Draco Historial - Dragons in D&D!

[Li Shenron]

I can totally get on board with streamlining. Having to make entire spell lists to use 2e and 3e dragons was not one of their strong suits.

But 4e's approach failed on two basic metrics for me with regards to the dragons.

First, it ditched the identity of the dragons as conveyed by their magical abilities in 2e/3e. As an example, blue dragons in 4e were dire pikachus -- great with a bolt of lightning in a fight. They weren't the clever illusionists who got their victims lost in the desert while obliterating water supplies that the 2e abilities helped them be for me. The latter is much more interesting to me than the former.

Second, it narrowed their focus to the fight. Since combat is only one part of D&D for me, and I still need rules support for the rest of the game, this made them boring and uninteresting to me. I can imagine using a blue dragon that uses mirages and destroys water in play. A blue dragon that just crackles with lightning doesn't inspire me to do anything with it, really. Got no reason to fight it.

The simplification was a good thing, and I hope 5e keeps it simple. Spell lists are not a thing I want to go back to. I just hope it adds back in those two things that 4e dragons lacked for me -- the thematic abilities that made each color interesting and unique, and a context beyond the 30 minutes it'll take to reduce that sack of XP to 0 HP.

I imagine 5e dragons, like the beholder mentioned in today's Q&A, are going to have a "non-legendary, non-laired" mode they can run on, ("legendary" and "lair" seem like things you can add to a critter), which sounds like it'll be useful for anyone wanting a simpler dragon. I just hope that simple dragon still evokes the unique abilities of the 2e/3e era dragons -- that my black dragons unleash insect plagues and taint wells, that my blue dragons use illusions and eradicate water, that my green dragons have charms and nature manipulation that rival the fey...

Those things are fun gameplay elements for me. I imagine they won't be hard to add if 5e doesn't do it by default (it's likely going to be easy to take those spells and just say, "the dragon can use 'em."), but I'd be pleased to see those abilities in there. Given 5e's general "good ideas from history" vibe, I wouldn't be shocked.

But if 5e gold dragons don't grant luck and 5e white dragons don't control the weather, I'm probably not going to be that enthusiastic about 'em.

This is a great post, I can totally relate to your way of thinking!

Some DMs want to play D&D as a game of combat, so they are not interested in out-of-combat stuff, and even find annoying to have them in the monsters description.

OTOH, focus on combat only, and half of the gamers won't like that kind of game, or get bored by monsters designed too narrowly.

IMHO the solution lies in how monsters are presented in the books. Instead of writing down a description by stats, they should have thought about a description by usefulness: have an "encounter section" in the monster description with all (and only) what can be used in combat, then have another section presenting what the monster does actually most of the time.

For instance, it is not hard to design spellcasting dragons in 5e. In 3e, going by the rules the designers had to assign an equivalent spellcaster level ("this dragon casts spells as a 10th level Wizard..."), and then fill all the daily slots with spells.

In 5e, they could just write down how many slots by level, and indicate a small number of spells prepared, all of which should be combat-useful spells. This is all a DM of the "D&D as combat" style wants to have, in one place.

Then separately, in another section, write down additional known spells. Maybe the dragon prepares them sometimes, or maybe he can cast them as Rituals from known spells (rather than from prepared spells). A DM like you or me will have great use of this section, and still have all the combat stuff conveniently grouped.

 

[Klaus]

I can totally get on board with streamlining. Having to make entire spell lists to use 2e and 3e dragons was not one of their strong suits.

But 4e's approach failed on two basic metrics for me with regards to the dragons.

First, it ditched the identity of the dragons as conveyed by their magical abilities in 2e/3e. As an example, blue dragons in 4e were dire pikachus -- great with a bolt of lightning in a fight. They weren't the clever illusionists who got their victims lost in the desert while obliterating water supplies that the 2e abilities helped them be for me. The latter is much more interesting to me than the former.

1) Dragons in 2e and 3e (the latter much moreso) were less "dragons" and more "Huge sorcerers with breath weapons". Specially in 3e, they didn't really *play* as dragons, because doing anything other than cast stuff like stoneskin, cat's grace, mage armor, cone of cold, etc, was akin to wasting a round.

2) 3e was the edition that first did away with that problem, by introducing the Xorvintaal dragon template (MM 5), which traded spellcasting for draconic abilities. 4e carried those over as the core dragons (much like 3e first had dragonborn, and the 4e made them core).

3) Many those non-combat abilities were available in the 4e Draconomicon, in exchange for some of the core ones (blue dragons could get Mirage, for instance).

