everyone who talks about Nagajis

Huh, guys, Nagajis are based on Nagas, not Dragons. Also, if you're looking for Yuan-tis, they're not here and they won't be, as they are trademarked by WotC; the Serpentfolks are the closest thing you'll find.

Orthos wrote:
Quote:
Ok, for me, I honestly don't want a carbon copy of WotC 3E's Dragonborn. I didn't like the idea of having your character become a draconic servant of Bahamut out of absolute loyalty. That concept was too farfetched for me and it should technically have been a Template rather than a full-fledged race.

See, I was the exact opposite. I loved the "devoted servants who undergo metamorphosis to become more like their god" theme much, much more than 4E's "just a race of draconic humanoids" version.

Thankfully it's pretty easy to convert up the 3.5 version into PF mechanics.

I'm pretty sure if Paizo creates a draconic race, though, it'll be unique from both versions of WOTC's Dragonborn.

Here are some of the issues I had with the 3E Dragonborns:

- It's a conversion, but a full-fledged race

- The Dragonborn's racial traits replaced your character's traits. Believe it or not, that causes a LOT of confusion, because people kept asking for individual races what was kept and was for replaced. Size was a HUGE problem, because the book (Races of the Dragon) showed Medium and Small Dragonborns, but that same book NEVER addressed the actual size of the resulting creature. Same goes with speed, as swim speeds (such as for merfolks) and fly speeds (such as for raptorans) were traits, which in turn were supposed to be replaced.

- It made Bahamut look "bad". I could have understood if Tiamat would have done it and would punish followers who wouldn't follow her command, but Bahamut? No, just... NO. Bahamut was usually depicted as a good and gentle God, with a decent amount of respect for non-draconic followers. Why the whole rigidity about the Dragonborn and the Dragonfall War? Which leads me to...

- The fact that you could essentially lose the Dragonborn Template, with some DIRE consequences: you took damage for a number of rounds equal to your HD.

- You basically had to forsake your character's humanity, as it made you a rigid and narrow-minded soldier, who had to follow Bahamut's will every single time. You think paladins are rigid about their code of conduct? Dragonborns were worse... Also, being that single-minded character made for some boring roleplay.

Upon reading the 4E Dragonborn, I was relieved that they weren't so adamant about their belief. They were a full-fledged race born from a dead god, not some die-hard fanatics.

If Paizo tries their hands with a dragon-related race, I'd be more than ok with a real race, be dragon-blooded sorcerer descendants or half-dragon descendants, but for the love of Apsu, NOT a religious ritual.


Quote:

- It made Bahamut look "bad". I could have understood if Tiamat would have done it and would punish followers who wouldn't follow her command, but Bahamut? No, just... NO. Bahamut was usually depicted as a good and gentle God, with a decent amount of respect for non-draconic followers. Why the whole rigidity about the Dragonborn and the Dragonfall War? Which leads me to...

- The fact that you could essentially lose the Dragonborn Template, with some DIRE consequences: you took damage for a number of rounds equal to your HD.

- You basically had to forsake your character's humanity, as it made you a rigid and narrow-minded soldier, who had to follow Bahamut's will every single time. You think paladins are rigid about their code of conduct? Dragonborns were worse... Also, being that single-minded character made for some boring roleplay.

Wow. These did not bother me at all. In fact I like most of them. The "if you choose to betray him you revert to your original race" and "you can choose to surrender your previous existence to fully become Bahamut's literal child" are two of the things that drew me to the race in the first place - I consider that downright AWESOME. And it never once made me think of Bahamut as "bad" or "evil". Not at all.

Nor did I find them boring or restrictive. Granted I like Lawful Good characters, paladins, and so forth, and have never really found them strangling. I played an ex-human Dragonborn ex-blackguard (of Tiamat even)-turned-Paladin for almost three years on a Neverwinter Nights server (five years, if you count the time prior when she was human), and she's my longest-lasting character and one of my favorites of all time - easily top three at least.

It kind of boggles my mind that the things you listed as driving you away from the race were pretty much every single thing that makes me love them.

To each their own I suppose.


