|
For various reasons -- from making D&D more "kid-friendly" to appealing to the WoW crowd to a paradigm shift -- WotC replaced D&D's half-orcs with dragonborn.
What do you think of the results? Do dragonborns make the game too ridiculous? Different? What did you like/dislike about half-orcs? Are the two really that different/similar?
DISCLAIMER: Let's not turn this into one of those 3.x versus 4E flamewars, okay?
Races are such a difficult topic to approach with any amount of objectivity it seems.
Personally, I do not like Dragonborn. For me it is a simple taste issue -- I like dragons as being so far above mortals, so powerful, and so awe-inspiring, that having a race share heritage/concepts with them cheapens what makes dragons so great in the first place.
That being said, I love the artwork, the race is put together solidly, I enjoyed the ecology article, and so on. Perhaps, the most telling thing though, is that my players really enjoy the DB.
Similarly, I am not a fan of the Tiefling. I do not like races that come with such a solid backstory (I look evil and have demon blood in me, I am the loner good guy struggling against the blood within me . .)that it becomes difficult to differentiate them in a campaign (for both NPCs and PCs).
While we are at it:
I hate 1/2 races with a passion.
I am not a big fan of gnomes (McCartor's not been seen lately, right?) as PCs.
I love gnomes in a more adversarial role.
I am not a big fan of monster races (goblins, orcs) as PCs.
I like the Minotaur, however; especially the latest article in Dragon.
Something about the Warforged (the concept, not the exact Eberron species) appeals to me. I . . .
am rambling.
DB, personally not a big fan because it skews somethings I like to make central to my campaign world; however, I can see why it is popular and hold no ill will against it. If my players truly love it, I see no reason to ban it from my campaign world -- instead I just need to be more creative and involve into the world in an original/exciting manner.
|
|
Races are such a difficult topic to approach with any amount of objectivity it seems.
Thanks for sharing, The Last Rogue. For me, the art awoke my interest in the dragonborn. There was just something...I don't know..."inhumanly primal"...about them; this wasn't just another race with a funny forehead ala Star Trek.
Playing DBs also woke my interest in playing melee characters, which I avoided in most games. My preference tends to be human wizards. 6 1/2' to 7' of muscle, "scales" and sharp teeth, though, almost scream fighter.
Races are such a difficult topic to approach with any amount of objectivity it seems.Playing DBs also woke my interest in playing melee characters, which I avoided in most games. My preference tends to be human wizards. 6 1/2' to 7' of muscle, "scales" and sharp teeth, though, almost scream fighter.
Of course, where I have really seen them shine is Paladin. I am not saying they are bad race, and I maybe a bad judge, as I DM much more often than I play.
|
I love the idea and the execution of the dragonborn in D&D 4th Edition. I think they are a very welcome newcomer to the game and a great representation of the new game. I thought Arcana Unearthed's mojh race was a good start, and the present dragonborn is a terrific "final product." Count me as one that is thoroughly thankful Wizards of the Coast took this step with dragonborn. And yes, dragonborn paladins are a perfect marriage of race and class in D&D 4E.
I do not miss the half-orc, at all. Half-orcs certainly worked well mechanically for the power gaming ranger/barbarian/fighter/pious templar melee type builds in D&D 3.x. But, thematically they seemed to be permanently stuck as bastard children with pretty regular backgrounds. I agree with Wizards of the Coast's reasons for not putting the half-orc in the 4E Player's Handbook.
I also despise gnomes, as a character and as NPCs/monsters. But, this discussion is not about our diminutive flower bed guardians.
|
I personally don't see it as "replacing" half-orcs with dragonborn. The only thing shared by those races is a bonus to Strength.
With that said, Player's Handbook 2 will feature the half-orc and as every additional sourcebook will be considered "core" this makes your point about replacing half-orcs with dragonborn moot, as half-orcs are going to be as core and available for use in official WotC-sanctioned events as dragonborn are now.
I must admit I wasn't too enthused about the dragonborn when I first heard that they'd be in the PHB, since I've never understood the "characters that look like dragons are cool" school of thought, but I've learned if not to like them at least tolerate them and I can actually see a lot of workable character concepts and roleplaying opportunities in them.
