billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
They were associated with Tiamat way back in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual II back in 1983.
D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Not-Dragons
They were associated with Tiamat way back in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual II back in 1983.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Ah. Weird that that element was nonexistent in 2e.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Not in the monster entries, but the description of Hell/Baator, the heirarchy of the devils, and Tiamat's lair on Avernus, indicate that the abishai are *her* devils.
MarkB said:
I dunno, I don't think the linnorms need much more to make them cool. I don't know 4e's catastrophic dragons as well, but I'd hope the same would be true about them. They can be their own things.
Klaus
First Post
Sure, and I was just thinking out loud (plus, I looooove TonyD's linnorm illustrations from 2e). It's this description you wrote:
that brought the catastrophics to mind. After all, *they* are apocalypse given draconic form, more elemental, universally big and destructive, without the niceties of regular dragons. You could say that in a Norse-style campaign, the catastrophics are called "linnorms", and are the only dragons present.
1e Monster Manual 2.
D'oh! Ninja'd. But yes.[that the MM2 was from '83 is something of a surprise to me though. I would have guessed later than that.]
skinnydwarf
Explorer
THIS.
I like the idea that Drakes were created by a breeding program. The Hobgoblins took some dragon eggs and bred new dragons more useful to their purposes. Ones that couldn't fly and escape, and were also dumber and more amenable to training.
Sounds like a tribe of hobgoblins that would soon be extinct (annihilated) to me. And not by the drakes if you get my drift....
skinnydwarf
Explorer
That is a likely outcome. But the story of the hobgoblin tribe that was successful would be legendary among the race. "The founder of this tribe was so strong and clever he beat mighty dragons!" Of course, the reality could be that the "mighty dragon" was a decrepit member of the species wounded by adventurers and unable to defend her clutch.
I have a similar story of giant owl riding goblins in my world. The story of the epic theft from adventurers by "Egg Sucker" who was betrayed by his brother who saw the true potential of trained giant owls is a favorite amongst goblins because of all the stealing and backstabbing.
Gold Roger
First Post
All of this is so setting dependant. Just looking at my own homebrew, hobgoblins/goblinoids are non-tribal and as human as, say, leucrotta. On the other hand dragons are near extinct and it could take centuries until one catches on and takes revenge for such a blasphemy.
I say this just to show an example for a mistake wotc made with 4e (imo, of course), that I fear might be repeated when I read these articles.
Of course it's a good thing when the designers put a fair amount of background for monsters and races. But I see this danger of overdoing it, as I consider it was done in 4e. You see, when I buy the MM and read hobgoblins are tribal and breed drakes, I say, fine, that info is of little worth to me when I use my homebrew. That's a price of homebrewing.
It gets troublesome when such info takes priority over such info as where are drakes found in the wilderness, how do they act and what use are they for me as DM. Info that is relevant to me, no matter what origin I give drakes in my game.
It gets even worse, when such ideas gets hardcoded into the mechanical design of hobgoblins and drakes. Lets say they give drakes and hobgoblins synergy when used in the same encounter and consider this in the creatures difficulty and xp values. This is great for players who use the monsters as written. But suddenly I and every other DM using the two monsters differently (possible even in established published settings) is stuck with monsters (in the case of hobgoblins a staple of low level adventuring) that are less usable out of the book.
Wotc should always keep in mind that there's a great number of preestablished settings and countless homebrews DMs want to keep using without retcons. If they don't consider this when designing races and monsters this runs counter to the inclusive philosophy of DDN. What does it help when the rules are so modular that I can adjust my campaign to all kinds of playstyles and settings, when monster and race design is so chock full of implied setting, it takes a massive amount of work to use them?
A good way might be to present monster fluff in a very general way and then add 2-4 short paragraphs of possible backgrounds with optional rules to enforce such background?
Last edited:
frankthedm
First Post
And there is the problem! True dragons put on a pedestal and are assumed to have vast overreaching power to destroy anything that offends them. It gets so bad in some games that managing to slay one dragon turns the campaign into "Flee from the dragon mafia!"