Orthos wrote:

It kind of boggles my mind that the things you listed as driving you away from the race were pretty much every single thing that makes me love them.

To each their own I suppose.

Well, to me, it just felt forced upon players to follow a very rigid code of life, which is not even a code on conduct. You couldn't stray away from the path without some consequences. Betraying Bahamut was also "out of character": Bahamut is a LG God... who basically only cared about the Dragonfall War against Tiamat; Heironeous was a LG God, paladin-like almost, but he never felt as rigid as Bahamut. For Bahamut, dragons were his only concern, which came out of nowhere.

Granted, DMs could change everything around... but if so, that's basically because they felt it was too rigid for their own games.

3E dragonborns lacked that freedom of character. They lacked some sort of liberty to how to play their characters. All it needs for a Paizo version would be for the race to be unrelated to a God.


*shrug* As I said, I didn't see any of it that way. The race didn't feel at all restricted beyond "your main focus is this war". You didn't even have to worship Bahamut to become one. And his focus on the war felt perfectly in-character to me, as he'd always been described as the main check on Tiamat's activities, with most of the other deities busy or focused on other things the dragon war was limited pretty much to the two dragon deities and their lesser counterparts.

I guess it's just a personality or perception difference. I didn't have any issues with any of that at all, and neither have any of my players or fellow GMs in my groups.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if there wasn't a draconic humanoid race per se?

We already know the effective "point values" of racial qualities thanks to the ARG. What if, instead, there was a base draconic package--3 or 4 RP worth of qualities--that a human or dwarf or halfling gained by losing an equivalent set package of RPs/racial qualities from their standard core race? So, the human loses either Skilled or the bonus feat, the dwarf loses Hardy and Stonecunning, the halfling loses Lucky and the +2 to Acrobatics. In return, they get the standard 4 RP draconic package (tweaked for the dragon color/type) and a draconic subtype (but keeping their old one as well). As they gain levels, they can pick up additional draconic qualities via feats, archetypes, PrCs, etc.

As this process would keep many of the base races' qualities, it could also allow/explain the variability in appearance. Some draconic convertees have pronounced snouts/crests/spurs, while others have faces & skulls much closer to their base race. Some still have external ears and hair, while others are more draconic. Some female convertees would keep their now-superfluous mammary glands, while others would have a more traditionally reptilian chest. Some females would be oviparous, while others [ovo]viviparous (like boas, aquatic file snakes, and nurse sharks).

This way, every draconic PC's appearance can match their player's preferences, and we can avoid the "catfolk arguments."

Perhaps this process is Mengkare's next phase for the residents of Hermea and beyond? Perhaps this has been the process all along; can anyone be certain that the few documented Hermean agents haven't been using alter self/hat of disguise/similar magics? Or perhaps this draconic project is headed by a rival dragon, draconic cult in Kaer Maga, archmage fleshcrafter, etc.?


I like that. Sort of like a template, but less overpowering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its really all in how you (the GM) interprets the dragonborn. Bahamut gave people the CHOICE to become a dragonborn. It was not forced. If you wanted to rigidly enforce it, you could. As long as the dragonborn player is fighting evil dragons and protecting the lesser races from evil dragons, that should be fine. Plus, you got to choose between the awesome abilities of either wings granting flight or a breath weapon that can do any of the four basic elemental damage. The third option seemed pretty weak to me by comparison. The first campaign I ran, I allowed the party's fighter the option of becoming a dragonborn after he had performed several goodly, dragon related deeds. He loved it. He chose the breath weapon and took a couple of feats to support it and had a great time. Bahamut IMHO is a truly goodly god in that he seeks to do the most good while thwarting Tiamat. He protects the weaker masses from evil dragons and the few non-dragon worshippers he has are greatly appreciated. Hence, the OPTION of becoming a dragon based humanoid.


