Dragons... has the icon been lost?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Classic D&D (OD&D, AD&D, and 2nd Edition) were mostly about "iconic logic" -- monsters like ghosts, dragons, centaurs, and orcs that pretty much do what everyone who knows mythology/Tolkien knows they do. Obviously, they had some non-iconic stuff -- owlbears and rust monsters, for instance -- but these things were not created based on mixing and matching game rules, but rather by inspiration of game designers. (In the case of the owlbear and rust monster, they were created by Gygax when he was looking at model "dinosaurs" -- a giant sloth and a ankylosaur, I believe.)

You are way way overstating your case.

Dragons sporting a new paint job to match their so-called "metagame logic" inspired breath weapons can be found in the 1e Monster Manual.

Dragons using some degree of magic is hardly new. Speaking dragons with what may be mechanically represented with Charm or Suggestion spells are hinted at in Tolkien and many other Western stories. In more modern times, LeGuin's Earth-Sea includes ancient dragons who speak only in True Speech, which implicitly makes them the equivalent of epic level archmages even if they do not bother to fling spells about whiolte on stage. Certainly once we wander away from the West we can find dragons of all kinds of magical potency.

3e is built much more on "metagame logic" -- stuff that only makes sense in the context of 3e D&D rules themselves. That's why we get things like half-dragon half-robot mystic theurge ninjas.

Any flexible ruleset can support a wide range of things mechanically, some of which will inevitably be stupid. A DM must exercise some degree of editorial control -- a necessity in all editions of D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

How exactly are the rust monster, demilich, or the disenchanter *not* built on "metagame logic"?

Add the Mimic, Gelatinous Cube, Beholder, and those gas bags that mimic the Beholder to that list.

 

[Numion]

In the interest of pedantism: There is a 9mm Magnum round; 9x29.5 produced by Winchester and AMT in the late 70s. And an electrically operated gatling gun is a fully automatic revolver. Load one with 9x29.5 and you have a fully automatic 9mm magnum revolver.

"A revolver is a multishot firearm, usually a handgun, in which the rounds are held in a revolving cylinder that rotates to fire them through a single barrel."

Gatlings thus can't be revolvers.

That's from wiki though, so it might not be accurate.

 

[Hussar]

You hit the nail on the head.

Classic D&D (OD&D, AD&D, and 2nd Edition) were mostly about "iconic logic" -- monsters like ghosts, dragons, centaurs, and orcs that pretty much do what everyone who knows mythology/Tolkien knows they do. Obviously, they had some non-iconic stuff -- owlbears and rust monsters, for instance -- but these things were not created based on mixing and matching game rules, but rather by inspiration of game designers. (In the case of the owlbear and rust monster, they were created by Gygax when he was looking at model "dinosaurs" -- a giant sloth and a ankylosaur, I believe.)

3e is built much more on "metagame logic" -- stuff that only makes sense in the context of 3e D&D rules themselves. That's why we get things like half-dragon half-robot mystic theurge ninjas.

Wow, so Dragonlance isn't 1e? Could have sworn it came out during that time. In DL, you had a Green Dragon controlling the minds of every being in an entire Elven nation!

But, hey, feel free to continue to wear those nostalgia colored glasses if they fit.

Just as a point, the rust monster was inspired by a wonky plastic figure that EGG happened to buy and couldn't figure out what to do with. But, yeah, it was designing creatures based on "real world" stuff. Check out Dragon 346 for more on that.

 

[Numion]

The thing that makes me so frustrated with the Dungeons and Dragon dragon isn't that it casts spells but rather that it has a breath weapon, 6+ attacks, 40+ Strength and 30+ Constitution yet the big tactic is magic, and a reliance on buffing and offensive magic to a ludicrous level.

Have you DMed high level D&D games? The 'big tactic' is not magic. A bit of magic is useful for the dragon, but the bread and butter of dragon tactics is the smackdown. Offensive spells are almost a waste of time, because it can do so much damage with the natural weapons, and the breath weapon is worth a try.

A bit of magic might mean Divine Favor and some choice spells to enhance the melee.

 

[Numion]

Gelatinous Cube

That's gotta be the most metagamey monster ever. Evolved to graph paper

 

[Maggan]

Iconic literary dragons

Out of idle curiosity, what are the iconic literary dragons?

My short list is:

Smaug
Orm Embar
Kalessin
...
uhm ...
...

That's the extent of my knowledge, so could someone fill me in here?

/M

 

[Jupp]

Out of idle curiosity, what are the iconic literary dragons?

That's the extent of my knowledge, so could someone fill me in here?

/M

Glaurung (Tolkien)
Fafnir (Norse)
Nidhöggr (Norse)
Tiamat (Babylonian?)
The Tarrasque (by legend its a dragon)
Nibelungen Dragon (Wagner/Norse)
Midgard Serpent
Greek Hydra
Great Red Dragon in the Apocalypes of John
The serpent of the Aztecs (I forgot the name though)

That's all I know of.

 

[Fishbone]

In the example dragon the big tactic was magic, and for most of them magic is a huge part of every dragon I've fought. I've been on the bad side of some pimped out Wraithstrike-Power Attack-Buffed to Redunkulous smackdowns. But I've also been on the painful side of super de dooper metabreath smackdowns, too, and magic is a gigantic part of dragons nowadays.

 

[jasin]

Finally, you could select spells for your dragons that you think actually make sense in relationship to what dragons represent in your world,

This is an excellent point.

I'm sure even people who don't like spellcasting dragons wouldn't be bothered by a dragon being able to intentionally dream of it's enemies (scrying) or see through illusions (true seeing) or command people into suicidal actions with the Voice (suggestion). So give your dragon those spells. Sure, it'd be smarter to pick mage armour and wraithstrike, but it'd be "smarter" to have Str 56 instead of Str 46 and you don't have to write that on your dragon's sheet either. The DM shouldn't be under pressure to perform, to minmax, to build the best monster under given constraints, because he's the one setting the constraints, so he can build what he pleases. At worst, he'll have to remember to award CR 23 XP for a nominally CR 24 dragon because he picked sub-optimal spells.

But ultimately, fewer people would be bothered by a dragon who speaks ancient words of power and has his body tense up, ready to jump in any direction; or a dragon who flies into the sun and as he swoops down, you see his scales glitter like the myriad diamonds of his hoard, distracting you and making your attacks difficult; or the dragon who commands the very air he glides through, making him as agile as a swallow as the very winds seem to blow him where he desires; then with a dragon who casts nerveskitter, scintillating scales and wings of air. It's all in the presentation. Well, not all, but a very big part.