Red, Gold and Brass Dragonborn are Mechanically identical

Hi All,

I was a little disappointed to notice tonight that under 5.5e these three dragonborn are essentially the same the only difference is how you as the PC happen to roll play them.

I think that each dragonborn colour needs a unique feat of some sort to keep them distinct, otherwise there is no real difference between the different dragonborns.

the dragonborn options in fizbans allows this, as emerald is quite distinct from say amythist or crystal.

but base subspecies of 5.5e have little uniqueness to them.

maybe they should get another tweak or update later.

Kind Regards,

TrueVision.

The Fizban species are still valid and should work with the 2024 PHB. You just need the agreement of your DM. 

House Rule: Draconic Ancestry should be "Your lineage stems from a dragon progenitor. Choose the kind of dragon from the Draconic Ancestors table. Your choice affects your Breath Weapon and Damage Resistance traits as well as your appearance."

Dragonborn, Aasimar, and Tieflings are kind of mutt species and should not have cosmetic attributes so strictly tied to mechanics.

That said, by RAW, Black and Copper, Blue and Bronze, Brass/Gold and Red, and Silver and White are mechanically identical. Only Green is unique. I think in previous editions Brass may have had access to Poison. Since 5.24 removed the differentiation by breath weapon shape, having the same element just means that the Dragonborn of the same element only differ by the color of their scales.

Even though they are mechanically identical, there's still the distinction between chromatic and metallic dragon heritage, which can affect roleplay. A red dragonborn is bound to have slightly different interactions than a gold dragonborn.

While we're at the topic, I've never understood why chromatic and metallic dragon types don't map 1:1. There's two fire metallic dragons and no poison metallic dragon. Why is this? Is it explained in one book or another? (I've never actually searched for this, I've just wondered about it.)

Quote from Scruvy >>

While we're at the topic, I've never understood why chromatic and metallic dragon types don't map 1:1. There's two fire metallic dragons and no poison metallic dragon. Why is this? Is it explained in one book or another? (I've never actually searched for this, I've just wondered about it.)

There may be connotations about poison us by good/noble dragons, but also Fizban's Treasury of Dragons gave Dragonborn secondary abilities that would have added more distinctions.

Dragonborn in 3.x had multiple options that were not tied to their appearance. Half-dragons had abilities tied to a specific dragon type. I don't think Draconians were ever a player option. 5e Dragonborn seems to be a mashup and toned-down version of 3.x Half-dragons more than Dragonborn, in my opinion.

Quote from Scruvy >>

Even though they are mechanically identical, there's still the distinction between chromatic and metallic dragon heritage, which can affect roleplay. A red dragonborn is bound to have slightly different interactions than a gold dragonborn.

While we're at the topic, I've never understood why chromatic and metallic dragon types don't map 1:1. There's two fire metallic dragons and no poison metallic dragon. Why is this? Is it explained in one book or another? (I've never actually searched for this, I've just wondered about it.)

The gold dragon used to be fire and poison, and the brass dragon had two incapacitating breaths and no damaging. At some point, they must've decided to standardize on one damage and one incapacitating for all the metallics, so the gold lost poison, and the brass gained fire. I assume they decided poison wasn't a good thematic fit for either of them.