Blue Dragons: Sand or Sea

[MarkB]

of all the chromatic dragons none of them are dragons who live by the sea.

That's 'cause Puff lives there. No chromatic wants to tangle with him - he's magic.

 

[Kavon]

While I voted coastal (because it makes more sense to me - I'm not hung up on tradition), I don't think it matters much at the end of the day.

If there is any mention of environment, just put both desert and coast in the description.
People will put them where they prefer to put them regardless.

 

[Klaus]

I prefer coastal blues. And I prefer desert browns, badland grays and underdark purples.

 

[r0gershrubber]

If they want 5e to maintain the classic D&D feel they should return to the classic monsters as well, at least in spirit.

It's easy enough to house-rule the blue dragon in either direction (desert to sea or sea to desert), but by making the by-the-book blue dragon the classic, desert-dweeling blue dragon they preserve the tradition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I dunno... I'd say blues are in both.

Deserts and beaches/oceans are conceptually similar anyways. The both are extremely large and featureless except for small pockets of oasi/islands. They both involve miles of sand. They both are hot as hell, have no shade and receive lots of direct sunlight. Heck... deserts are often referred to as 'the sea of sand', and islands are called 'desert islands' for a reason.

Basically... blues are found wherever there is direct, reflective sunlight. Deserts and island regions both apply.

 

[Grimmjow]

If they want 5e to maintain the classic D&D feel they should return to the classic monsters as well, at least in spirit.

It's easy enough to house-rule the blue dragon in either direction (desert to sea or sea to desert), but by making the by-the-book blue dragon the classic, desert-dweeling blue dragon they preserve the tradition.

If you want tradition go back and play AD&D. This is the perfect time ti change the lore up a little bit.

 

[Yora]

Changing lore was tried in 4th Edition. Which was abandoned after just 3 years.

 

[Remathilis]

Changing lore was tried in 4th Edition. Which was abandoned after just 3 years.

Yeah, but not all the ideas were terrible. Some of the fluff that 4e added was good. I'd hate to lose those gems in the process of tossing out the rest.

To point: most of the dragons can be found in a terrain that is common to temperate areas: reds in the mountains, whites on the frost-tipped peaks, greens the forests, blacks in the swamp. However, blue requires a certain climate and terrain (warm deserts) that aren't all that common. I guarantee there are more coastlines than deserts. Putting blue on the seas makes them closer to their brethren and allows them to be use anywhere there is large areas of water.

This is just one of those areas I think a break from tradition is a good change.

 

[Lwaxy]

Stop with dragon color type = terrain and/or alignment nonsense altogether. We've long removed it because it made no sense.

But if it has to be one of the two - sand never made sense to me. Sand = yellow dragon, or beige dragon if it has to be color based. Blue was always wind and storm to me.

I prefer multicolored dragons anyway

 

[Tovec]

Stop with dragon color type = terrain and/or alignment nonsense altogether. We've long removed it because it made no sense.

But if it has to be one of the two - sand never made sense to me. Sand = yellow dragon, or beige dragon if it has to be color based. Blue was always wind and storm to me.

I prefer multicolored dragons anyway

What I've been saying. Can't +1 you though.

I like the bulky look and feel of the sand-blues. I like the sleek airy look of blues too (that might be PF not 4e I forget). I'm voting the third option because I want none of the above. I don't mind categorizing the dragons by color for their breath weapons and things but I find it silly to make ALL dragons of a type have illusions or whatever. Plus I like having my red dragons in the mountains, or on the coast or wherever I feel like.