[4e] - Dragonborn?

[Grynning]

there's no reason they couldn't breastfeed after hatching, like the platypus. The egg laying assumption comes from scales=eggs, but then we have the friendly platypus to think of, so no reason to assume the opposite isn't possible. I seem to remember some reptiles give live birth, so there we have it: any combination is possible, and without a quote or link to the 4e Dragonborn description, there's no way to make any conclusion.

Sorry to be that guy, but the platypus does not technically breastfeed - it actually "sweats" the milk out of it's mammary glands and the young lap it up as it pools in certain places on the skin. Don't ask why I know that.

On what seems to have become the focus of the thread, I disagree with Dragonborn having breasts, not because of my suspension of disbelief, but because the concept of anyone being attracted to a scaly lizard thing with boobs completely and utterly squicks me out, and the fanservice art of scaly lizard things with boobs would naturally do so as well.

Also: man, does it feel weird to say the word "breastfeed" here.

Yes...yes it does.

[Reel On, Love]

A baby platypus, AKA a "puggle":



Also

[Khanderas]

On what seems to have become the focus of the thread, I disagree with Dragonborn having breasts, not because of my suspension of disbelief, but because the concept of anyone being attracted to a scaly lizard thing with boobs completely and utterly squicks me out, and the fanservice art of scaly lizard things with boobs would naturally do so as well.

Oh but.... we made some KILLER half-dragonborn... and really hot to.

Half Dragonborn and half yeti. Scweeet..

[Grynning]

^
Monotreme power!

In 5th edition, Platyborn will be the new core race.

[Azerian Kelimon]

A baby platypus, AKA a "puggle":



Also

*Insert big AWWW here. They're really cute!*

[Charity]

M0rt you are quite sorta right... I seem to have blended his post with kwanzaabot's and a few others in my head...
That'll teach me not to quote the original text won't it... well you'd hope so anyway.

Though... he does say "Style is nice, but I prefer substance" then go on to rail against the presentation calling it "shallow" then suggest his/others dislike for Dragonborn is a product of this, which is ironic no? Then the ubiquitous reference to morepigs (you should get royalties Reel) for no descenable reason...

[Reel On, Love]

*Insert big AWWW here. They're really cute!*

They also have a venomous spur that won't kill you, but will hurt so badly you'll wish it had.

Then the ubiquitous reference to morepigs (you should get royalties Reel) for no descenable reason...

All credit goes to Spike, of "Templar, Arizona" fame. Which is a great webcomic.

[Azerian Kelimon]

They also have a venomous spur that won't kill you, but will hurt so badly you'll wish it had.

Natural resistance to poisons and toxins, I wuvs you!

See, this is what happens when you try to rain on someone's parade. You get an ace in your hole.

[SamTheCleric]

So do we know if dragonborn reproduce via egg or not? I don't think there's been an official ruling...

[Cyr]

Yes, they hatch, so it says on page 27 of Races and Classes

[SamTheCleric]

Oh. Well there goes my theory...

[Xsjado]

Personally I'd prefer them without breasts, and the females will be bigger than the males, and there will be much confusion and DC20 knowledge checks

[Tengu]

Oh. Well there goes my theory...

I'm curious to hear it.

[SamTheCleric]

It was just a silly thought that maybe Dragonborn are really mammals with a reptilian appearance.

There -are- some mammals that are hatched from eggs (as mentioned above)... so its entirely possible that these Dragonborn breasts are intentional.

Do I think anyone paid that much care to it? No. Does it impact the game in any major way? Not really.

Is it a hotly debated topic over the interwebs? You bet.

[Bleen]

Not at all. I find 4e, or what we know of it, to be an amazingly-designed system that I am 90% sure to try when a full version is released, and at least 70-80% sure to enjoy thoroughly and continue playing with my group. Why am I suddenly in the "Anti-4ed" camp because I'm not gushing admiration for several small, likely-inconsequential aspects of the system that I don't like? I'm passingly expressing my understanding of why 4e-haters exist, and how both sides' opinions in the conflict are, by and large, silly, nonsensical, narrow-minded, and often unnecessarily condescending.

