Friday, February 29, 2008

Dragonborn Smragonborn

I have to admit, I simply don’t get the new Dragonborn player character race. I suppose that is not surprising. I never got the obsession 3rd Ed had about tying player characters to dragons. Sorcerers were tied pretty explicitly to dragons. Prestige classes like Dragon Adepts and Dragon Shamans were created. Whole books like Races of Dragon and Dragon Magic were put out.

And people loved it! I never understood why so many people wanted to play dragon obsessed, dragon-blooded, half-dragon or even full dragon characters. Nevertheless, they certainly seemed to, at least in the D&D games I was part of.

I know that Dragons are half of the name in D&D, but I always saw them as opponents, not allies. You know, like the other half of the name. When I was running dragons in my game, I always attempted to portray them as powerful, intelligent, and vicious. Even my good dragons tended to be arrogant and unforgiving.

That being said, I am not necessarily opposed to Dragonborn being in 4th Ed since I seem to be in the minority here. It’s probably a good thing to have a dragon-like race fully incorporated into the rules for the people who love them.

I guess I should ask those who are on the other side of the dragon PC fence, what makes them so appealing to you? I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.


Todd said...

I have two basic views on the subject. Dragons-as-PCs are really hard for a DM unless the game is built arround it. I played in a very fun and challenging council of Wyrms game in 2ed. That said, in a mixed game, there is a great deal of trouble for the DM, as well as any players who are not playing a single classed spellcaster. Most melee classes just can not keep up without a power build (wiz20/druid20/cleric20/etc). This forces the DM to choose either encounters which challenge the dragon (and are potentially deadly to the other PCs) or encounters tailored to the human PCs (which are usually no challenge to the dragon).

On a completely different subject, one could make the argument that the spiked chain fighters and Lasher PRC are indeed "dungeon" oriented characters.......

~ Todd

Bronz said...

I guess it's a good thing then that 4e will have an equal power level of "casters" and "non-casters". Dragonbron is actually a template in 3.5 that basically makes you related to dragons, has a heavy con bonus, but that's about it.

I can understand wanting to play a dragon, or any monster type really. It's just a different feeling, and in a game of fantasy you get to be pretty fantastic and unique when you start playing a dragon, dragon-kin, or any monstrous race.

The dragonborn in 4e is a fairly good concept to give this type of thinking an outlet, without really bending the rules or basing an entire game around it. Having a balanced, easy to use dragon like race simply gives the option for those that want it.

And, since this is DnD afterall, if the DM doesn't like Dragonborn there are no dragonborn. It's really as simple as that.

Rob said...

I suppose that you make a good point about it not being any different than a desire to play another of the monstrous races. I am hoping that having Dragonborn full integrated in 4th Ed will make me a bit more interested in them. My upcoming post on Teiflings