Dragonborn are the most cancerous race in Dungeons and Dragons and should have been taken behind the woodshed to get...

Dragonborn are the most cancerous race in Dungeons and Dragons and should have been taken behind the woodshed to get the Ol' Yeller treatment when 4e died.

...

i dunno man, dragon born are gay

So's elves. And dwarves are probably overcompensating, considering the beards.

And the less said about halflings, the better.

"At Least They're Not Kender"

Actually no, you're just a projecting faggot.

Most dragonborn players don't want to fuck a dragonborn, OP. I'm not sure what kind of cancerous scalies you've been playing with, but not all dragonborn are like that.

This

Wow butthurt

#notalldragonborn

Dragonborn in 3.x were some furry wet dream shit, but they've thankfully shaken that off in editions since then.

In 3.x it was like, you loved dragons so much that you were specially chosen by dragons and you incubated in a big egg and were transformed into your true dragon-humanoid self. In 4e and 5e they're just like a servitor race.

Why are you saying no to tall dragonborn?

I main humans in D&D. That being said, while I do like the idea of a free breath weapon, I like the racial bonus feat more.

It's strange, but the only time I've ever encountered a furry playing D&D, he asked if he could play a dragonborn to which I said no because it was a homebrew setting and they didn't exist. He then demanded he be allowed to play a dragonborn or a weretiger and I told him to fuck off. Then later he asked everyone if we wanted to see his tail and I told him to leave.

They make me feel self-conscious.

>friend only plays tieflings and dragonborns and shit like that
fucking cancer humans where it's at

>Play a game with a variety of humanoids with unique powers and attributes.
>Pick a human.

Waste of fucking opportunity mate.

Kobold detected

Most furries play dragonborn, but most dragonborn players aren't furries, the just want to breathe fire and shit.

>play a game where you can develop an interesting character and tell interesting stories with your friends
>decide to just go full edge and muh demonkin/muh dragonkin

>You can only have an interesting backstory as a human.
>Dragonborn are edgy

yet to see one that isn't just
>racial stereotype
muh outcast tiefling
that or they're mysteriously treated like they don't look like demons
basically same shit for dragonborn
other races like elves and dwarves only end up a bit better

or even worse they don't have a character and they're just a mixture of the player's shit sense of humour and/or minmaxing

So because you play with shitters who play dragonborn poorly, it means that the entire race is bad?

I've played with people who treated Dwarves as short, hairy cavemen who threatened Elves, started barroom brawls, and generally acted by obnoxious faggots in general, but I'm not stupid enough to blame the entire race for the stupidity of one asshole.

Which is more than anyone can say about you.

Whenever I make a tiefling he always starts out as an outcast cause that's their thing but that doesn't mean my guy doesn't try to fit in and try to be normal.
I don't really like to rely a race's background too much but I don't want to be a special snowflake who breaks the immersion by saying "B-but my guy is different".
Point being I like to use their background as a base but every now and then it's fun to be stereotype.

D&D is the most cancerous system in tabletop roleplaying and should have been taken behind the woodshed to get the Ol' Yeller treatment when Gary Gygax died.

This meme is the most cancerous one on Veeky Forums and should have been taken behind the woodshed to get the Ol' Yeller treatment when the board was created.

My issue with the dragonborn isn't that it's a special snowflake race. Well, that's sort of the issue, but the dealbreaker for me is that it implies a pretty huge thing about setting: there are dragons and the guy who descended from them is in your party.

Suddenly dragons aren't mysterious unfathomable beings that you better not fuck with, because you shared your loot with one of them, basically.

So this race doesn't feel like "core" to me. And then there's this whole other issue of people who just choose it for kicks. Stereotypical elves and dwarves I can understand and tolerate, but mostly no-one knows how to roleplay a dragonborn and no-one cares so they end up emphasising that they're giant lizards and that's it.

>and the guy who descended from them is in your party.
What, the sorcerer? He's a gnome.

That's why I like playing human, there's no set stereotype so you can play anything from an outcast to a noble to some weird old hermit, whatever and it will never feel like you're either playing to a stereotype or specifically trying to go against it.
And that's good, I hope more people play it well but most people I see interested in those races aren't interested in making a good character and while I wouldn't outright say you can't roll one if I played a standard DnD setting, for that reason I don't tend to include them in homebrew settings or play them myself.
Also see he sums up the feeling generally.

