D&D 4E Things wrong with 4e: Dragons

Neonchameleon · Apr 25, 2012

Klaus said:
It's easy to pick up a new color, but what would a Burnt Sienna dragon add to the game?

A Burnt Sienna dragon would rock! A red-brown hybrid that breathes fire but is not itself fireproof.

And 4e was the edition that got dragons most right, because they now feel like actual dragons, breath weapons a-blazin'. In 1e and 2e, their breath weapons were too limited (to the point where Dragonlance had to introduce a new rule to let Krynnish dragons breathe more often). In 3e, they were too much "dragon-shaped sorcerers", to the point where the Xorvinthaal template had to be created (in MM5) to make them feel draconic.

Indeed. The most important thing about dragons is do they feel "dragonish" - big scary firebreathing (or whateverbreathing) bundles of raw power. Here 4e wins.

Doug McCrae · Apr 25, 2012

Color-coded dragons should be kept to a minimum, in my view. Red, black, white, green, and maybe blue, but that's it. If they publish any more than that, they need to do something new. Maybe look to Slavic myth for inspiration, with its weird multi-headed dragons.

Slavic dragon.

The Shadow · Apr 25, 2012

Transbot9 said:
I'd rather have a dragon customising system instead of the traditional Rainbow of Doom. The current setup sends a confusing message.

"Dragons - color-coded for YOUR convenience!"

Amen. I've been annoyed with the Rainbow of Doom (good term, btw) since forever.

Janaxstrus · Apr 25, 2012

Red, Blue, Green, Black and White
Gold, Silver, Copper, Bronze and Brass
Sapphire, Amethyst, Emerald, Topaz and Crystal

Then the few oddballs: Shadow, Deep, Fang and Song

Should be enough dragons for any of my campaigns

amerigoV · Apr 25, 2012

If there is not a Periwinkle dragon in core, then its not D&D to me!

I would have the classics in there plus a method to build your own. That keeps them special and unique since you never know if the DM built their own or swapped out a few options in the classics.

I'm A Banana · Apr 25, 2012

I don't like 4e dragons.

It's not because there aren't enough of them. I don't think we really need an entire menagerie.

It's not because they're not good in combat. They pose a threat in 4e, and they do it fine.

It's because they are unimaginative and simplistic in design.

The poster-boy for this is the blue dragon. Pre-4e, they were illusionists and deceivers, who wore a party journeying in the desert down over time, using their environment and their potent illusion skills to their advantage.

The 4e blue dragon shoots a lot of lightning. It is conceptually identical to a Dire Pikachu.

This is not the iconic villain that I want out of a dragon. Decent combat stats aren't good enough.

I need dragons that are complex, motivated villains. I need dragons with a variety of powers and abilities (not just elemental damage spam). I need dragons that threaten the party in all three pillars -- with difficult lairs, with vicious combat ability, and with dynamic personal presence. I need dragons the party will anticipate facing, and who will destroy a party who simply stumbles on them.

Dragons in 4e only become that if you put a LOT of extra effort into making them that way. I need dragons in 5e to be that right out the gate.

And, please, let's focus on getting the classic five right before you just drop more dragons into the game. White, Black, Green, Blue, Red (+ maybe Gold). Make these the definitive and iconic villains of the game, and I might be mostly happy.

This is a challenge. D&D, for all it has dragons in the title, hasn't done dragons up to my monstrous standards...really ever. 4e's dragons are waaaaay too simplistic, and tend to jettison their pre-4e flavor and abilities. Earlier dragons with their spellcasting are too complex, forcing me to make an entire spell list if I want to run one (not fun times).

