log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E D&D Gem Dragons Are Officially Back

So if you're (not) like me and you don't have the time or patience to watch Spoilers & Swag, you may have missed this awesome reveal... Gem Dragons are back! And I don't just mean back in a third-party book like Matt Colville's Strongholds and Followers (great book, check it out), I mean back officially for D&D 5e.

In case you don't know, Gem Dragons are the third-wheel of dragonkind... they are not Good (Metallic) or Evil (Chromatic), they are Neutral. This makes them easily overlooked in the struggle of good vs. evil, but they've popped up here and there in previous editions.

But it looks like Gem Dragons have returned, first to promote the sale of a very expensive sapphire dice set. This little paper fold-out is included (screenshots below), complete with lore for gem dragons and a statblock for the Adult Sapphire Dragon specifically.

Of course, if you don't want to buy a pricey set of dice for a statblock... you're in luck, as Nathan Stewart reveals that everybody else will get access to it "early in 2020, where we [WotC] will have some fun ways to get that out there." So it looks like some product will be released including the Neutral Dragons, a new adventure or maybe a new monster book!

Feel free to speculate, here's the images;

1573671774880.png


1573671794207.png
 

Comments

ZAR22

Villager
While this is great and all, I am not a fan of this redesign, or the fact people STILL think they are made out of the literal gems. Just as chromatics are innate sorcerers (IE arcane magic users), gems being innate mystics is just their innate magic is different (IE psionic based instead of arcane). You don't see reds or others having floating body parts, do? I liked the more traditional organic design of sapphire dragons, like the one of the sapphire dragon Bleucorundum. They are supposed to look like flesh black dragons, with a more broad human shaped upper torso, and if they really want to be original, they could have made their horns over the head and out to the side, as seen in some anime where certain demons have those forward facing horns, while looking like a black dragon's horns from up above looking down. That's how they have always been for me. And they have usually been a more colbat-ish blue, that glitters and dazzles like a chromatic blue dragon and shines like a silver dragon's scales, but under the light each scale can look a different shade of blue, and from a side view of a scale laid flat on it's back, the top surface of a scale would he translucent, like looking at the side view of a human eye, where they have that clear part, but more foggy and blurred. Glad to have them back, but NOT in this way and format, hope this is a BETA type.

But I do hope they become the LEAD dragon group of the gems, because then you would have all the primary colors as leaders: red, yellow (golden), and blue (sapphire). It would feel complete color wise. And I always saw them as this king under the mountain, mole digging, (preferably USA) army drill sergeant like dragon interms of generic stereotypical personality, and war like, like a bronze dragon.

But that's just IMHO based on the past official drawings and lore about sapphire dragons.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ZAR22

Villager
Very hard to full implement Gem Dragons without Psionics.

But for love of Bane, please take this opportunity to renamed the Crystal Dragon to something else. Diamond I dont care. But it cant be Crystal again. Its a Gem Dragon. Crystal is implied.

Well, seeing as it was named that for the longest of times, and their is a crystal JUST called crystal, I doubt they would change it, and it is too late to change something so old. They could give the nicknames quartz (clear white variety, as that is commonly referred to by a good portion of people as just "crystal") or twin-tailed.

Diamond wouldn't fit the theme, because not only is that NOT a precious gem IRL (that's due to the Russian stock market agreement made by jeweling companies in Africa to make it rare), it was not one company valued and found in Eurasia except for small incidents, and wasn't looked at as a gem of royality in most medieval times. Also diamond being strong and tough would put it at the top, and even above ruby, which is a no-no to be above the gem god, so another semi to fully translucent white gem would be needed that's weaker than the other gems.
 

Well, seeing as it was named that for the longest of times, and their is a crystal JUST called crystal, I doubt they would change it, and it is too late to change something so old. They could give the nicknames quartz (clear white variety, as that is commonly referred to by a good portion of people as just "crystal") or twin-tailed.