Not being in your camp doesn't mean that I'm instantly in with the opposing one. You're all blatantly-ignoring the like, first quarter of my giant post that I guess should have included the phrase, in big shiny letters, "I ENJOY MANY OF THE ASPECTS THAT FOURTH EDITION PRESENTS AND THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINT MORE OR LESS SUMS UP MY OPINIONS ON THE TOPIC AT HAND AND NOT MY ENTIRE OPINION OF THE SYSTEM."

I like how one sentence of my post (MOREPIG joke) is being read further into than an entire paragraph.

[Scintillatus]

Perhaps because the connotation of MMORPG players being the primary demographic for the new edition is a piece of propaganda being thrown around by people who want to frighten people into not buying the edition?

Your words have consequences that extend far beyond the syllables you use.

[Jerthanis]

While I am not a fan of female dragonborn having boobs...

"Biology doesn't work this way"?

They also breathe @#$!ing LIGHTNING!

*shrug* I guess I was just trying to express how easily I could see someone coming up with a houserule for this, not trying to argue that it's more unbelievable that they have breasts than that they have lightning breath.

To me it's harder to imagine a lizard-like race with breasts than without, so I'll quietly imagine them without breasts myself in the same way that I found it hard to imagine Halflings with the elongated Alien(tm) head in 3rd edition so quietly continued imagining them as having human shaped heads. I didn't go so far as to call this a "houserule", but I could potentially imagine someone saying as much.

[AmberVael]

Two things here.

I do not mind the idea of Dragonborn. Reptilian/dragonish race? That's fine. No, they're not realistic at all, but I have a good ability to ignore that which really shouldn't work and just get down to what I find fun: blowing things up and roleplaying, to give two examples.
However, I do mind that Dragonborn are being made into a major race in fourth edition.

It's not so much that Dragonborn are bad, it's that I feel they're horribly out of place. They're not a traditional race, or even something that fits in well with traditional races. As of the moment, you have:
Normal race (human), brute race (orc), 'high' race (elf), short race (halfling), stout race (dwarf). In the end, they all look mostly human, with only one or two major variations- all of which merely warp aspects of humanity rather than add new aspects entirely. (Orcs, for example, are just plain bigger and have different facial styles. Halflings are shorter. Elves have pointy ears and slender features.)
And then they throw in... Dragonborn. They're VERY far from all the other races. They aren't just out of place in tradition, but in the other selected races. Instead of being a somewhat human variant, they have scales and breath weapons and seem entirely reptilian. While creatures like this were indeed presented in other editions, they were never presented as a main race, which is what they're doing now.
In something like, say, Morrowind, it's fine. They have the Argonians and those cat folk and they make the orcs very brutish and outlandish, and they have none of the other traditional races. They've essentially created their own style. DnD hasn't done this- or at least from my perspective- they haven't done it enough. As of the moment they are basing themselves off of traditional fantasy, and adding in Dragonborn as an integral part when they are so obviously newly shaped and out of place in the style they've been using just feels wrong.

So no, I don't hate Dragonborn. I just don't think they fit with everything else WotC has done. I acknowledge that 4E is moving towards changing and reworking everything they've done, but what they have done so far still gives a lot of the traditional style... so as of now, it still seems wrong.

[SamTheCleric]

Thank you for that very rational and well spoken post, Vael. I can understand how they could leave a bad taste in people's mouth now.

[EvilJames]

Perhaps because the connotation of MMORPG players being the primary demographic for the new edition is a piece of propaganda being thrown around by people who want to frighten people into not buying the edition?

Your words have consequences that extend far beyond the syllables you use.

your use of "propaganda" and "frighten" in reference to this debate is very amusing to me. As if there was an organized attempt to destroy the new game rather than people simply stating why the game doesn't appeal to them in contrast to others saying why it does.

[AmberVael]

Thank you for that very rational and well spoken post, Vael. I can understand how they could leave a bad taste in people's mouth now.