4) It was a simple matter to add a class template (DMG) to any monster, to give them more spellcasting or spell-like abilities. Slap a Wizard template and pick one at-will, two encounter and one daily power and you're done.

5) I agree that some of those noncombat abilities could be mentioned easily enough, saving the DM the trouble of making them up (and letting new DMs know of these traditional abilities): "Adult blue dragons innately know a ritual that allows them to foul all sources of water within 1 mile of their location. This ritual has no gp cost and can be used one per week".

 

[The Human Target]

I guess to me, its easy to add that kind if stuff in if you want to use them.

They've stated that before.

4e Blue dragons can have illusory terrain effects, they're just not needed in the combat statistics.

You want your Red Dragon enemy to assume human form? Just do it. Specific rules not needed.

Now I do think they could have done a better job giving out examples and ideas for how to implement that kind of stuff, especially for newer DMs.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Only a single sentence to mention The Council of Wyrms?

I am a sad panda.

 

[fjw70]

I am looking forward to legendary dragons with lair abilities. If done right these could be the best version of dragons so far.

 

[Ichneumon]

I'm trusting, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that the metallic dragons will be there and not AWOL like they were in 2008's first monster book. They just work better for scenarios when you want your wyrm to be a sneaky power behind the throne, or a kindly-mannered but disturbingly scaled wisdom dispenser. Regardless of what you have planned, most parties can't look at a chromatic dragon without needing to plant their collective boots on its hiney.

The lair promises to be a better friend to dragons than a bunch of kobolds could ever be. In this era of very touchable ACs, going last in initiative can ruin a dragon's day before he gets to show everyone his high CR. So a lair doing bad stuff to the PCs can give a non-legendary dragon the breathing space it needs. (All metaphorical permutations apply).

In my opinion, metallics deserve most of the tricksy stuff and chromatics deserve a short list of punchy combat options. I'm yet to decide whether blues deserve beachfront property as well.

 

[Hussar]

I never understood the need for an equal section of good dragons. Do people actually use them in their games? I have to admit, outside of a couple of very minor examples, I've never used, nor have I seen used by any DM I've played with, good dragons.

Dropping good dragons pissed a lot of people off, but, for the life of me, I don't know why.

 

[Nagol]

I never understood the need for an equal section of good dragons. Do people actually use them in their games? I have to admit, outside of a couple of very minor examples, I've never used, nor have I seen used by any DM I've played with, good dragons.

Dropping good dragons pissed a lot of people off, but, for the life of me, I don't know why.

I've tended to have at least as many metallic dragons as chromatic. They do tend to be approached differently by the PCs, it is true.

The seemingly most memorable dragon encounter I've ever run was in 2e: a ancient huge bronze dragon and its interactions with a pirate vessel the PCs were prisoners on -- it is certainly the one the players talk about most.

 

[Ichneumon]

I never understood the need for an equal section of good dragons. Do people actually use them in their games? I have to admit, outside of a couple of very minor examples, I've never used, nor have I seen used by any DM I've played with, good dragons.

Dropping good dragons pissed a lot of people off, but, for the life of me, I don't know why.

Good dragons have good intentions, and we all know what they pave the road to.

I view metallic dragons as mega-powerful NPCs who can, between their fascination with human society, ignorance of how it works, and overwhelming arrogance, make more of a mess of a civilised area than any virgin-devouring red could ever hope to. That's adventurer catnip right there.

 

[Henry]

In 5e, they could just write down how many slots by level, and indicate a small number of spells prepared, all of which should be combat-useful spells. This is all a DM of the "D&D as combat" style wants to have, in one place.

Then separately, in another section, write down additional known spells. Maybe the dragon prepares them sometimes, or maybe he can cast them as Rituals from known spells (rather than from prepared spells). A DM like you or me will have great use of this section, and still have all the combat stuff conveniently grouped.

However, the part I DON'T want, is spells like shield, and mage armor, and bull strength, and all those stat boosting spells where you have to recalc half their stats, both before the combat, and during the combat, should some PC cast dispel magic or some such negation spell.

During combat I want to have to keep in mind a half dozen stats, tops - AC, hp, one or two saving throws, and maybe two types of attack and damage. If i have to look at a piece of paper, or a screen, during combat, it's a loss for me. I want to focus on the players, the moment, and the mat, and every stat in a block makes that wall of text a teeny, tiny bit denser, a teeny, tiny bit harder to scan, a fraction longer to take time away from my players, my mat, and the moment.