I also think I understand why the half-orcs were pushed into the PHB2: half-orcs, being iconic barbarians, need the barbarian class to fulfill their niche. For this reason I think it was perfectly valid to let the half-orcs wait until the designers had properly formulated the new direction for barbarians. The same could be said about gnomes and bards, really.
By the way, I don't understand your comment on dragonborn being a part of some kind of a WoW paradigm shift. There is no dragonborn equivalent in WoW as of yet and if a WoW paradigm shift was indeed true we should've had tinker gnomes, orcs, trolls and minotaurs as playable races right from the start.
What do you think of the results? Do dragonborns make the game too ridiculous? Different? What did you like/dislike about half-orcs? Are the two really that different/similar?
Ridiculous? No, no more than many elements of this fantasy game.
But more fantastic than my group likes. And we love half-orcs,
While I really like 4e game mechanics, I like 3e flavor more. I'm not a big fan of dragonborns as PCs, or tieflings for that matter. They just don't come across as classical fantasy to me. I do like half-orcs and gnomes.
I feel Golarion is closer to classic fantasy. When I begin one of Paizo's APs, I plan to "outlaw" dragonborn PCs, and point out some of the Dragon articles with the alternative races, such as half-orc. I'm assuming gnomes will get the royal treatment in PHB2, along with Bards and Druids, so I may way until that book is out until I run a full fledged AP in Golarion using 4e.
I'm not a big fan of dragonborns as PCs, or tieflings for that matter. They just don't come across as classical fantasy to me.
The argument has (more than once) been made that 4e is a shift away from classical fantasy and toward more modern elements and archetypes.
I like the Dragonborn, I have actually fit them and Tieflings into my Homebrew just fine (Mainly because for 4e I moved the setting to an unexplored continent). I have the 2 races history more closely tied to one another along the lines of Babylon 5, with the DB being analogous to the Narns and the Tieflings being similar to the Centauri. Both of them having fallen empires trying to recapture that lost glory.
~Raevhen~
For various reasons -- from making D&D more "kid-friendly" to appealing to the WoW crowd to a paradigm shift -- WotC replaced D&D's half-orcs with dragonborn.
What do you think of the results? Do dragonborns make the game too ridiculous? Different? What did you like/dislike about half-orcs? Are the two really that different/similar?
DISCLAIMER: Let's not turn this into one of those 3.x versus 4E flamewars, okay?
Personally I am not a big fan of Dragonborn. Funny thing was very few people played half orcs and I'd say to make a half orc character doesn't need a whole race page dedicated to them but many long term D&D players were unimpressed that they dropped them and gnomes(even though fewer people played gnomes!!)
As for Tieflings, they are in one of my campaigns of the moment now but they do seem to have been included to pander to certain elements as opposed to being added to improve the game. They should have left half orcs,gnomes and tieflings to a player option in the MM along with dragonborn.
I have the 2 races history more closely tied to one another along the lines of Babylon 5, with the DB being analogous to the Narns and the Tieflings being similar to the Centauri. Both of them having fallen empires trying to recapture that lost glory.
Neat approach. I just realised i'd subconciously done the same thing, even to the extent of some of their cultural beliefs and customs. Possibly not as overtly as you but the two races do tie into the Narn/Centauri divide nicely.
And to answer the OP, I find that Dragonborn fit nicely into the game. If you can accept dragons and elves and eladrin and gelatinous cubes and all manner of other creatures that would be impossible in the 'real world' then why not Dragonborn?
Thing is the Tiefling in Dawnforge are in an empire very much in line with the Melnibone empire of 'Stormbringer' so I can live with them but the Dragonborn are too archetypal for my tastes and a bit too WOW for the rest of the group that I DM for.
I have opened up a more legible option for the Dragonborn in my campaign than was put forward by the 4E Forgotten Realms but can imagine few takers.
Eh, I dislike the name Dragonborn, so I swapped it to Lacerta. I like the idea of an elementally inspired scaly race.
The only thing TS doesn't like about DBs is their name. TS uses 'draconians' when he plays, because it sounds ten times cooler than 'dragonboned'...I mean, 'dragonborn'.
TS always thought that half-dorks would logistically be too rare within any campaign world to justify them as a PC race, so TS shouts "good riddance" as 4e boots them out the door.
TS