The Beardinator wrote:
Its really all in how you (the GM) interprets the dragonborn. Bahamut gave people the CHOICE to become a dragonborn. It was not forced. If you wanted to rigidly enforce it, you could. As long as the dragonborn player is fighting evil dragons and protecting the lesser races from evil dragons, that should be fine. Plus, you got to choose between the awesome abilities of either wings granting flight or a breath weapon that can do any of the four basic elemental damage. The third option seemed pretty weak to me by comparison. The first campaign I ran, I allowed the party's fighter the option of becoming a dragonborn after he had performed several goodly, dragon related deeds. He loved it. He chose the breath weapon and took a couple of feats to support it and had a great time. Bahamut IMHO is a truly goodly god in that he seeks to do the most good while thwarting Tiamat. He protects the weaker masses from evil dragons and the few non-dragon worshippers he has are greatly appreciated. Hence, the OPTION of becoming a dragon based humanoid.

Ok... that it's a choice for PCs, I can accept that. You can accept or refuse. I also have no problem with the abilities it grants... except for the numerous grey zones that people keep having trouble with rule-wise.

What I had a problem with the race was with the fact that it imposes a code of conduct even MORE rigid than your standard paladin code, piled on the rule that the Template can be literally and painfully ripped from you if you don't follow that code. What if I don't GET to fight evil dragon related stuff in the current campaign?

The race wasn't lenient enough. Everything you had to do HAD to be related to your fight against Tiamat. Demons and devils? Nope, screw it, Bahamut kills you if you even care about a fiendish incursion that wipe the Material Plane and even if Tiamat is essentially living in Baator.

If Bahamut let loose a little and went for overly good deeds, NOT just for dragons, than I would have tolerated a bit more, because it would have been similar to a paladin code. Right now, Dragonsborns are for the die-hard followers who basically forsake their humanity for a single narrow-minded cause.

A DM with a Dragonborn ALMOST needs to use evil dragons and Tiamat or else a Dragonborn has little to no purpose...


Orthos wrote:
I like that. Sort of like a template, but less overpowering.

More like alternative racial traits, which, I think, would be really nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, its all in how the GM interprets it. If you want to convert it to an Apsu option, he's much more lenient, then go with that. make the requirement be that they have to maintain a goodly alignment and protect the weak masses from evil. you are the GM. Make it your own.


I don't have words. I did not get ANY of that hyper-strict, Lawful Stupid interpretation out of the book at ALL. And I'm speaking as someone who played a Dragonborn for almost three years. She certainly did not spend every waking hour of that doing absolutely nothing but chasing down evil dragons, though she certainly leaped at every opportunity to do so that arose. But she spent just as much time fighting fiends, evil humanoids and cultists of all stripes, and undead as she did fighting dragons (if not more so, because there were very few dragon-themed dungeons on the server).

My group's main problem with Dragonborn was that they had no evil equivalent, a problem that a little homebrewing easily fixed. That said, since we all play in our own homebrew setting now, the race's origins got a slight rewrite - rather than serving the draconic deities themselves, most Dragonborn in our setting serve like soldiers under the command of the dragon who sponsored their metamorphosis, and take on some of the traits of that individual dragon (so instead of simply one kind of dragonborn there's a slightly-different variant, if only cosmetically, for each kind of dragon; heck, there might even be linnorm-, wyvern-, or primal, imperial, or mythic dragon-based based dragonborn out there).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would make an awesome "Blood of Dragons" race. Now, if we could only get it to James Jacobs's desk....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would definitely pay good money for "Blood of Flumphs".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a Blood of Dragons supplement, I'd want to see alternate versions of the Draconic Bloodline, like say "Outer Draconic Archetype" you must be draconic bloodline, then you get some alternate abilities based on your outer dragon type... the really powerful stuff like time travel or interplanetary teleport of course would be the capstone.


AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
In a Blood of Dragons supplement, I'd want to see alternate versions of the Draconic Bloodline, like say "Outer Draconic Archetype" you must be draconic bloodline, then you get some alternate abilities based on your outer dragon type... the really powerful stuff like time travel or interplanetary teleport of course would be the capstone.

That would be nice ^_^

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
I'd buy that for a dollar.

Cheapskate. I'd give up a Jefferson. :)


While not interested in a full blown race, I've often wished for some primal and imperial draconic bloodlines. I also would love some Xorvintaal-esque dragons that act more like dragons and less like big sorcerers.