Yeah, sorcerer stuff also annoys the fuck out of me.

I honestly don't see what the issue is.

I mean, it's not like D&D actually treats most of the creatures in the MM/Beastiary with any sort of reference since they're not only documented but also stated towards a certain skill level.

It's hard to really be afraid of an Aboloth or a Kraken, knowing "oh, these things have this much AC, this much health, and can only do X, Y, or Z once it's their turn."

5e fixed this somewhat by giving certain creatures legendary and lair actions that can occur out of turn but even then, there hasn't been anything mysterious about these creatures since they were invented thousands of years ago.

Again, you're blaming the race for the actions of a few shitters that you've met/play with.

I've never seen anyone play a gnome that wasn't a squeeky voiced cunt but I'm not going to ban them on sight just because people treat them like walking short jokes.

Dragonborn don't even have tails

> I'm not going to ban them on sight just because people treat them like walking short jokes.

Only a manlet would do that.

In each game I'm running, there are always different lore assumptions about said creatures. "Muh dragons are different" I feel is a good way to shake things up a bit.

So with dragonborn as a player race I feel obligated to reveal those lore assumptions to players, since that sounds fair. I mean, it's a dragonborn, they should know a thing or two. But I like muh dragons and players also like discovering what's the deal with this world's dragons and aboleths and whatever. So dragonborn as PC doesn't work for me

Mechanics have nothing to do with this (although sometimes I change them too, because yeah total predictability isn't good)

It wouldn't even make sense to have a tail with the human posture they have, ass will do just fine. Demons and derivatives you can be more lenient with because they're outsiders.

Yeah I like playing human too but if I"m going to be an outcast esq character I would rather be a tiefling because then (at least for me) it helps me get into the role more and if the DM plays off that it could be fun.
Like I'm not allowed into a township or a shop owner raises his prices. I would have to deal with this throughout the game while a human could grow out of being an outcast (more or less) by just looking differently.

In 4E there were even feats dedicated to making a tiefling tail able to pick locks and generally perform dexterous tasks. So I guess in that sense it's generally treated more like a third arm-limb than a balancing thing.

>It's hard to really be afraid of an Aboloth or a Kraken, knowing "oh, these things have this much AC, this much health, and can only do X, Y, or Z once it's their turn."
Wait, what?
Even with those details you should be able to realize that a Kraken doing "just X" will devastate you and your whole party.
And DMs never have to stick to base statistics.

I have two dragonborn snowflakes in my group that I DM for. Both power gamers and they get pissed when I forgot that most NPCs have never seen one and don't either fawn over them or cry in terror.

Just say that a long ass time ago, Dragonborn were a solitary race that lived alongside dragons in remote areas of the world but then all the dragons disappeared overnight and the race was basically left to fend for themselves before finding civilization.

It's not the most original or thought provoking shit but at least it allows PC's to play Dragonborn without you feeling autistically compelled to just blab the entirety of Dragon lore down their throat.

And if anyone asks for more information than that, just say "that information isn't known/lost in history/there are many theories on that/etc.

I agree with this user.
You could have the dragonborns figure out what happened in the past by making them actively seek answers.

It's the same shit as when you watch a monster movie and see the zipper on the monster's costume.

Yeah, it's scary within the context of the story but out of character all I can think is "man, we are never going to run into that" and "man, this thing has some interesting abilities" but never abject horror or anything.

Horror is inversely proportionate to how much you know about the thing that you're afraid of. The more you know, the less scary it is.

And that would be fine, but that's a) lazy since I usually give more fucks about my settings. I don't fancy myself a great creative mind, but still. And b) doesn't help all the other issues with dragonborns. My game literally gets nothing from including them as PCs. If one day someone says to me "Hey, I really like dragonborns because" and then actually lists reasons for playing beside "wanna be lizard" or how it's important for his build, then okay.

I don't really see setting and tone limitations as a bad thing. Works for us.

>That's why I like playing human, there's no set stereotype so you can play anything from an outcast to a noble to some weird old hermit,

Well, that's pretty easy for Dragonborn. What with having an entire civilization and all. It's not like they are 1 of a kind weird things. There are Dragonborn bakers and diplomats as much as Warlords and Mercenaries.

