Deep Dragon

Dragoness Mate · Feb 13, 2019

This is my first posting, The Deep Dragon! First appearing in 3rd edition (though I based it's abilities off of its entry in 3.5), the deep dragon is a shapeshifting dragon native to the Underdark. I made a few changes from their standard version, namely changing their alignment from Chaotic Evil to Any Chaotic, leaning towards Chaotic good. This is mostly for balance purposes between the forces of Tiamat and the forces of Bahamut. They are mostly neutral in the whole Bahamut vs. Tiamat debate, which has lead to them being called in as moderators in the (Admittedly rare) times when the two declare a truce.

dave2008 · Feb 14, 2019

Welcome to EnWorld @Dragoness Mate ! Thank you for sharing. I have a couple of comments / thoughts for you:

1) Deep dragons pre-date 3e, they at least existed in 2e: http://www.lomion.de/cmm/dragdeep.php

2) I like the idea of them explicitly having multiple alignments.

3) I suggest you go a little outside the WotC box when it comes to dragons. The 5e MM dragons are fairly cookie cutter and that is a disappointment, I suggest you don't make that same mistake. Give them more and more interesting options. Especially with lair actions.

4) I would go ahead and use the spellcating variant frpm the MM for deep dragons - that only makes for a better dragon IMO

Keep up the good work!

Ilbranteloth · Feb 14, 2019

dave2008 said:
Welcome to EnWorld @Dragoness Mate ! Thank you for sharing. I have a couple of comments / thoughts for you:

1) Deep dragons pre-date 3e, they at least existed in 2e: http://www.lomion.de/cmm/dragdeep.php

2) I like the idea of them explicitly having multiple alignments.

3) I suggest you go a little outside the WotC box when it comes to dragons. The 5e MM dragons are fairly cookie cutter and that is a disappointment, I suggest you don't make that same mistake. Give them more and more interesting options. Especially with lair actions.

4) I would go ahead and use the spellcating variant frpm the MM for deep dragons - that only makes for a better dragon IMO

Keep up the good work!

Yes, they were originally published in Monstrous Compendium Forgotten Realms Vol II, in 1991.

As for the OP - They were chaotic evil from the beginning, and if I recall were mentioned someplace as being a chromatic dragon - purple. However, 2e also has a purple dragon. They work with drow, and a favored shape is also drow.

I’m not a fan of recreating lore when lore already exists. I would not change them from chaotic evil, for example. Obviously you’re welcome to do what you’d like in your campaign, but if you’re going to update an existing creature to 5e, I’d stick to it’s established lore.

dave2008 · Feb 14, 2019

Ilbranteloth said:
Yes, they were originally published in Monstrous Compendium Forgotten Realms Vol II, in 1991.

As for the OP - They were chaotic evil from the beginning, and if I recall were mentioned someplace as being a chromatic dragon - purple. However, 2e also has a purple dragon. They work with drow, and a favored shape is also drow.

Deep dragons were renamed purple dragons in 4e.

Ilbranteloth said:
I’m not a fan of recreating lore when lore already exists. I would not change them from chaotic evil, for example. Obviously you’re welcome to do what you’d like in your campaign, but if you’re going to update an existing creature to 5e, I’d stick to it’s established lore.

Oh I disagree a bit here. D&D is a multiverse with many different worlds. it is already established that the creatures don't behave the same on other worlds (including different alignments). So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to add to existing lore, but it does help if some context is given. After all, what is the point of updating the lore if you aren't going to actually add or modify something?

Ilbranteloth · Feb 14, 2019

dave2008 said:
Deep dragons were renamed purple dragons in 4e.

Oh I disagree a bit here. D&D is a multiverse with many different worlds. it is already established that the creatures don't behave the same on other worlds (including different alignments). So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to add to existing lore, but it does help if some context is given. After all, what is the point of updating the lore if you aren't going to actually add or modify something?

That’s what I mean by “it’s ok to alter it for your world,” and I don’t really mean that you can’t/shouldn’t post it. But when you make a thread about updating an old monster, I think the expectation is that you’ll just be updating it to work with 5e.

And part of me wonders, if you want a different dragon, then why not just call it something different?

And the point of updating a monster isn’t really to update the lore, generally. It’s so people can use it in 5e. To put it a different way, I don’t think an upgrade in game mechanics (a new edition) doesn’t need or require an update in lore. Case in point - there was no reason for WotC to change most of the elven characters to eladrin in the Forgotten Realms. Especially since it also altered the lore of eladrin. It made no sense, although they tried to make it make sense.

If it was for a new setting, then whatever. You like it or you don’t. But altering existing lore is usually much more problematic, especially for something that is shared/used by such a large audience.

Maybe a better example would be midichlorians?

dave2008 · Feb 14, 2019

Ilbranteloth said:
That’s what I mean by “it’s ok to alter it for your world,” and I don’t really mean that you can’t/shouldn’t post it. But when you make a thread about updating an old monster, I think the expectation is that you’ll just be updating it to work with 5e.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. However,...

Ilbranteloth said:
Maybe a better example would be midichlorians?

That made me LOL. Though, that is not the best example as that was a change to "official" lore. This is homebrew, it is the place to explore new ideas. Also, the idea that dragons can be different alignments has been supported by previous "official" products.

Ilbranteloth · Feb 14, 2019

dave2008 said:
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. However,...

That made me LOL. Though, that is not the best example as that was a change to "official" lore. This is homebrew, it is the place to explore new ideas. Also, the idea that dragons can be different alignments has been supported by previous "official" products.

Ahh, didn’t realize this was the homebrew section. It’s not clear on the phone app.

That’s different. I thought you were just updating to 5e. Change away!