Monster Manual 3: What do we know about it?

[Mouseferatu]

Care to elaborate, Ari?

Not sure how much I can elaborate, other than to say that I really dislike them as they've always been presented; they don't scream "dragon" to me; they read like what they were (a deliberate attempt to shoehorn a new alignment into the draconic "matrix"); I think the "spitting lozenges" idea is silly; I've never felt they had any place in any of the primary D&D worlds; and I find the newer ideas (catastrophic and scourge/linnorm) to have much more mythic/draconic resonance and far more adventure/story potential.

Hrm. I guess I could elaborate.

 

[FreeXenon]

Please, oh Nocturnal Rodent Lord, elaborate for us!

 

[Aeolius]

Gem Dragons?!? Ohhh... I thought you said GYM Dragons!!

Dragon turtles get no respect No respect at all.

 

[Barastrondo]

Gem dragons could make interesting rarities among the other breeds. If it were me, I'd probably use them as some sort of "purified" or "rarified" offshoot of another species. Maybe with beam-weapon breath to play up the prism motif. So, say, a ruby dragon is related to reds, and has a breath weapon that's more a beam of volcanic heat than proper fire. Or an emerald dragon is a "noble" form of green dragon, and its breath weapon is, I dunno, some sort of balefire-like beam of toxic radiation.

Of course, it's me, and I don't even use the traditional color-coded and metallic-coded dragons entirely as written; a volcano-dwelling, fire-breathing dragon may be red because that's the color of his element, but you're as likely to run into a gray dragon that prowls barren, stony hills and is earth-aspected. Dragons reflect where they're born, not genetic subspecies. And their alignment is usually less "colors are evil, metals are less so" and more "their alignment is 'dragon'."

 

[Drammattex]

Loved the second Monster Manual, can't wait for the third!

 

[Mouseferatu]

Just for the record, I can think of several ways that I (or someone else) could transform the gem dragons into something that I would think are actually really cool, and a worthwhile addition to the game. But it would be a complete ground-up re-envisioning, and would probably piss off at least half the people who were fans of them to begin with.

 

[MrMyth]

Gem dragons could make interesting rarities among the other breeds. If it were me, I'd probably use them as some sort of "purified" or "rarified" offshoot of another species. Maybe with beam-weapon breath to play up the prism motif. So, say, a ruby dragon is related to reds, and has a breath weapon that's more a beam of volcanic heat than proper fire. Or an emerald dragon is a "noble" form of green dragon, and its breath weapon is, I dunno, some sort of balefire-like beam of toxic radiation.

You know, I've never had anything specific against the gem dragons - I've honestly just not been that familiar with them - but I really like this possible take on them.

 

[Scribble]

Just for the record, I can think of several ways that I (or someone else) could transform the gem dragons into something that I would think are actually really cool, and a worthwhile addition to the game. But it would be a complete ground-up re-envisioning, and would probably piss off at least half the people who were fans of them to begin with.

Well... At least you'd be doing your part to support enworld... I mean what else would we have to bitch about then?

 

[FreeXenon]

Not that you would be doing something that 4E has not already done, but much of dragons and other things in 4E have been completely redone. I approve of the reworking whole-heartedly and it is one of the things that I really love about 4E, so I think that your re-envisioning of the gem dragons might feel right at home with the rest.

Some people will like it some people hate it. 4E is kinda like that! =)

 

[Drammattex]

I love when creatures are reworked and improved, given a concrete place in the game and the world. For instance, in the '80s and '90s I didn't really understand the distinction between demons and devils. The two 3.5 books were a big step forward in determining those differences, but imo 4e truly defined them by weaving the Paradise Lost story around the devils (hey, we were angels; we slew our god and now we're trapped in Hell; wanna make a bargain?) and casting demons as forces of pure chaos, destruction, and annihilation--elemental forms tainted by the pure evil of the Abyss.

Now THAT I can wrap my mind around. Redone, yes. But I think they were improved. Succubus had to be moved into the other camp, but really not a big loss, imo. It makes sense.