You could just use that setting as a base.Just think of it like an orc, sure the stereotypical orc is a dumb warrior who does nothing but fight. Though when someone spices it up a bit by saying he had brain damage and actually has above average int but just can't properly convey his feelings in words and therefor just acts like a brute until something happens to him like a cure wounds directly to the damaged area.

That would make an interesting character I think.think.

Setting/tone limitations are fine, so long as there's actually fucking good reasons to explain why shit works like that in your setting.

The point I was getting at is that there are relatively simple ways to explain 1) how Dragonborns came to be, while 2) Keeping Dragons as a mysterious thing that nobody really knows about.

If you can think up a way that's better than my shitty suggestion, go right on ahead, but don't ban an entire race just because of your bias and inability to integrate them within the setting, especially when they're included as a standard race in the PHB.

Probably. But I always work from the question "what do I need in this world and why", I don't look at races and think "how can my setting accomodate them?"
So far I haven't found a use for a dragonborn that excites me. But at least that's something to think about, so thanks for your POW.

Kobolds are descended from Dragons, but nobody complains about them being special snowflakes. Kobolds are a race descended from Dragons done right.

As I said, "works for us". By us I mean my regular party and anyone who joins us hasn't had his heart broken by hearing "no dragonborn here" yet. So I'll keep my bias for now, thank you very much.

They're also not a player race.

Well, Dragonborn culturally are more or less 'Bahamut worshiping Klingons' and I think that works for them.

There isn't really a warlike member of the common races that isn't an obvious badguy like orcs. The Dragonborn are a race that are easily to include as opposition that isn't evil, just warlike and expansionist.

Why not turn them into some kind of prestige class that anyone can take? Then let them have an ability to use voice magic.
FUS RO DAH

Anyone who doesn't share my opinion is wrong.

I will never take an argument against a humanoid animal race in Dungeons and Dragons, of all things, seriously. The stupidity of the argument is self-evident.

It only works until you get that one player who has the guts to ask "why?"

>Why can't I play Dragonborn?
>Because I don't want to reveal details about dragons.
>Why can't you just, I dunno, not tell me about it?
>Because it's important to your race.
>So every Dragonborn just knows about Dragons?
>Yeah...
>That doesn't make any sense though, why not just keep that shit hidden if you don't want people to know?
>...

no u

I fucking hate having Dragonborn and Tiefling as core races in any setting that isn't like, fucking Planescape or something.

It's such snowflake bullshit, any race that doesn't make up a fairly sizable percentage of the population of the setting should be confined to splatbooks or "Playing as [Insert race here]" sidebars in the Monsters Manual.

user are you just afraid of people who look different?

They're specifically under "uncommon races". If you don't want to allow uncommon races, then don't. You're literally asking to be charged more money for options you're being given with the rest.

IIRC, dragonborn are basically like Spartans or Romans if they worshipped a good aligned dragon god.

You could make them into a race that wishes to expand his influence to the world while also stomping out any traces of evil they find along the way.

There, I just gave you Roman Inquisitors who hunt down strong evil creatures for sport on orders of a Big Good Dragon diety.

You're welcome.

Not even anti-dragonborn user, but you're being pretty dense. Having an entire race of half dragon humanoids implies dragons fraternize with mortals, and often enough for an entire race to arise. Maybe he wants dragons to be enigmatic elemental creatures instead of a greek god replacement.

If you hate special snowflakes, then why are you playing D&D? A player character is basically by default a special snowflake. Trying to act like a short stocky bearded human is less of one than a dragon-like humanoid is honestly just admitting you don't want races that are meant to look cool.

Dragonborn aren't half-dragons.

>They're specifically under "uncommon races". If you don't want to allow uncommon races, then don't

If you somehow think that them being right there in the Player's Handbook next to Elves and Humans doesn't create an expectation in most players that they're fair game then you're straight delusional, I don't enjoy telling players that the character concept they were excited for doesn't fit in my game.

And I'm not asking to be charged more, they should still be in Core, just put them in the Monsters Manual with a big fat "ONLY WITH GM APPROVAL" sticker on top. That creates the right expectation. Especially since the player isn't really supposed to be reading the MM at all.

