Dragons... what should they be?

[MerricB]

Dragons. There have been many words written about them in D&D over the years, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss how they should be represented in D&D.

The poll relates to their stats, but feel free to jump in with anything relevant you like.

At present, I'm very happy with their representation in 4E: that is, with their main features being:
* They attack with bite and claw
* They fly
* They have a deadly breath weapon
* They emanate a aura of fear
* They occasionally have other powers (spells).

During the Age of Worms, I had occasion to run some high-level 3e dragons, and it seemed a bit wrong that their best attacks would often be spells rather than their "natural" claw/bite/breath weapons. Others may not agree there. I'm just wondering where you stand.

Or maybe you like your dragons a bit more "barebone". Claws, bite & wings... and that's it?

Alignment-wise, I'm very fond of the good/evil divide between the dragons; even if it restricts the usefulness of the metallics somewhat, it made up for it by providing the players with strength-from-worldbuilding. That is, you could make decisions based on the world described by the books, rather than waiting to see if the DM was trying to trick you or not.

(The fear* option above is optional with spell-use).

A related poll - that might be worth setting up - would discuss how easy dragons are to slay! In AD&D, they weren't as "scary" as later editions (especially 2e). Would you prefer that?

Oh, and if you don't like the options here (fair enough) why don't you build your own dragon?

Cheers!

 

[coyote6]

I vote bite, claw, wings, maybe some magic powers -- but not spellcasting per se, and no fear aura. That always struck me as odd and artificial -- why is a dragon scarier than a fire-breathing flying t-rex, or an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter?

Of course, that opinion is valid now, and now only; tomorrow, I might want a Shadowrun-style dragon, knowing more about magic than any puny person ever could; or Daxamite dragons, with heat vision, nigh-invulnerability, and a problem with lead.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In my game, dragons have a breath weapon and also an abstract melee attack (probably mainly its bite, but since it's abstract, it could include claws/wings/tail/etc) that normally does 1d6 damage. For a very large dragon I might bump that up to 2 or more dice). And, of course, some dragons may be able to cast spells, fly, et cetera.

This might seem weak, compared to dragons in later editions. However, PCs are more fragile than in later editions (I'm running original D&D without the Greyhawk supplement's boost to hit dice and attacks). For example, a 4th level hero has 4d6 hit points. Also, PCs don't deal out as much damage as in later editions. In my game, dragons are still pretty fearsome, but it's primarily because of their breath weapon.

 

[Aus_Snow]

None of the above, as I have alluded to in. . . that other thread.

Once more with feeling: I would prefer that dragons be terrifying combatants, yep, but also that they have specific, tailored um, 'dragony' abilities. Supernatural powers and effects above and beyond 'fear aura' and the other usual suspects, such as they are. And this goes for other monsters, too. I'd love for them to be highly distinct, customised, that kind of thing.

So far, no edition of D&D has done that, IMO.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I would prefer that dragons…have specific, tailored …abilities…And this goes for other monsters, too. I'd love for them to be highly distinct, customised, that kind of thing.

I agree. I tend to consider official monster stats as an example, but don't feel at all bound to them (and consider monsters like dragons to be individuals, much like powerful NPC humans are individuals). Even with more generic and common monsters, players in my game shouldn't assume they know the capabilities of a monster because they think they're familiar with the stats in the book. I see monster books mainly as inspiration, rather than something to reference for stats and rules. I prefer to "roll my own," more often than not.

 

[Aurumvorax]

A related poll - that might be worth setting up - would discuss how easy dragons are to slay! In AD&D, they weren't as "scary" as later editions (especially 2e). Would you prefer that?

What do you mean by this? Dragons were much scarier as in when you saw one, you ran for the hills. Since hit points were lower and saves were based on your level, not ability scores, their breath weapon was positively lethal instead of an inconvenience. AD&D's dragons were pretty lethal at all levels.

As for my opinion on them, I prefer them being primordial lizards with poor disposition and supreme arrogance. They're older than pretty much everyone, wiser and more intelligent than pretty much everyone, and a generation of most races go by during one of their annual siestas on top their mounds of treasure. Even metallic dragons are jerks because their idea of justice and good doesn't factor the individual. A gold dragon would torch a petty farming community if it means keeping a deadly plague from spreading to the rest of his domain. A brass dragon would imply strict martial law if it meant keeping order during a time of war.

I never cared for dragons being flying wizards. Give me tooth, claw, and breath any day.

So far, no edition of D&D has done that, IMO.

Council of Wyrms, a second edition setting. You played a dragon so naturally you could build it like a player character. Your ability scores and proficiency layout determined things like auras and whether or not you had opposable thumbs.

No two dragons, even of the same type, were truly alike.

 

[FireLance]

I voted bite, claw, wings and breath weapon as basic, but I also want tools to build upon that so that I can make almost any type of dragon: spellcasting dragons, dragons who are absolute terrors in melee combat, dragons who act like airborne artillery, dragons who have developed weird and unusual special abilities, etc.

 

[billd91]

What do you mean by this? Dragons were much scarier as in when you saw one, you ran for the hills. Since hit points were lower and saves were based on your level, not ability scores, their breath weapon was positively lethal instead of an inconvenience. AD&D's dragons were pretty lethal at all levels.

Actually, 1e AD&D dragons were a lot less scary than 2e or 3e. The biggest and baddest of the evil dragons had 11 HD and 8 hp per die. They got significantly upgraded in 2e.

 

[Aeolius]

I prefer conniving, scheming, egocentric, and "completely obsessed with treasure".

 

[deadsmurf]

I want each dragon to be unique-ish.
Some should be melee focused, kicking out various attack routines.
Some should be magic focused, have little in the way of physical attacks

The only thing they should all have is the ability to fly and attack with a breath weapon, though some should focus in on that ability, being able to use it more often, or add extra effects to it.
Sprinkle in Fear abilities, and other weird things, and you have interesting dragons!