Dark Archive

While I would most certainly buy this, I would really like a book on more lizard/snake/frog type people. Realizing of course this isn't for everyone I still think a splat book would sell well enough to turn a profit.


Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:
While I would most certainly buy this, I would really like a book on more lizard/snake/frog type people. Realizing of course this isn't for everyone I still think a splat book would sell well enough to turn a profit.

Maybe an ARG/Monster Codex like setting neutral book first to reduce the crunch, then a Player Companion.


I've already bought all of the other "Blood of..." books, and think a Blood of Dragons would be an excellent next step. Have some fluff on how different cultures regard dragons, a dragon-based Oracle mystery/curse. Toss in some stuff about Kobold cohorts with the leadership feat, a few magic items that grant flight/breath weapons/bonuses to natural attacks. Some extra elemental-based metamagic feats, maybe a new inquisition for inquisitors serving Apsu? Wrap it up with a more GM-centric section on uses of dragons in a campaign and you're golden (or brass, green or blue).

Really, there are plenty of potential avenues to go with fore such a lore-rich creature that any number of classes could benefit from.

TL;DR Version: I'd buy that for many dollars.


I'd love to see a non-humanoid dragon race in a "Blood of Dragons" book.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we've generally steered clear of dragon-men because that was so overdone (often by us) in the Dragon and Dungeon magazine days. 3.5 had dragon races all over it, especially in the latter period immediately preceding the introduction of Pathfinder.

I think a lot of us also thought that the fin-headed half-dragons from third edition D&D were really goofy looking, and didn't fit our grittier sense of what the game world should be like. Almost too fantastic, if you will. Keep in mind this is going on 12 years ago, now, so I think some of us have mellowed in our militancy about this issue. I mean, at one time we had a "no succubi adventures" rule after doing too many of them in Dungeon, but we've obviously gotten past that.

At the VERY end of third edition, WotC made dragon-men a major part of their brand, and something that most of us associated with fourth edition. Dragon-men seemed more like a "D&D thing" than a "Pathfinder" thing, if that makes sense, so I think the focus on dragon-men in D&D resulted in less of this sort of thing in Pathfinder.

But anyway, there's clearly interest in the idea and it would be fun to try to do a book like "Blood of Dragons" some day.

I wouldn't include the other races folks have been suggesting here, like nagaji, lizardfolk, etc. I'd give the latter its own book, and I'd throw a couple of serpentfolk-like creatures (and maybe the vishkanya) into a book called 'Blood of Serpents."

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

Frog people get their own book. They'd resent having to share with snakes.

Silver Crusade

I am so hype for both Blood of Serpents and Blood of Dragons. Want now please.


|dvh| wrote:
I am so hype for both Blood of Serpents and Blood of Dragons. Want now please.

Agreed, Want...


Blood of Serpents sounds cool. Maybe it would shed some light on the origins of nagas and nagaji and so forth...


I would gladly buy both Blood of Dragons and Serpents. Along with a Kitsune one if it ever somehow came into existance ;)


(Oh boy, I've left this unchecked for quite a while...)

Erik Mona wrote:
I think we've generally steered clear of dragon-men because that was so overdone (often by us) in the Dragon and Dungeon magazine days. 3.5 had dragon races all over it, especially in the latter period immediately preceding the introduction of Pathfinder.

True... However... was it Paizo or Wizards of the Coast themselves who commissioned such races? If WotC were the ones commissioning Paizo for new materials, then... I don't see how Paizo should feel "guilty" for publishing more dragon races.

Dragonborn and spellscales were WotC's and the draconians were a DragonLance's creation, adapted to the D20 system. The true dragons as PCs were inspired by WotC's Savage Species and their racial level progressions.

Then again... you might want to remind what dragon race was ever created by Paizo themselves.

Quote:
I think a lot of us also thought that the fin-headed half-dragons from third edition D&D were really goofy looking, and didn't fit our grittier sense of what the game world should be like. Almost too fantastic, if you will. Keep in mind this is going on 12 years ago, now, so I think some of us have mellowed in our militancy about this issue. I mean, at one time we had a "no succubi adventures" rule after doing too many of them in Dungeon, but we've obviously gotten past that.

