ilgatto
How inconvenient
I agree with the notion that dragons needn't have undifferentiated teeth - indeed, I have never, ever, for a single moment considered that they might have.Well, Dragons are mythic monsters rather than mundane reptiles so don't have to be limited by real-world biology. Considering I've read of dragons with hair, dragons that get pregnant after having "relations" with humans or gods and dragons with more than one head
Heck, the fact a standard D&D dragon has four legs and a pair of wings gives it six fully functional limbs, suggesting that they don't follow tetrapod structural biology.
So I'm not that bothered if they have teeth analogous to canines.
Besides, there are old European pictures of dragons with with canines or canine-like tusks, such as [i]Saint George and the Dragon[/i] by Svitozar Nenyuk or this Medieval Bestiary Dragon (which has some very unreptilian looking paws and and mane, plus a head on the end of its tail. Admittedly there are pictures of dragons with lizard style teeth like this Bestiary Dragon this Verona Miniature.
So maybe some D&D Dragons have "canines" and some don't? Guess it's up to the DM.
Or we could just not bother going into the such detail about what dragon teeth are usable for the manufacture of the magic item.
Multiple attacks against creatures with less than 1 HD hasn't been a feature of the D&D rules since 3rd edition.
I'd be inclined to give it regular Multiattack with its "broadsword", whatever we end up interpreting that weapon as.
In 5E a fighter gets an Extra Attack at 5th level, so it'd be quite appropriate to have a Dragon Warrior be able to do so. It might as well have the equivalent of some other abilities a 6th level fighter would have, like Fighting Style or Martial Archetype.
I'd love to see the 1E notion of multiple attacks for Fighters honored - even though it could probably be argued that the author may simply have said that dragon warriors attacked as 6th-level Fighters because OD&D.
ok statblocking something now...made them a construct (precedent - flesh golems are organic constructs)...so construe them as made of tooth and scale armour. Just made broadswords do 2d4 (like 1e). Original description has them as non-intelligent, so mindless...so should be immune to psychic damage at least. Came out as CR 4 (??)
Incidentally, of Cadmus' crop of Sown Men, one of the five that survived was called Chthonius...
Construct, Humanoid, Monstrosity, a point could be made for any of these and I admit that I first thought of them as constructs for my 2E conversion way back when. However, Cleon posting the original text upthread and subsequent posts made me realize that there's actually nothing in the text to suggest that they are constructs - except for the sleep/charm/hold immunity, which I have now explained away for myself as being due to non-intelligence.
Therefore: Doesn't making them a Construct make them too powerful?
What were the Jason/Cadmus warriors made of?
Seems like those sewn by Cadmus became real-life men and that those sewn by Jason started killing each other the second threw a pebble at them, which one could consider to be typically human behavior...
However, it doesn't seem like the 5E description of Humanoids is typically meant to include 'warriors born of dragon teeth', so that's a bit of a problem.
The same is probably true from what I understand from the description of Monstrosity.
So I'd say stick with the creature type that results in the least deviations from the abilities of the original.
Perhaps unfortunately so, in light of the Jason/Cadmus warriors and the notion of figurines of wondrous power generating Beasts, that would probably mean Humanoid, but then with the added mindlessness/non-intelligence/single-mindedness?
Last edited: