D&D 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;

 

[Lanefan]

I've never used any of the true dragons except the Chromatics. And at this point, I know I've had white, black, green, and blue, but I'm not sure that I've ever used the iconic red dragon in a combat. (I've fought one as a PC, but that's a different matter.)

I've used all five Chromatics each on numerous occasions as opponents, plus Shadow and a few others. As for Metallics, gold and silver have appeared all sorts of times (there was a silver involved just last session), with brass and copper much less frequent.

I say all of that as a preface to my question, "Am I really wierd?" I mean, do lots of DMs out there really feel the need for gem dragons? Do gem dragons show up a bunch in your games, and if so what are they doing? And do most DMs go through far more many different monsters than I do?

I'm always on the lookout for cool new monsters!

After all, monsters are something - along with character pieces, dice, and adventure modules - of which a DM can simply never have enough.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I don't know if you could make a whole 5e book entirely centered around new dragon monsters... Volo's added monsters from all sorts of categories, and Mordenkainen's added devils, demons, Gith and more.

That said I definitely think a new monster book is possible, I just doubt it'd be dragon specific.

It has been done previously, so I imagine a whole draconic-themed book is a possibility. The 3E Draconomicon was a brilliant book and 4E even did two of them - splitting into Metallic and Chromatic books. I quite liked all the extra dragons in those too, especially the iron dragon and my favourite chromatic dragon, the brown dragon

 

[darjr]

Whatever they do it’ll be in support of possible future products.

 

[Lanefan]

I have never understood the reluctance of people to have psionic/psychic powers in D&D and its reduction to a later supplement book in every edition beyond 1st; it is such a narrow, limited view of the Fantasy genre that doesn't allow any room for psychic powers.

My problem with PC psyonics is that a) I don't want to shoehorn them into a separate psyonicist class but b) I've yet to, after numerous top-to-bottom redesigns over the years, find a non-class way to have them work for PCs without tossing balance out the window (and I say this as someone who's not often concerned about balance!).

But psyonic monsters? Hells yeah! A slew of new psyonic Dragon types sounds real cool!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

That's what I was thinking. Rather than a setting with all dragons, sometimes a setting is defined by what is NOT there. I would like to develop a mini-setting where the gem dragons are 'the' dragons of the setting. Dark Sun was perfect for that and I did use psionic dragons in that setting.

If I use gem dragons, I think I'll be using them as a force of "balance" (like Mordenkainen's worldview, just for dragonkind). That they try to force everything into being in cosmic alignment, regardless of what that actually means on a micro scale.

If I'm trying to limit dragons in my homebrew, I might use the "lesser" neutral dragons... they are the Amber, Jade, Jacinth, Moonstone and Pearl dragons... they are honestly so weird, and much more beastly, that they alone would give a setting a more distinct feel. Plus they can fit a wooded Norse setting nicely, which I'm thinking about.

It has been done previously, so I imagine a whole draconic-themed book is a possibility. The 3E Draconomicon was a brilliant book and 4E even did two of them - splitting into Metallic and Chromatic books. I quite liked all the extra dragons in those too, especially the iron dragon and my favourite chromatic dragon, the brown dragon

I doubt this solely because 5e has focused on giving books that tend to be larger and more diverse than previous editions have (at least the non-adventure books). A dragon-specific monster book would be a departure from the 5e style of hitting multiple targets in a single book to please a broader audience.

 

[Celebrim]

I have never understood the reluctance of people to have psionic/psychic powers in D&D and its reduction to a later supplement book in every edition beyond 1st; it is such a narrow, limited view of the Fantasy genre that doesn't allow any room for psychic powers. I've heard so many people claim psionics/psychic powers are "too science-fiction", which is an argument I have simply never understood.

My view on them is somewhat the other direction. I consider 'psionic' and 'psychic' just other words for magic, and that the powers are not sufficiently distinct from magic to justify a whole other subsystem.

The division between psionic and magical powers in D&D has always been a wholly mechanical one.

 

[dave2008]

For major monsters types that leaves Celestials, Dragons, Aboleths, Undead, Fey, Lycanthropes.

FYI, the bolded monsters are not 'types' per page 7 of the MM. Types still to be covered would be:

• Celestials
• Constructs
• Dragons
• Fey
• Monstrosities
• Oozes
• Plants
• Undead

Aberations were covered wiht the Beholders in Volos and Mind Flayers in Volos, but you could definitely do something with Aboleths as yoiu mention.

 

[Parmandur]

It's funny, I think part of the speculation is muddied because there are very likely multiple books in development, so it's hard to compartmentalize all the hints being given.

Yeah, there are 3-4 books probably, plus who knows what else. It will seem obvious in hindsight, but we'll see soon enough.

 

[Parmandur]

giving books that tend to be larger and more diverse than previous editions have (at least the non-adventure books). A dragon-specific monster book would be a departure from the 5e style of hitting multiple targets in a single book to please a broader audience.

On the other hand, Dragons might be one of the few things central enough and widely selling enough for a "targeted" book. I think we'll get a monster book that dives deep on Dragons, but mixing it with other topics would fit the current house style.

 

[ddaley]

For 1st edition, in an early issue of Dragon magazine. But they haven't been in an edition since 3rd I think.

They were in the Monstrous Manual, which is 2nd edition I believe.