Diamond wouldn't fit the theme, because not only is that NOT a precious gem IRL (that's due to the Russian stock market agreement made by jeweling companies in Africa to make it rare), it was not one company valued and found in Eurasia except for small incidents, and wasn't looked at as a gem of royality in most medieval times. Also diamond being strong and tough would put it at the top, and even above ruby, which is a no-no to be above the gem god, so another semi to fully translucent white gem would be needed that's weaker than the other gems.
Diamond is a precious gem IRL. Definitely. Its just no where near as precious as the marjet values it at.

Without the artificial boost it wouod still be a precious gem valued above amethyst for instance and amethyst has a history with gem dragons in d&d.

For the record i dislike diamonds. And i know they are artificially price hiked. But im just laying out the facts here.

I vastly prefer rubies.
 

Aebir-Toril

Creator of the Elfgrinder Mech
Diamond is a precious gem IRL. Definitely. Its just no where near as precious as the marjet values it at.

Without the artificial boost it wouod still be a precious gem valued above amethyst for instance and amethyst has a history with gem dragons in d&d.

For the record i dislike diamonds. And i know they are artificially price hiked. But im just laying out the facts here.

I vastly prefer rubies.
Diamonds are best used in abrasives and industrial applications. Just buy cubic zirconia if you enjoy colorless gems.
 


ZAR22

Villager
Diamond is a precious gem IRL. Definitely. Its just no where near as precious as the marjet values it at.

Without the artificial boost it wouod still be a precious gem valued above amethyst for instance and amethyst has a history with gem dragons in d&d.

For the record i dislike diamonds. And i know they are artificially price hiked. But im just laying out the facts here.

I vastly prefer rubies.
I am NOT saying they have NO value, but not as precious as people make it, and it's preciousness primarily comes from it's IRL gem strength.

You gotta understand the crystal is supposed to be basically the white dragon of the gem group, even to the point they raise white dragons. And they are VERY small, smaller than whites generally, so they can't be named diamond for obvious reasons. And in truth, sapphire should be the top dragon type in gems, as seeing ruby (being the dragon GOD of gem dragons) is literally just a red sapphire, and the fact sapphires are military like, makes them good soldiers for sardior and being his accompanying entourage, and next emeralds should come after sapphires, and THEN a choice between topaz and amethyst should be next, not only given in gem strength, but value and knowledge of the gem by medieval standards. But sardior and crystal & sapphire are the MAIN dragons that need the spot light and given the most representation. As not only did they appear in a dragon magazine, but officially appeared in either 1e ODAD or ADAD with the gemstone dragons. So those 3 are the most important and crucial to do right.
 

I also like bloodstone, lapis lazuli, pearl...

So many good stones to associate dragons to. I like all of these better than gems classically used with gem dragons. Except rubies. I like those pretty good and they already have classic association with gem dragons.

I also like iron for dragons better than brass or bronze
 

ZAR22

Villager
I also like bloodstone, lapis lazuli, pearl...

So many good stones to associate dragons to. I like all of these better than gems classically used with gem dragons. Except rubies. I like those pretty good and they already have classic association with gem dragons.

I also like iron for dragons better than brass or bronze
I disagree on some of the choices you picked for gem dragons, as some of those are organic gems, also a pearl dragon already exists.


Also disagree on iron in generally, as we already have (cough Mary-sue-like for humans cough) silver dragons who do the whole polymorph gemic in the same vein, but also because I found bronze distinct and well written compared to all the metallics, even golds.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
I am NOT saying they have NO value, but not as precious as people make it, and it's preciousness primarily comes from it's IRL gem strength.
Considering how in-demand diamonds are for wedding rings (way more than other gems), the idea that diamonds are valued mostly for their strength is silly. Sure they got higher supply, but the demand is pretty damn high too.

And I don't know why you're fighting that diamonds aren't that valuable when they're definitely more valuable than crystal. The cost of a gram of crystal is $3 per gram. The cost of diamond (even an ugly discolored one) is minimum $400 per gram.
 

ZAR22

Villager
Considering how in-demand diamonds are for wedding rings (way more than other gems), the idea that diamonds are valued mostly for their strength is silly. Sure they got higher supply, but the demand is pretty damn high too.

And I don't know why you're fighting that diamonds aren't that valuable when they're definitely more valuable than crystal. The cost of a gram of crystal is $3 per gram. The cost of diamond (even an ugly discolored one) is minimum $400 per gram.