From a design standpoint, it's totally understandable. I've also heard that from a gameplay standpoint, you were overwhelmed by the half-dragon characters and creatures, like... EVERYONE had one of these.

Quote:
At the VERY end of third edition, WotC made dragon-men a major part of their brand, and something that most of us associated with fourth edition. Dragon-men seemed more like a "D&D thing" than a "Pathfinder" thing, if that makes sense, so I think the focus on dragon-men in D&D resulted in less of this sort of thing in Pathfinder.

Beats me where that idea came about TBH. I wasn't in their heads when they came up with the idea... although... I suspect that with the introduction of the Spawns of Tiamat, they needed a good counterpart to fight them, hence why they decided to match the Dragonborn with Bahamut, a LG God.

Maybe the Dragonborn got such a positive critical acclaim that they became main races in BOTH the 4th and 5th editions of D&D. I don't think outside sources, such as fantasy novels, games and TV series inspired them as much; maybe they just happened to fill a void that they weren't aware of.

As for Pathfinder, from what I could understand, dragons are rarer in Golarion than in any other setting I've seen; Faerun, Eberron and Krynn are LOADED with dragons. So yeah, in the end, the "lack" of dragon-related races is understandable.

Please note that they you cannot deny that aasimars, tieflings, dhampirs, skinwalkers, ifrits, oreads, sylphs, undines and sulis did receive a LOT of stuff to make them as equal as their related templates (half-celestial, half-fiend, vampire, lycanthrope, half-elemental and half-genie). I mean, come on, I can make my aasimar winged... with a feat... just like applying the half-celestial template to a human.

Quote:
But anyway, there's clearly interest in the idea and it would be fun to try to do a book like "Blood of Dragons" some day.

Hmmm... that might sound weird, but I feel like the interest should be from YOUR part than ours, like you guys should want such a book because you like the idea to begin with. If it,s the opposite, we feel like we're "ordering you" to make a book that you might be relucant to write in the first place.

Quote:
I wouldn't include the other races folks have been suggesting here, like nagaji, lizardfolk, etc. I'd give the latter its own book, and I'd throw a couple of serpentfolk-like creatures (and maybe the vishkanya) into a book called 'Blood of Serpents."

"Blood of Scales" might be better suited, because I don't recall lizards to be related to serpents. Also, if you're going with nagajis and vishkanyas, why not make "Blood of the Orient", which would cover these two races, plus the kitsunes, wayangs and samsarans?

Then again... the Monster Codex did provide more infos on some races as well... the playable ones at least.

Hey man, thanks for the input ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Frog people get their own book. They'd resent having to share with snakes.

Hooray! But speaking as a frog person, I really don't think the slaadi would mind sharing Blood of Chaos with the proteans.

Wait, what? We're still IP?!?! AUGGGGGGGGGGGH!


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Frog people get their own book. They'd resent having to share with snakes.

Hooray! But speaking as a frog person, I really don't think the slaadi would mind sharing Blood of Chaos with the proteans.

Wait, what? We're still IP?!?! AUGGGGGGGGGGGH!

Please, let us share the book with the Kermitfolk. Funny how when the book is published it's all proteans, all the time, except for a bunch of blank pages, some of which have holes torn in them, some of them spattered in red ink, and some of them covered in rainbow glitter and/or sprinkles.

:D


To me the game already has a "dragonfolk" race in the kobolds. If I was going to make a medium sized dragonborn-like race I would tie it in to the kobolds somehow. If they released some dragon related race and it had nothing to do with kobolds I would honestly feel like they were "betraying" the material they already have so to speak. You can't really get more related to dragons than kobolds are.

I would probably have it as something like, "One group of kobolds has been attempting to return to their draconic roots. Their experiments have brought them such changes as to be another species altogether now." Or something like that.

The only exception to this that I would be happy about is if they had it as, "you are the offspring of half dragons mixing with other races" kind of like the shifters were for lycanthrops. The problem with that though, as someone mentioned, is that dragons aren't really common enough for that to have brought about a whole race.

