In Defense Of The Dragonborn

Of all the races introduced in later editions of D&D, one of my personal favorite which I've seen maligned to a various degree are the Dragonborns. There are a few reasons why I find them a useful and respectable addition:

• Dragonborn allows that-one-guy-who-wants-to-play-somekind-of-dragon-monster to play one which is (now) a core race whose general level of power is balanced to the others. Compare this to the Half-Dragon template from 3e. Granted, no intelligent DM should allow templates but...
• They can fill that 'honorable, hotblooded warrior race' without the 'savage brute' or the 'drunken underground midget' stereotype and baggage of the half-orc and dwarf respectively.
• In both editions where they are a core, playable race (we don't talk about the original 3rd Edition Dragonborn) their stat bonus are to STR and CHA. That is a combo no core race has and fills an interesting niche...
• ...in that they are associated with the Sorcerer and Paladin class, two classes which generally have not been too associated with any core race in so much as 3e-onward D&D is concerned.
• Because they are a warrior race with clear connections to magic, they are perfect for any 'spell sword'-type class. Their large size and ferocity also make them very distinct from elven spell swords too.
• That said, I much prefer their origin in 4e, where they were a draconic race but not directly related to true dragons. This is more interesting than just making them dragon-descended humanoids, which seems to be the case in 5e due to connecting them to specific dragon breeds.

Conclusion? Obviously they aren't for every game or setting but I like them. Their design is suitably fantastical, especially in 4e with the scaly dreadlocks. Certainly more unique than their later design, which sadly reverted to the humanoid dragon look. Such a shame.