You sound like a load of fun to play with, playa. Then again, it's Veeky Forums, I'm not even sure you people actually play tabletop.

>It's such snowflake bullshit, any race that doesn't make up a fairly sizable percentage of the population of the setting should be confined to splatbooks or "Playing as [Insert race here]" sidebars in the Monsters Manual.

You mean like how they ARE in the 4e Setting? Tieflings and Dragonborn at one point or another were the biggest civilizations in the entire setting. Both have fallen since then but they are far from uncommon.

The 4e setting was so poorly fleshed out as to barely be a setting at all (I know that was the point, doesn't make the setting any more interesting)

I have literally never played in any game or even talked to anyone, outside of Veeky Forums, that used the setting.

I get why separating them into a different book would make them more explicitly GM's Approval Only, but it seems goofy to make a point to cater to that weird mental conditioning when they could do what they did and say "these races are rarer than humans, dwarves, halflings and elves", which has that exact same meaning, only more implicit. As for turning down concepts, well, that's not a problem limited to racial options, and besides, why weren't your limitations stated before your players started creating their characters?

a race of half-dragons is different than Dragonborn if we are using D&D. Although 5e muddies this a bit with their "ancestry".

Dragonborns only imply that at some point, a dragon did something to a human and it caused a Dragonborn to appear.

Dragonborns are not half-dragons, they are draconic sure but that doesn't necessarily mean that a dragon had sex with a human and a dragonborn was the result.

In a setting where magic exists and wizards are always making weird shit like owlbears just to see what would happen, I don't really see how magical fuckery couldn't be a good enough explanation for why they're a thing without giving away the mystery of what dragons actually are.

Except for autism and having no creativity of course.

Do you actually read what I said about "other issues"? And how it "works for us"? It's not about having guts to ask. I can do what you suggest. I'm _not_interested_. Neither are my players.

I ran a vanilla 5e in sort-of-FR. Dragonborn never really shined as dragonborn. No-one was interested enough in them except for mechanics. Usually people come to our table with either a) core concept already in mind b) they're total newbies. Now if you think I robbed total newbies of their creative freedom by disallowing dragonborn, we'll just have to call it a day.

Way to make a conclusion.

It had a damn lot of fleshing out by the end of 4e. They just didn't have the host of existing material that existing settings have (And had the issue of needing to include the actual game too)

That and you can't really bitch about them being in the PHB when they are a common race in the default setting of the game.

Again, you're basing your entire argument around the fact that you purposefully play with shitters.

At this point I truly believe that you're just making up excuses.

To be fair, Tieflings were only the nobles of the Bael Turath Empire unlike the Dragonborn of Arkhosia which filled nearly all walks of life. So Dragonborn should be rather numerous and Tieflings quite a bit less so.

That's good. And it's especially good for NPCs. Which is how I use dragonborn already. But yeah, nice spin.

Once long ago, the dragon born were slaves to dragons.

Then they won their independence and followed dragon born mosses out into the wilderness to wander around lost for 40 years until they found "the soft skins" who took pity on them, and allowed them to integrate into their societies. Where they basically became slaves again...but this time with paychecks so the humans didn't feel bad about it. Most dragon born only know that once they were slaves to True dragons. Now they seem to be doing all of humanity's heavy lifting, for half of what a human would make doing the same job. But it's better than what life was like under the dragons apparently. Damned if any living dragon born knows, but that's why they stick around.

There that's how you fix that problem. Now dragon born don't know shit about dragons any more. They were slaves they didn't write, and it was all oral tradition, which got blown out proportion over time and the most they know is what everyone else knows. Dragons are big, carnivorous, and horde gold like dwarves tax collectors.

Yeah but they are still not so rare as to be 'What the fuck is that' in anywhere but the remotest of places. Since the people of Bael Turath ended up everywhere and Teiflings breed true.

It's honestly not even really a spin. It's what they actually were like in fluff.

I don't think people who don't want to play something or to play it just for kicks are "shitters". And I don't think it's important for them to have dragonborn specifically to do this.

I also don't think I somehow lack creativity and it's autistic not to think about integrating one uncommon race into my campaign when I have tons of other things in said campaign to think about.

The sense of entitlement is strong with this one.