I'm glad I could help.

[Bleen]

Perhaps because the connotation of MMORPG players being the primary demographic for the new edition is a piece of propaganda being thrown around by people who want to frighten people into not buying the edition?

Your words have consequences that extend far beyond the syllables you use.

Meh, whatever. I'm done caring about the entire debate at this point, seeing as I thoroughly desire to put the extremes of both sides into a meat grinder and feed them to some extraplanar cosmic horror or something. The fact that each side only sees what they want to see and hears what they want to hear is enough to drive me utterly nuts when I try to put forth a largely-neutral opinion that expresses both of my trains of thought as a consumer. I'm tired of the fact that I have to be typecast as "for" or "against" and have that me the only part of what I have to say that ever matters.

I would rather suggest there be more peaceful hand-holding and singing in harmony, but these are THE INTERNETS, so obviously a minor disagreement is a serious offense to everyone's sensibilities.

[kc0bbq]

It's not so much that Dragonborn are bad, it's that I feel they're horribly out of place. They're not a traditional race, or even something that fits in well with traditional races. As of the moment, you have:
Normal race (human), brute race (orc), 'high' race (elf), short race (halfling), stout race (dwarf). In the end, they all look mostly human, with only one or two major variations- all of which merely warp aspects of humanity rather than add new aspects entirely. (Orcs, for example, are just plain bigger and have different facial styles. Halflings are shorter. Elves have pointy ears and slender features.)

They are a traditional race, in a D&D sense, since Dragonlance was an official AD&D setting. I don't think they were statted out in the 1st ed book as a PC race, but the campaign was not really intended to fight for the evil side. I haven't opened that book in a long time, so I don't remember offhand how they were handled. If it's an issue I can check when I get home.

Their creation method was a hair different, though, though thematically essentially the same.

And just because something is printed doesn't mean you have to allow it if you don't think it fits in a thematic way into your campaign. And sometimes it's more entertaining to play something that doesn't just have tiny, cosmetic changes from another race.

[EvilJames]

They are a traditional race, in a D&D sense, since Dragonlance was an official AD&D setting. I don't think they were statted out in the 1st ed book as a PC race, but the campaign was not really intended to fight for the evil side. I haven't opened that book in a long time, so I don't remember offhand how they were handled. If it's an issue I can check when I get home.

Their creation method was a hair different, though, though thematically essentially the same.

And just because something is printed doesn't mean you have to allow it if you don't think it fits in a thematic way into your campaign. And sometimes it's more entertaining to play something that doesn't just have tiny, cosmetic changes from another race.

Nitpick: those were Draconians and they were very different from the dragonborn, both thematically and intent-wise. (no they were never stated out as PC races although one of the proto-draconians sort of was )

[Citizen Joe]

I don't think the problem is so much a matter of having dragon-like characters, it is this specific implementation. While it doesn't take too much suspension of disbelief to have elves and dwarves, having reptilian humanoids starts to stretch things. When they start having breasts (when there is no in game reason for needing them) then you are unfairly forcing everyone to suspend their beliefs much more for the Dragonborn than any others. I'm sure there are ways to implement Dragonborn without all of the biological logic flaws. I just seems sloppy to me.

[Citizen Joe]

^
Monotreme power!

In 5th edition, Platyborn will be the new core race.

See Ducks from Runequest.

[AmberVael]

They are a traditional race, in a D&D sense, since Dragonlance was an official AD&D setting. I don't think they were statted out in the 1st ed book as a PC race, but the campaign was not really intended to fight for the evil side. I haven't opened that book in a long time, so I don't remember offhand how they were handled. If it's an issue I can check when I get home.

Their creation method was a hair different, though, though thematically essentially the same.