That idea isn't silly, as the wedding ring thing, ofcourse, is a result of the aforementioned trade in economics dealing with Russian, that's why there is a high demand outside of technology, science, and health usage. If it was known of much diamond are REALLY supposed to be worth in the stock market exchange, diamonds wouldn't be in such a high demand outside of the listed usages, like tech, science, and health/safety.

Also, I wasn't fighting for anything on diamonds, and I never said they weren't valuable, as shown in the quote. I don't know where you got that from. And ofcourse they are worth more than crystal, which is kind of the problem. The dragon named crystal is supposed to be the weakest gem dragon, and diamond is anything but weak.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
That idea isn't silly, as the wedding ring thing, ofcourse, is a result of the aforementioned trade in economics dealing with Russian, that's why there is a high demand outside of technology, science, and health usage. If it was known of much diamond are REALLY supposed to be worth in the stock market exchange, diamonds wouldn't be in such a high demand outside of the listed usages, like tech, science, and health/safety.

Also, I wasn't fighting for anything on diamonds, and I never said they weren't valuable, as shown in the quote. I don't know where you got that from. And ofcourse they are worth more than crystal, which is kind of the problem. The dragon named crystal is supposed to be the weakest gem dragon, and diamond is anything but weak.
I seriously doubt this; in fact, I think if diamonds were cheaper, demand would just go up for them. Diamonds are so valuable not because of this Russian stock market thing, they're valuable mostly because demand is so high. They are by far the most in-demand gemstone, probably because they lack color (and match better for things like weddings). A better suite of outfits and parties pair with "clear" and "white" than with a specific color.

TLDR: Diamonds aren't popular because their expensive, they are expensive because they're popular.

The second thing is that you're moving the goal posts on why there shouldn't be a "diamond dragon." You say that diamonds aren't that valuable so shouldn't be a dragon, but crystals are way less valuable, so by that metric the crystal should be booted.
 

ZAR22

Villager
The second thing is that you're moving the goal posts on why there shouldn't be a "diamond dragon." You say that diamonds aren't that valuable so shouldn't be a dragon, but crystals are way less valuable, so by that metric the crystal should be booted.
Goal posts? What? I said diamonds aren't valued the same way back then in medieval times, and that it replacing crystal wouldn't be a good idea because crystal dragons are supposed to be weak, not stronger.

And the diamonds are popular because of what has been said about them being rare and other exaggerations about them to increase the demand for them via popularity and marketing.

Plus, there already IS a dragon NAMED diamond, but they are not a "diamond" dragon. They are some form of astral dragon god who keeps that name.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
Goal posts? What? I said diamonds aren't valued the same way back then in medieval times, and that it replacing crystal wouldn't be a good idea because crystal dragons are supposed to be weak, not stronger.

And the diamonds are popular because of what has been said about them being rare and other exaggerations about them to increase the demand for them via popularity and marketing.

Plus, there already IS a dragon NAMED diamond, but they are not a "diamond" dragon. They are some form of astral dragon god who keeps that name.
This is what you said;

Diamond wouldn't fit the theme, because not only is that NOT a precious gem IRL (that's due to the Russian stock market agreement made by jeweling companies in Africa to make it rare), it was not one company valued and found in Eurasia except for small incidents, and wasn't looked at as a gem of royality in most medieval times. Also diamond being strong and tough would put it at the top, and even above ruby, which is a no-no to be above the gem god, so another semi to fully translucent white gem would be needed that's weaker than the other gems.

You say that diamonds aren't precious, and that they weren't viewed as valuable in medieval times by royalty. This is arguably not true at all but that's beside the point, as in these respects crystals are considered way less precious and valuable than diamonds. So why you think arguing that diamonds aren't valuable is an important point, I have no idea.
 

ZAR22

Villager
This is what you said;

Diamond wouldn't fit the theme, because not only is that NOT a precious gem IRL (that's due to the Russian stock market agreement made by jeweling companies in Africa to make it rare), it was not one company valued and found in Eurasia except for small incidents, and wasn't looked at as a gem of royality in most medieval times. Also diamond being strong and tough would put it at the top, and even above ruby, which is a no-no to be above the gem god, so another semi to fully translucent white gem would be needed that's weaker than the other gems.

