Anyone else think dragons are too powerful?

[CruelSummerLord]

By "too powerful", I mean that they ALL have the ability to speak, use magic, transform into humanoid creatures, and everything in between. In 1E, it wasn't always so simple-some dragons had only a certain percentage chance to speak or be able to use magic.

To me, it just seems like if you've seen one dragon, you've seen them all; they're all hyper-intelligent, extremely wise, given a wide array of spells and powers, and they automatically know how to react in a given situation.

This syndrome seems to stem from Dragonlance, where the dragons really are the uber-beings of the setting; but in other settings, I don't think dragons should be "all that", so to speak.

I personally like the notion of some dragons being cowardly despite their size, or of being stupid, raving creatures that can't talk or use magic and are only focussed on their next meal, in short that some of them are not the uber-monsters of D&D.

Don't get me wrong-dragons can be BBEGs, terrifying creatures of legend, or what have you. But for every single one to have all those powers kind of strikes me as boring, even trite. Dragons can't be the raving beasts terrifying the village-they're practically gods unto themselves, able to destroy most mortals on a whim. Why then, are they not ruling the world, if they're all so powerful?

 

[shilsen]

By "too powerful", I mean that they ALL have the ability to speak, use magic, transform into humanoid creatures, and everything in between. In 1E, it wasn't always so simple-some dragons had only a certain percentage chance to speak or be able to use magic.

All dragons in 3e can speak, but very few can transform into humanoid creatures and only the oldest ones are very powerful spellcasters.

To me, it just seems like if you've seen one dragon, you've seen them all; they're all hyper-intelligent, extremely wise, given a wide array of spells and powers, and they automatically know how to react in a given situation.

Sounds like your DMs have been running dragons in a fairly boring way, without any real personality for each of them. As for the hyper-intelligent and extremely wise, have you looked at the stats in the MM? There are lots of relatively dim dragons out there. It takes a white dragon to reach over a century in age (i.e. Adult age category) before it can even reach average human levels of Int and Wis.

I personally like the notion of some dragons being cowardly despite their size, or of being stupid, raving creatures that can't talk or use magic and are only focussed on their next meal, in short that some of them are not the uber-monsters of D&D.

So what's stopping you from making them so?

Don't get me wrong-dragons can be BBEGs, terrifying creatures of legend, or what have you. But for every single one to have all those powers kind of strikes me as boring, even trite.

As noted above, there is a wide variance in powers, abilities, and intelligence amongst dragons, as you'll note if you take a look at the MM.

Dragons can't be the raving beasts terrifying the village-they're practically gods unto themselves, able to destroy most mortals on a whim. Why then, are they not ruling the world, if they're all so powerful?

Because even the most powerful dragon can be taken down by a small group of the most powerful humanoids? And dragons take way longer than humans (for example) to become incredibly powerful.

 

[kenobi65]

...they ALL have the ability to...transform into humanoid creatures

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Of the ten "core" dragons, only two (gold and silver) have the Alternate Form ability.

Why then, are they not ruling the world, if they're all so powerful?

Because that's not what motivates them? Dragons are (generally) selfish, and inwardly-directed. Only the most noble of the good dragons cares much beyond his own horde and territory.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hey CSL.

Is your complaint that they're too powerful? Or that that they're too generic?

As for powerful: hell yes!! But TOO powerful? Depends on the power level of the campaign. I do know I wouldn't want to run a game with a Ancient Wyrn Red Dragon: far too much book keeping, plus, as they're written they are virtually unkillable.

Too generic: As written I'd say a bit, but not as much as you suggest. As a couple of others pointed out there's a range of intelligence and spell casting abilities across the whole board of species and age groups. As they are played by GMs: I'd say they're very generic. And I'm guilty of this one as well. They tend toward the BBEG end of the spectrum. ie: webs of intrigue, minions, powerful spells, cunning and always ready with a back up plan. Where's the dragon that was content to simply lounge on it's hoard and eat the occasional maiden?

I think this may have started as a reaction against the "you find a dragon sleeping on its hoard, you all get a free attack" that was written into the rules of 1ed. (And Old Dnd too?) People wanted their dragons to be a bit more memorable and challenging.

 

[frankthedm]

As for powerful: hell yes!! But TOO powerful? Depends on the power level of the campaign. I do know I wouldn't want to run a game with a Ancient Wyrn Red Dragon: far too much book keeping, plus, as they're written they are virtually unkillable.

sound's like you are making the OP's argument for him.

I think this may have started as a reaction against the "you find a dragon sleeping on its hoard, you all get a free attack" that was written into the rules of 1ed. (And Old Dnd too?) People wanted their dragons to be a bit more memorable and challenging.

Funnily, blindsense's autosucceed on listen checks means a sleeping 3e dragon still only suffers one [surprise] round of attacks rather than being CDG bait. Much like his 1E ancestor.

I think that dragons get too strong, too fast. The younger ones should be lower down the CR scale than they are currently and great wyrms showing up for the weaker dragons in the 14 CR range.

 

[jdrakeh]

For me, it's not so much that they're too powerful but that (breath weapons aside) they all seem to be powerful in pretty much the same way. And, of course, the fact that the brand of powerful used to define them is less Fafnir than it is Puff the Magic drives me nuts.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Ah well, I don't actually disagree with CSL's premise that dragons are too powerful, merely putting a few caveats on it. To whit: It's all relative. But at the top of the scale a Big Red is a virtual demigod. The PCs would have to be of similar vein. Which perfectly do-able but is all too much book keeping for me, I prefer an easier to run game. I'm kinda lazy.

I do like the comparison between Fafnr and Puff. I see where you're coming from. I have a dragon coming up in my campaign soon. I certainly hope it'll turn out more Fafnr than Puff.

cheers,
Glen

 

[S'mon]

Some 3e dragons have ridiculously OTT spellcasting powers, the Reds especially, that don't seem to be factored into their CR. The 1e MM dragons were a bit weak; I think BECMI/RC got dragons exactly right.

 

[Spell]

maybe not too powerful, but way too common.

and, as you noticed, way too conform to a single stereotype.

which leads to:

To me, it just seems like if you've seen one dragon, you've seen them all

 

[green slime]

While I my understand your ire at the prevalence of the idea of the mighty dragon, I feel the biggest problem isn't that they are so powerful, but rather that they are so common at all. But I guess that is the nature of the game called "Dungeons and Dragons".

Personally, I'd prefer it if there were far fewer dragons in the game, but that they were actually even more powerful. I don't need dragon hatchlings, dragon juveniles, youthful semi-adult dragons. I want a handful of unique, hoary, ancient wyrms that cause nations to tremble.