I noted this already in my argument. Even DnD had draconic creatures before, and other such strange races. Half-dragons, Dragonborn of Bahamut, Kobolds, Neraphim, Raptorans... none of them fit with the style I'm listing above, and they all existed in Third Edition. The point is that they were not listed as major races, they were not an initial release, they were not supposed to be an integral part of the setting. With Dragonborn it feels like they're saying "here is your traditional fantasy world, but as it wasn't cool enough for our liking, we added in this race which is totally as important as the other main races which you're used to. No it's not a monster at all."

And just because something is printed doesn't mean you have to allow it if you don't think it fits in a thematic way into your campaign.

The problem is not that it doesn't fit in my campaign: the problem is that, as it is, it does not seem to fit well into ANY campaign. It would be fine if they went more traditional and dropped the Dragonborn out. It would be perfectly good if they changed more and added in things like minotaurs, or toad people, fauns, or... *insert some non-humanoid race here.* But they didn't. They have elves and humans and dwarves and halflings and then this one, out of place random reptile monster guy.
Sure I can change it. But that doesn't help WotC, that just means I'm sighing and changing things on what I bought, thus proving that I am dissatisfied with it. It doesn't improve the product I bought.

And sometimes it's more entertaining to play something that doesn't just have tiny, cosmetic changes from another race.

I agree completely. It can be very fun to play other creatures. I created an entire society based off of the Slaadi spawning stone. I think this was in Manual of the Planes, but somewhere it mentioned that on occasion the stone would produce Slaadi that did not resemble any of the castes that it was supposed to be confined to. I elaborated on that and crafted the Malformed. The Malformed are a society of these non-Slaadi born of the Spawning stone. They were bizarre, created in so many different ways that you would never identify them as a single race. One of these was my character: Shade.
Basically he was a ton of variant races and templates tossed together. His bizarreness was explained by the above story, and I made him and his personality entirely inhuman. It was quite fun.

The point is that the 4E races don't reflect that idea. They give you a single non-humanoid option in their selection. I don't think that works well- they should either expand it far further, or eliminate it. Don't be wishy washy in style, make something and stick by it, elaborate on it or don't add it in at all. It just sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Probably because they're so...so...

So fantastical. So High Magic and High Fantasy.

See, I believe most people see D&D as a way to play something like LoTR, with low magic, only plausible human varieties, etc. They fail to realize D&D is actually MUCH more powerful. THAT is why they complain, because dragonborn are truly beings fit for high fantasy, which is jarring when we think of classic D&D.

Vael, you has been beaten to the punch...By the second reply!

[kc0bbq]

Nitpick: those were Draconians and they were very different from the dragonborn, both thematically and intent-wise. (no they were never stated out as PC races although one of the proto-draconians sort of was )

Thematically different? Not so much, aside from being evil-only and campaign fluff, especially as early on in the existance of the setting. I don't remember proto-draconians even existing as of the time of the Dragonlance Adventures book in 1987. I don't think Taladas was even mentioned at all. It was Ansalon only.

Whatever happened to the setting after 1990 or so has been selectively erased from my brain, the whole thing got really stupid. Monumentally stupid. The novels really started going downhill fast after Heroes II.

/bitter

[Scintillatus]

your use of "propaganda" and "frighten" in reference to this debate is very amusing to me. As if there was an organized attempt to destroy the new game rather than people simply stating why the game doesn't appeal to them in contrast to others saying why it does.

Tell me what else you would call several individuals setting out on a regular basis to post their re-hashed arguments that have been proved to be lies again and again. Tell me what else you would call the association of World of Warcraft with D&D. Tell me what else you would call a systematic attack upon people with positive viewpoints, often breaking the rules in a blind fury of discrediting and insulting.

Tell me what else you would call information, ideas, opinions and images, often only giving one part of an argument, which are broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions.

While you're re-defining propaganda for me, I'll be over here facepalming at the universe again.

Believe me, I have issues with this edition. However, I feel no need to make problems up, spread disinformation, insult people who disagree with me, demean the developers, or start threads with the sole purpose of complaining about wholly trivial minutiae. We took a poll on how many people were innately negative on 4th edition, and yet they shout loud enough that people still believe them to be the majority.

Just a little bit displeased, over here.