As far as dragonborn as a wholly separate race having nothing to do with the already draconic elements in the game, I feel about that the same way I feel about drizzit clones: it's over done and overblown. If you want to play as a non-kobold draconic character, convince your GM to run a game with the players as actual dragons.

That's my two cents.

I would love to see Blood of Serpents (Viskanyas, Nagaji, Serpentfolk), Blood of the Swamp (gripli, bogarts, maybe lizardfolk too), and Blood of the Hound/wolf/canineofsomesort (Kitsune, Gnoll, etc.)


I love all these ideas for "Blood" books and would probably buy them as soon as they came out :D

Grand Lodge

havok101 wrote:


I would love to see Blood of Serpents (Viskanyas, Nagaji, Serpentfolk), Blood of the Swamp (gripli, bogarts, maybe lizardfolk too), and Blood of the Hound/wolf/canineofsomesort (Kitsune, Gnoll, etc.)

This part I can agree with.

I like the idea of a "draconic" race but I don't like how they've been done so far. I'd like to see Paizo's take on the concept.

SM

Liberty's Edge

Has no one looked at the monster codex? Theres plenty of dragon stuffs and other neat ideas! Personally, I want to see the tieflings subraces get fixed. Hellspawn have diplomacy as a class skill, yet take a penalty to charisma, also WHY THE F*@* DO SO MANY RACES HAVE A PENALTY TO INT?????


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Frog people get their own book. They'd resent having to share with snakes.

Looking forward to Blood of Frogs then.


Lots of "Blood of..." possibilities, just hope Paizo remembers this is called "PLAYER COMPANION" and not Campaign Setting/GM Companion.

There are a few reasons why Paizo (and many GMs) shy away from non Humanoid (type) PC races.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wouldn't mind humanoid draconic race. Mainly because lizardfolk aren't ever going to be promoted to playable, and I want reptilian race option that isn't as flimsy as kobolds(kobolds are pretty awesome, but everyone hates them and they are bit of canon fodder). Something with more physical prowess you know?

Why not nagaji instead? Well, firstly, those are more much common in Tian Xi and they seem better suited for eastern based stuff... And I'm confused of whether bestiary or advanced race guide art is more close to what they are supposed to look like. Latter art is kinda awful since its human with snake skin basically

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given that pretty much nobody at Paizo, and certainly not James Jacobs is a fan of half-dragons/dragonborn/draconians/etc., I wouldn't hold my hopes up.


Gorbacz wrote:
Given that pretty much nobody at Paizo, and certainly not James Jacobs is a fan of half-dragons/dragonborn/draconians/etc., I wouldn't hold my hopes up.

Well, it is just a suggestion afterall.

Not being a fan is one thing, but pretty sure they can get around that at some points.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Given that pretty much nobody at Paizo, and certainly not James Jacobs is a fan of half-dragons/dragonborn/draconians/etc., I wouldn't hold my hopes up.

Felt like noting now months later that just because they don't like it doesn't mean it can't happen. There is such a thing as offering options for people with different interests than yours after all

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Given that pretty much nobody at Paizo, and certainly not James Jacobs is a fan of half-dragons/dragonborn/draconians/etc., I wouldn't hold my hopes up.
Felt like noting now months later that just because they don't like it doesn't mean it can't happen. There is such a thing as offering options for people with different interests than yours after all

And there's also the thing called 'creative direction'. I'm sure there is a significant group of people who would be happy with Golarion having goth lolis with rocket launchers, me included, but I'm not sure if that's what James and co. want for their game world.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Given that pretty much nobody at Paizo, and certainly not James Jacobs is a fan of half-dragons/dragonborn/draconians/etc., I wouldn't hold my hopes up.
Felt like noting now months later that just because they don't like it doesn't mean it can't happen. There is such a thing as offering options for people with different interests than yours after all
And there's also the thing called 'creative direction'. I'm sure there is a significant group of people who would be happy with Golarion having goth lolis with rocket launchers, me included, but I'm not sure if that's what James and co. want for their game world.

Doesn't mean that they agree about everything with each other or are unable to change their minds :P And I'm not saying they should do that, but I'm saying it isn't impossible.

51 to 100 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Pathfinder Player Companion / How about "Blood of Dragons"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.