You say that diamonds aren't precious, and that they weren't viewed as valuable in medieval times by royalty. This is arguably not true at all but that's beside the point, as in these respects crystals are considered way less precious and valuable than diamonds. So why you think arguing that diamonds aren't valuable is an important point, I have no idea.

OK, so if I did say that, let me rephrase this then, diamond is NOT AS precious as people believe it is, primarily precious due to marketing, and diamonds weren't really a thing around in European medieval times (seeing as they didn't naturally form in Europe, and trade with India for diamonds wasn't as great now and primarily done in southern eastern Europe for diamonds) unlike the other gems used for the gem dragon like ruby and sapphire.

And on the note of ruby and sapphire, depending on the purity and type of ruby/sapphire, they can be more valuable than a diamond. And I did say having diamond above the dragon god is a no-no. So diamonds aren't as valuable as most people make it seem, is a new point (not necessarily really important in some regard) I will attempt to make.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
OK, so if I did say that, let me rephrase this then, diamond is NOT AS precious as people believe it is, primarily precious due to marketing, and diamonds weren't really a thing around in European medieval times (seeing as they didn't naturally form in Europe, and trade with India for diamonds wasn't as great now and primarily done in southern eastern Europe for diamonds) unlike the other gems used for the gem dragon like ruby and sapphire.

And on the note of ruby and sapphire, depending on the purity and type of ruby/sapphire, they can be more valuable than a diamond. And I did say having diamond above the dragon god is a no-no. So diamonds aren't as valuable as most people make it seem, is a new point (not necessarily really important in some regard) I will attempt to make.
I don't disagree with anything here.

I don't see why replacing crystal with diamond is so big an issue if as you say diamond can be worth less than gems like sapphire/ruby. After all, metallic dragons are i believe ranked by value/rareness and not actual strength of the metal. Gold is a very soft metal.
 

ZAR22

Villager
I don't disagree with anything here.

I don't see why replacing crystal with diamond is so big an issue if as you say diamond can be worth less than gems like sapphire/ruby. After all, metallic dragons are i believe ranked by value/rareness and not actual strength of the metal. Gold is a very soft metal.
Well, I was ranking in BOTH hardness in value seen during the medieval times, as to not be exactly ranked like metallics, but not too off course in the value ranking like them, after all they are the "true neutral dragons" of the main trio of dragons.

And again, there is already a dragon who is named diamond, appearing in one of the dragon magazines I believe talking about the "great dragon".
 

I disagree on some of the choices you picked for gem dragons, as some of those are organic gems, also a pearl dragon already exists.


Also disagree on iron in generally, as we already have (cough Mary-sue-like for humans cough) silver dragons who do the whole polymorph gemic in the same vein, but also because I found bronze distinct and well written compared to all the metallics, even golds.
You said some of the stones i listed were organic.

Nope.

One was. Just pearl.

Also meh on them needing to be inorganic.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
So they could be up to 3 million feet long (which is over 500 miles), but only had a movement rate of 48.
Being big doesn't mean you move fast. Mountains are enormous, but move pretty slow. ;)

Actually, as things get bigger they tend to move really slow. Elephants are a lot bigger than cheetahs (or rhinos) and quite a bit slower than both.
 

dave2008

Legend
While this is great and all, I am not a fan of this redesign, or the fact people STILL think they are made out of the literal gems.
I haven't seen the art close up, but I don't think it looks like it is made of gems, but then again it doesn't look like it is scaled either. I also like the floaty bits - just seems a bit "psionic" to me.

FYI, I don't know how this relates to the old gems, but this adult sapphire dragon has the same CR as an adult green dragon.

EDIT: I just checked and the 2e green and sapphire were both 13 HD monsters. So I guess that part checks out.
 

dave2008

Legend
But I do hope they become the LEAD dragon group of the gems, because then you would have all the primary colors as leaders: red, yellow (golden), and blue (sapphire).
Not sure what you mean by "lead" dragon, but in 2e the amethyst dragon had more HD
 

Advertisement1

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top