When someone looks at the chromatic dragons of 5e, they should not see a random rainbow of catch-as, catch-can abilities. They should see distinct personalities, powers, and abilities. They should see entire power structures. They should see vast lairs, epic battles, and cunning villains. The reaction should not be, "Hur hur, let's add yellow and pink dragons," it should be "The White Dragons are assembling a barbarian army in the North! The Black Dragons are spreading plague in the South! The Blue Dragons are causing civilizations to disappear into the desert! The Green Dragons render the forests impassible! The Red Dragons are blowing everything up looking for their missing treasure!"

...or somesuch.

Bland dragons are unacceptable.

RangerWickett · Apr 25, 2012

Actually I love the idea of a "Dragon customization system."

Here's a dragon fit to fight a party of level X. It has Y HP, and Z defenses.

It starts with a bite attack that does M damage, and a land speed of N.

Now pick 5 things from the following list, including flight, a breath weapon, claw attacks, spellcasting, an extra head, and various supernatural abilities. These options come in tiers, so low-level dragons are mostly physical beasts with some magic, while epic dragons get options like evoking volcanoes or being composed entirely of shadows and antimatter.

fenriswolf456 · Apr 25, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
A Burnt Sienna dragon would rock! A red-brown hybrid that breathes fire but is not itself fireproof.

It's called a Volcanic Dragon (though maybe not entirely correct, as even though it's not fireproof, it does seem to be immune to all-encompassing natural gas explosions that it causes) ... how this creature lives in volcanos (at least for very long) is beyond me, though.

Kamikaze Midget said:
I don't like 4e dragons.

It's not because there aren't enough of them. I don't think we really need an entire menagerie.

It's not because they're not good in combat. They pose a threat in 4e, and they do it fine.

It's because they are unimaginative and simplistic in design.

The poster-boy for this is the blue dragon. Pre-4e, they were illusionists and deceivers, who wore a party journeying in the desert down over time, using their environment and their potent illusion skills to their advantage.

The 4e blue dragon shoots a lot of lightning. It is conceptually identical to a Dire Pikachu.

This is not the iconic villain that I want out of a dragon. Decent combat stats aren't good enough.

I need dragons that are complex, motivated villains. I need dragons with a variety of powers and abilities (not just elemental damage spam). I need dragons that threaten the party in all three pillars -- with difficult lairs, with vicious combat ability, and with dynamic personal presence. I need dragons the party will anticipate facing, and who will destroy a party who simply stumbles on them.

Dragons in 4e only become that if you put a LOT of extra effort into making them that way. I need dragons in 5e to be that right out the gate.

A monster is what you make of it. If a dragon is used as a simple brute that just attacks the party, then sure, it's not very interesting. If you want your dragon to be the big bad villain, then work is going to have to go into it, just like any other BBEG. No dragon comes out of a Monster Manual fully developed with impregnable lair and peons to do it's dirty work.

I prefer the more 'elemental' type dragons, they seem more primal to me, and combined with their keen intelligence, feel more viscious and frightening. Sure, it's more work to make them truly villainous material, but if you want a memorable dragon, it's usually worth it.

Holy Bovine · Apr 25, 2012

The Shadow said:
"Dragons - color-coded for YOUR convenience!"

Amen. I've been annoyed with the Rainbow of Doom (good term, btw) since forever.

Hey! That's my line dammit! My players grew to hate dragons in my Year of Rogue Dragons campaign. Nothing was coloured "correctly" to them! They just about had a heart attack when i threw an acid breathing black dragon at them!

I'm A Banana · Apr 25, 2012

fenriswolf456 said:
A monster is what you make of it. If a dragon is used as a simple brute that just attacks the party, then sure, it's not very interesting. If you want your dragon to be the big bad villain, then work is going to have to go into it, just like any other BBEG. No dragon comes out of a Monster Manual fully developed with impregnable lair and peons to do it's dirty work.

I have to put a lot more work into making 4e dragons interesting villains than I had to put into 2e or 3e dragons to make them interesting villain.

Also: Monster Manuals should come with fully developed lairs and peons. One shouldn't have to invest extra time into the game just to get an awesome dragon out of it.