See, this is why I like third party stuff and custom monsters. A really good one our DM threw at us was a 2D monster that didn't deal damage, just raw fatigue, and jumped to and from the Ethereal Plane to do so. Locking that mother fucker down took time, and nearly resulted in a TPK (2/4 dead, including the Cleric, 1/4 one hit from death, last guy was a defensive EK using self buffs so basically couldn't be hit, still two hits from death)

I inferred that you were uncreative because you couldn't come up with a simple solution to a relatively simple problem of where dragonborns fit into the setting without having to give away details on dragons while doing so.

If it's really that difficult (protip: it really isn't) to come up with an excuse for how Dragonborn can exist within your setting without dumping every ounce of dragon lore into their lap, you can just pick any one of the excuses that I, and others, have come up with ITT and modify them as you wish, just like anyone else who came up with a fantasy setting.

I inferred that you were autistic because you basically said that if someone wanted to play a Dragonborn, you would have to tell them details on how dragons work in your setting, even though there's no reason for doing so.

It'd be like feeling compelled to tell every elf or gnome player about how the Fey work in your setting. There isn't an actual reason for doing so and if people ask how much their race knows, you can just say "no, because..." and call it a day.

And I inferred that you played with shitters because you said that when they did look at Dragonborns, they only looked at them from a mechanical standpoint.

I saw at least two write-ups that could be dragged and dropped into any setting really and would hit on why Dragonborn are related to dragons but don't know more than anyone else about them.

>I saw at least two write-ups that could be dragged and dropped into any setting really and would hit on why Dragonborn are related to dragons but don't know more than anyone else about them.

Okay? What's the issue here?

It's not like you gave any details into your personal setting to help people come up with reasons. If you want more specific answers than give us more specific information.

Ohh sorry. No I'm not that user. I'm the user who wrote up the Dragonborn as former dragon slave race that found freedom, and is currently living with humans getting crap pay and no dignity.

gronk

I didn't make a conclusion. I expressed an understandable doubt.

Hey look another argument that is setting dependent.

I really don't get this, in most villages elves, dwarves and the like haven't been seen or are at least rare, look at african villages seeing someone white, the children are gonna be children and get all excited the adults are going to be more mature, this is even further muted by the fact it's a fantasy world with several races and countless monsters.

What would happen in most relatively civilized places is that the local populace will treat them as a curiosity little more or with distrust, like mothers bring their kids inside but short of jump scares I don't see why anyone would be terrified or fawn over them.

>bait thread
>89 replies
shit guys, really?

>Trips wasted on retardation

Dragonborn aren't half-dragons, even in 4e they weren't. Dragonborn are just a race, they may or may not have something to do with dragons just like elves may or may not have something to do with the fey.

>pic
>b-but furries aren't just about sex!

One of my favorite characters was a dragonborn barbarian. He was reasonably intelligent but knew common as about a third language, so je had difficulty speaking. Ended up as basically a battle psychologist.

"Me am Brak, and me am here to help resolve inner anger.....with Brak's OUTER anger! Me am channel negative emotion into more constructive path, which Brak determines is your face."

Honestly you could just say he's a large lizard man who could breathe acid and it'd work the same. Reptiles are just cool, dude.

Draconians > Dragon born
Draconians > Kender
Kender are cancer

Ergo, Draconians > Cancer

I had a dude come round for a session of dnd, previously he'd made a pretty serious character as had everyone else, so i counted on him creating a pretty standard character.
He wanted to unironically be a sexcrazed futa tiefling, at one point i mentioned cloved hooves and he didn't know what they where and whe i described them as like a goats foot he maintained that he was half goat, and then when succubusses were mentioned he instantly jumped on it.

furry detected

I'm not a fan of the dragonborn as a core race because of the setting implications. I'm more of a standard humans-and-humans-with-funny-ears kind of guy.

Dragon born aren't half dragons.
If Dragonlace setting they are called Draconians and were made from dragon eggs that were warped by magic.
in 4e they were made by the dragon gods to out of curiosity about what was so great about humanoids that every other god seemed to be making their own.

In 5e Dragonborn are to dragons as Gekos are to Crocodiles i.e. barely related.

What implications would those be, pray tell?

Implications? What implications? That there is intelligent life that is not just humans with funny ears and different height ranges, that are not default evil (see gnolls)