D&D 5E How Should Dragons Be Handled In 5e

[Kaodi]

I am not sure if there has been a thread on this already, so I thought I would start one.

There is a fairly strong dichotomy in how dragons are handled in 3e vs. 4E, with Pathfinder bridging the distance. In 3e, outside of their breath weapon and frightening presence, most of a dragons abilities come from their effective sorcerer levels, with some spell-like abilities thrown in for good measure. In 4E, no more spellcasting, but each colour of dragon has new special abilities. In Pathfinder, you get both spell-casting and cool abilities.

In this regard, Pathfinder is obviously superior to 3e. But I think some of you might still like to make the 4E argument that dragons should not be spellcasters by default (though I think we could all agree that spellcasting ought to be possible at least for exceptional dragons).

One alternative, or compromise, might be to have dragons have their own unique kind of spellcasting, or at least a unique spell list, to sort of keep their magical abilities in the background. I think dragons might work best if all of their "spells" are buffs that are constantly active unless dispelled, debuffs for interfering with enemy magic, and spells that enhance or modify their other abilities, similar to how the in 3e spells that were cast using their breath weapon were developed. This sort of thing would keep out the element of " Why is this dragons twiddling his claws during the battle? " while still leaving them with enough customizability to keep players guessing.

~ title modified from '7e' to '5e'. No inflation of edition numbers please: Plane Sailing, Admin ~

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well, I don't know about three editions from now, but anyway...

Dragons that can cast spells are versatile. But relying on them in combat makes them look... wrong, I guess. A dragon shouldn't have a spell ability that's more powerful than its breath weapon or a full attack routine. They shouldn't need it.

I'd encourage the "unique dragons" flavor though. Maybe make a list of "salient abilities" like in the Van Richten's guides, to help you customize a draconic foe and keep it balanced.

Dragons should remain the iconic "toughest monsters around" status. It's just that they need to keep up with what that takes, against the canny, clever, power-gaming adventurers.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

well I like the 4e dragons way better (I really like 4e monsters) and dont like the "casts as a xx level sorcerer" from 3e, nor the "casts spells x, y and z". I really think that monster should have unique powers.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm not really a fan of dragon's using magic as sorcerers. I like the idea of dragons as creatures who use magic, but not as spellcasters. The distinction between magic and spells is very important for them. Various special powers that are distinctly magical in power are appropriate, but the more they tie in to the general strengths of dragons (physical power, breath weapons), and the less they resemble human spellcasting, the better.

 

[keterys]

Yeaaaah... I'm all for dragons doing ritual casting, and some spell-ish abilities.

But I so don't want to see 5e have "And the dragon casts shield, mage armor, bull strength, bear's endurance, cat's grace, mirror image, ..." Etc.

 

[MoxieFu]

The should be handled in exactly the same way as they were in D02.

Know no Limit!

 

[heptat]

The should be handled in exactly the same way as they were in D02.

Know no Limit!

Oh dude, that brought a tear to my eye

 

[thedungeondelver]

BEGIN: FUTUREPOSTING

Look, I don't care how Dragons are handled in 7th Edition, they're a core race and they'd better not remove them like they did with PLAYERS BRAINBOOK XIV in 6th edition. They, like Gelatinous Cubes and Githyanki Paladins are a core race just the way Mike Mearls (God rest his soul) intended in the 3bsb's! (Big Sepia Books). You take them out, you might as well take Beholder rangers and...and, I don't know, call it something else, because buddy it's not NEUROD&D, not by my standard, not by anyone's standard. At that point it's just a psideo-game and not the hobby we all know and love and grew up with here in the Allied Survival Domes of CanAmexierico ("In Dios we Trust, Eh?") and frankly I'm so upset by the 7e rumors I don't care if The Preserved Brain of PirateCat does report me to the Internet Police for saying so.

END: FUTUREPOSTING

 

[Grydan]

All jokes about the thread title aside, I'm in favour of 4E style dragons.

And by 4E dragons, I mean the ones from Monster Vault and other recent sources, rather than the Monster Manual ones, which were boring.

I mean, I can understand the whole "close burst stun to represent how awesome-scary this creature is", but in play it's just dull. Later dragons got much scarier, by actually doing scary things.

I'm all for there being the option to add spell-casting abilities to dragons, sure. Rituals too. It's just that the dragons I personally want for my campaigns are dragons that are scary and dangerous because of the whole "being a giant carnivorous flying creature that can cook* you with its own breath before devouring you whole" bit, rather than the "hey, it's a high level spell-caster who happens to have scales and wings" bit.

(*or flash freeze, or poison, etc.)

 

[Kaodi]

I knew there would be some comments on the title, . It was mostly aimed at people who read one of my other threads.

I starting going throuh the Pathfinder spell list last night, and am going to continue today, to list all the spells that I think are appropriate for dragons to use. Not necessarily in combat, because I agree that having a dragon constantly spellcasting in combat is probably going to break up the action, but a lot of them are buffs.

What I have found I though appropriate is that I think most appropriate spells do not have any visual effects (are not flashy), and either effect the dragons stats or an opponents stats. As much as people may despise dragons with mage armour, bulls strength, and the like, I think that those are actually great spells because you cannot tell from looking at the dragon that they have them cast on them. The other thing I have really favoured... is a ton of divination and enchantment. These sort of mesh well I think with the idea of dragons having supernatural senses, and being able to mess with your head, as with frightening presence. Probably the most iconic dragon enchanter is of course Cyan Bloodbane, who is probably one of only a handful of dragons with names that most gamers ought to be familiar with (like Dragotha, Ashardalon, Skie, et al.) .

One other thing on my mind though, was how to deal with the different forms of dragons. Right now only the colour coded dragons tend to count as " true dragons " , but I think that Linnorms, Drakes, and Lungs should all get the full treatment, because they each represent a classic dragon form. Linnorms are the wingless dragons, Drakes wings are their arms, Lungs are the Eastern snake-like dragons (and you have Sea Serpents as well, for that matter). Ideally the different forms might all be just different species of dragons but with the same sort of abilities, but since this is D&D and that is not likely to happen, I think the Linnorn/Drake promotion would be a reasonable compromise...