Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
So, I was wondering, why don't Dragonborn's have tails, if they don't add any special features. for a dragon they use the tail to steer when flying, but Dragonborn's don't have wings, so why couldn't they have one? I think most people would love for a Dragonborn to have a tail, as it adds quite a bit of presence. so is it possible or not?
Well, unlike the 5e version, the 5.5e version of the Dragonborn doesn't say whether it has a tail or not. I think that sort of thing is probably best left up to individual DMs, as it may be impacted by the history of the species itself, which can be very setting-specific.
But both tailed and tailless Dragonborn are depicted in the 5.5e Player's Handbook. See, for instance, the Zealot Barbarian shown on page 57 (no tail) but also the Valor Bard on page 67 (with tail).
pronouns: he/she/they
Your character can really look however you want them to look, regardless of any text (of course, your DM might have something to say).
You want your gnome to have natural bright green hair? Sure.
You want your human to have antlers for some reason? Why not?
You want your elf to have bright blue skin? Ok!
As long as what you're describing is flavor and you aren't expecting any special treatment because of it, your character can look like whatever you want.
ok, yeah, I wanted a tail, and my DM said I couldn't have one, but then I was wondering, if there is no advantages to having a tail, then why not. I told this to my DM and he said: "You get disadvange on stealth" which seems unfair to me, so thank you for clarifying
Interesting.
For example, Infernal Tieflings: "[...] Horns, spines, tails, golden eyes, and a faint odor of sulfur or smoke are common physical features of such tieflings, most of whom trace their ancestry to devils. [...]"
And they don't have Disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
EDIT: I also think it's unfair.
That...seems excessive to me. As Tarod pointed out, there are other species that have tails and don't take penalties for it.
Ultimately your DM has the final say, but the unfortunate reality is that some DMs seem to just hate fun.
pronouns: he/she/they
The DM has their reasons to say that you get a disadvantage. If they want a disadvantage then that is the answer and coming to the forum to find justification to prove the DM wrong is never a long term good thing.
If the tail has no advantage, it may have no function and is therefore not very very controllable. Having no control over your tail results in affecting stealth actions. If you can control your tail, why do you not have some way to give you an advantage into something (like balance)(or allow you to lift more due to being a counter weight)
This could be an out in that the DM can't find a reason (or to shy) to disallow you to do some thing, but use a way to make you think twice to do it anyways.
But can a DM still rule that there is a disadvantage because of smell/tail?
Yeah, other examples can be found in the 5.5e DMG: p. 41 (link) or p. 138 (link)
Sure, a DM can make up the rules they want, but that interaction is not written in the book.
That is really weird, I always assumed, dragonborn had tails.
And while it isn´t mentioned in the race description, the picture of the monk in the players handbook (2024) clearly shows a dragonborn with a tail.
Prior iterations specifically did not have tails. I don’t know the precise reasoning- possibly a holdover from earlier crunchy versions that had general purpose rules for additional appendages, possibly just because that’s how X writer visualized them, or maybe it’s supposed to be a cue to distinguish Dragonborn from half-dragons. A DM might stick with it for tradition’s sake, or it might just be an arbitrary quirk of theirs. It’s less than ideal from a sandbox character creation perspective, but ultimately the question is if this detail is so important that you can’t do without it. Or, I’d suppose, if the way the DM is responding to this is throwing up flags you won’t enjoy playing at their table.
That's... interesting.
If the DM says you cannot have one, or that having one imposes disadvantage, then there's not much you can do about that besides deciding if that's the kind of table you would want to play at.
Personally that seems a bit too controlling on the DM side to me, but perhaps they have their reasons based on the setting/story?
At any rate, there's no reason you cannot imagine your PC as having a tail, even if technically in-game they do not.
Doesn't the picture of one of the Dragonborn have tails?
Multiple pictures, as was pointed out a couple times.
As someone who also wanted my dragonborn to have a tail, I can say I feel your pain. This DM may just simply like the tradition of them not having tails so much that they want to steer you away from it without outright saying "no". That's probably one of the "better" takes on the DM, but I will echo Ace's comment that you may want to think about whether you want to play at a table where the DM disallows tails on dragonborn for... "reasons".
I mean, my point was as much about if a particular aesthetic element is a hill you want to die on in terms of playing at a given table.
does it?
oh yeeeahh. that's true. although it says in some descriptions "they lack wings or tails" so I'm guessing this was a mistake In their book
You can make a nuke
There's nothing about them lacking tails in the 2024 PHB. If it says that in the 2014 books and that's what you guys play with, then the DM is correct.
I'm pretty sure it said so in the 2024 version, lemme check