D&D 5E Dragon Player Characters

[The Crimson Binome]

What is the justification for adding Strength modifier to AC? If it's supposed to represent a thick hide, then that's done by adding Con bonus to AC.

There's already a requirement of a minimum Strength before choosing this RCC, and a racial bonus to Strength, so adding that same bonus to hit and damage and AC is kind of over the top.

 

[ingeloak]

fair enough. that said, if this is intended to be some side-shoot of a dragon that doesnt have the stats from the MM, saying that the class is "past wyrmling" is inaccurate. i was using that stat-block as a measuring stick. according to everyone who replied to me, i should not. i retract my earlier posts, and withdraw.

one last opinion as someone who loves dragons, and hated the underpowered playable race available in the MMO Horizons: your draconic racial class is quite underpowered compared to those from the MM, but might work as a playable race in a conventional game. if you are trying to do them justice, you need to increase the abilities to be equal to at least Wyrmling. there are no other comparisons available from 5E, so the MM is it.

this discussion is probably why Dragons are seen as too powerful for PCs, unless they are in their own campaign setting, such as the Io's Blood Islands

 

[77IM]

What is the justification for adding Strength modifier to AC? If it's supposed to represent a thick hide, then that's done by adding Con bonus to AC.

Why Con? Strength represents muscle density, and in some other games (notably GURPS, which emphasizes realism) Strength is actually used to calculate hit points. In this case, a stronger dragon can carry more weight so their scales naturally grow thicker.

...The real reason is that I had an AC bonus progression in the class, and then noticed that it very nearly matched the Strength progression (this was back when I gave the class a Strength bonus instead of a Maximum Strength increase), so I eliminated it and just decided to make Strength a factor in their AC, which wound up being simpler all around.

There's already a requirement of a minimum Strength before choosing this RCC, and a racial bonus to Strength, so adding that same bonus to hit and damage and AC is kind of over the top.

No more over-the-top than Dexterity, which does all that AND adds to really good skills and a very common save.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why Con? Strength represents muscle density, and in some other games (notably GURPS, which emphasizes realism) Strength is actually used to calculate hit points. In this case, a stronger dragon can carry more weight so their scales naturally grow thicker.

GURPS has a Health stat rather than a Con stat. The major difference is that Con represents how tough you are. Also, there's precedent within the edition.

No more over-the-top than Dexterity, which does all that AND adds to really good skills and a very common save.

None of the most damaging weapons use Dex, where dragons have a high-power weapon automatically. Dexterity is also limited to contributing for characters who otherwise have lower-end AC (with the best AC coming from heavy armor, where Dex isn't a factor).

From a game playability standpoint, and having fun, it's also just not as much fun when the class gets so much from the one stat. It feels like you have less meaningful choices. Even a Barbarian gets to choose whether to increase Strength or Con, and Monks can choose between Dex or Wisdom.

 

[77IM]

Well, those are some good points. In my next revision I may revert to the Strength-bonus approach (instead of Max Strength) and then it makes more sense to have a fixed AC progression as well. Part of the idea is to emphasize Strength in an effort to siphon off Ability Score Increases, but that's kind of subtle and artificial: it would be better to just give the class fewer ASIs if that's an important balancing factor.

 

[Ryuujin]

Did you ever get around to updating this?

 

[mikeoregan]

Hi @771M
I know this thread is 3 years old but ... on Wed night one of my players brought an unexpected guest. Combat was just about to begin, we have an "if you stay you play" policy and the only available "character" to give her was a copper wyrmling who the group rescued and befriended a year and a half ago (game time) 6 months-ish real time. It was her first time playing D&D loved it and I'm going to covert the wyrmling to a PC for her using your rules. But I need to tweak them just a bit. Homebrew your homebrew. I'd love to be able to tweak them electronically and send her an updated copy. So I don't suppose there's any chance you could share an editable version is there? If not I completely understand ... just thought it'd be cool.

For the record, the character (Nesing called Nessy) could already change shape into a little boy at will, so I want a restricted "change shape" which I'm calling "switch shape" at level 1. Action to switch from true shape to one particular humanoid shape and back as often as he pleases. Push "Large Size" out to level 5. Recharge the breath like a normal dragon on a 5-6 on a d6 at level 1. 4-6 at level 6 and 3-6 level 15. With "Force-of-Nature Breath Weapon" adding in an extra 1/6th chance.

Anyway, great work and looking forward to regretting letting a dragon into the party!
Mike

 

[77IM]

I finally got around to revising this. It's a nearly complete rewrite, and I'm pretty happy with it.

- Racial traits are still too strong. I think the problem here is the movement modes. Flight 60 feet is very strong at 1st level because you can zip around the battlefield and get out of danger quickly, and giving Burrow 15 feet to a 1st-level character is just sick. I thought about delaying these movement speeds but they are so closely linked to the dragon's environment and theme. I can't imagine a blue dragon without burrow or a black dragon that's not amphibious. I guess my feeling is that the problem should even itself out by around 5th level, when every spellcaster and his uncle can cast fly and misty step.

- I ditched the subclasses altogether, in favor of invocation-like "evolutions" that you can pick as you level up. I moved a lot of minor dragon traits into here. I think it's also easier to balance than the subclasses were; most of the damage scaling for the class is found in the core features.

- My goal is not to perfectly reproduce the dragon stats in the MM, but to get as close as possible. At 1st level, a dragon is much weaker than a wyrmling, mostly due to low hit points and low breath weapon damage. But you should catch up around level 7-8, and by high levels, you can (if you pick the right evolutions) have stats remarkably similar to a Young dragon, and at 20th level you are starting to resemble an Adult dragon.

- The wyrmling background is now optional; you can pick any background that makes sense.

 

[AnotQuiteSimpleSoul]

What's the point of mithril and adamant scales? I mean yeah I can see why a dragon would want to take one of those, but having both seems pointless. I mean in what instance would a dragon not take adamant instead of mithril?

 

[77IM]

Huh, that's a great question. The intention was that the Mithril scales were for Dex-based dragons who also had Razor Claws and maybe some levels in rogue or monk. But it appears I goofed -- since there's no downside to Adamantine scales, and Mithril attains at most the same AC, there's really not any point.