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

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
It seems like a psychic book would have some monsters to go along with the class, the aberrant bloodline sorcerer, the astral monk, psychic spells, and a reprint of the gith races. Gem dragons, aberrations, psychic fey to mess with your emotions, brain-sucking vampires, even psychic celestials (I'm looking at you Shedu) all seem like good possibilities.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Beleriphon

Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
Gem Dragons, should, I feel, not be the end. We need Ore Dragons as well.

Simply consider how beautiful a Chalcopyrite dragon would be, and then tell me that this is a bad idea.
What about opal dragons? And if there are sapphire, topaz and what not why not diamond? Or was that the crystal dragon? What about the vegetable dragons? Tuber dragons as a subset, or perhaps legume dragons. I'll thow my support behind a lentil or bean dragon.
 


Parmandur

Legend
There is more then enough material for a book just on Dragons, but we book know that is not WotCs style anymore, it will be one chapter on Dragons at most and maybe a few types of Dragons in the Beastairy.
Time will tell: diversity in a book can be achieved in multiple ways.
 




dagger

Explorer
Well, they weren't in the 1st edition monster manual... I checked. I don't consider dragon magazine to be official content for an edition.
But they were out at the time 1e wa going strong and a lot of people did consider Dragon material official (especially errata).
 

Li Shenron

Legend
I would always like another book of monsters, but I think it's more likely the gems dragons are scheduled to appear in the psionics book... IIRC we've already seen 3 iterations of psionics in UA so there's a chance the last one got enough approval and a book is not too far away.
 



Parmandur

Legend
I would always like another book of monsters, but I think it's more likely the gems dragons are scheduled to appear in the psionics book... IIRC we've already seen 3 iterations of psionics in UA so there's a chance the last one got enough approval and a book is not too far away.
No, the last iteration was so badly received they threw out the entire design. We haven't seen a new take yet.
 

Linnords are right to be the pets or idols of Lovecraftians cults.

I miss the dragon cobra from Dragon Magazine #146 because it was perfect as leader of yuan-ti cults, (do you remember Yig from Lovecraft's myths?).

1573764848477.png


and also the half-illithid version, the brainstealer, a new classic monster shouldn't be forgotten.

1573764789123.png


I am not kidding, there was a cannon rainbow dragon and they were bad...(not like in the endless quest gamebook "The revenge of the rainbow dragons"), and one of the most powerfuls.

I say it again. If there is a new Draconomicon I would rather the minidragon or other with age categories than those boring drakes.

Dragons are cools, but "the city is too small for both". The ultimate predators are very territorial, and if they want gold and treasures maybe youngest ones start as merchants or bourgeois controlling trade. You should notice about conflicts between noble houses and those "merchants" who really are dragons or another mythical creature.

* If the psionic powers return then somebody will miss those new classes from the complete psionic, or by Dreamscarred Press for Pathfinder (aegis, cryptic dread, marksman, tactician, or vitalist) or the psionic version of occult classes (kinetic, medium, mesmerist, occultist, psychic and spiritualist). Will be wilder or lurker only subclasses. Should the ardent ("psionic cleric") a base class. And the new psionic classes in Dark Sun?

Now I have got a doubt, are spinewyrms from Dark Suns dragons or only beasts?

1573764354678.png


What if most of spinewyrms are only beasts, but anyones are true dragons (with age categories) hidden to avoid be hunted by Borys the dragon of Tyr? Or some psionic manifesters used experiments with spinewyrms to "digievolution" and they had got a lesser success. This could be the hook of new stories about secret lodges and paranormal conspirations.

* Not only Draconomicon but we may see a future remake of "Dragon Magic" with dracontouched subraces and even classes (dracolyte, dragon shaman or dragonfire adept).

1573764042912.png


I loved dragons as monster classes. I had liked more species in addition to metallic and chromatic from Dragon Magazine.
 

Hussar

Legend
Gem Dragons, should, I feel, not be the end. We need Ore Dragons as well.

Simply consider how beautiful a Chalcopyrite dragon would be, and then tell me that this is a bad idea.
Sounds like an horrible idea to me. :D

Maybe a S'more Dragon that breathes melted marshmallow. :D
 


ddaley

Explorer
For 1st edition, in an early issue of Dragon magazine. But they haven't been in an edition since 3rd I think.
Yes, and he/she mentioned that in 1st edition they were introduced in a Dragon article. I was just pointing out that the statement you quoted included 2nd edition, so your statement stating they were in 2nd edition was redundant. That's all. There was no need for me to comment really, my apologies.
So... seems to me he didn't directly address 2e... based on his statement, they could have or could have not been in 2e... hence my comment.
 




dave2008

Legend
So... seems to me he didn't directly address 2e... based on his statement, they could have or could have not been in 2e... hence my comment.
I'm not an English major, but I believe the phrase: "But they haven't been in an edition since 3rd I think. " Means, or at least implies, they have have been in each edition from 1st -3rd (because the previous sentence mentioned they started in 1e era Dragon). The author "liked" my post so I assume that his what he/she meant as well. If it was to exclude 2nd, he/she should have written: "But they haven't been in any other edition except 3rd I think. "
 

Advertisement1

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top