Monster Manual 3: What do we know about it?

[avin]

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!

Well, count me as a proud member of the 4E DMs who think this edition fluff is horrible (with some excelent exceptions). Everything looks safe, dumb downed, perfect for kids (not a surprise how many times designers mentioned DMing to their kids).

Now, trowing gem dragons in the basket of medieval/fantasy dragons would be one more step in little dungeons and little dragons for HEROIC heroes versus a clear EVIL which is bad and metallic dragons can't be good cuz GOOD heroes can't attack GOOD dragons, silly.

As you said, some people like it, some people hate it...

 

[Dragonhelm]

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.

Yeah, both of us would be real ticked.

Seriously, though, thanks for all your thoughts, Ari. I think gem dragons are cool thematically, though having a neutral breed is no longer necessary in order to have neutral dragon species since metallics are often unaligned.

I like the idea of them being psionic in nature too. That's why I'm shocked they aren't in MM3 since 2010 is the year of psionics.

I would be fine with some redefinition. Add in some story elements, perhaps some sort of transformation, and I think they'd be good.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

Psionic Dragons would only make sense if the other Dragon types had Power Source links. I think in previous editions there has been a tendency to want to make one psi version of everything (Psi undead check! Psi Demon Check etc). This is probably due to the old 1e psi rules, with their psi vs psi sub game.

 

[RavinRay]

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.

In as much as I would want potential 4e gem dragons to be tied in some small way to psionics, I will wait and see and give anyone redoing them the benefit of the doubt.

Play on the appearance of gem dragons' scales. Have a PC wonder why their scales are faceted and translucent, totally unlike chromatic and metallic dragon scales. What does it imply, if any? Try to bring back some of the 2e flavor of them being charmingly suave and manipulative, and their 3e mindset of being mostly self-centered, while being credible threats at the same time.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Psionic Dragons would only make sense if the other Dragon types had Power Source links.

In prior editions, dragons could cast spells. So it only made sense to have gem dragons who manifested psionic powers. It would be a shame to lose that aspect of them.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah, both of us would be real ticked.

Seriously, though, thanks for all your thoughts, Ari. I think gem dragons are cool thematically, though having a neutral breed is no longer necessary in order to have neutral dragon species since metallics are often unaligned.

I like the idea of them being psionic in nature too. That's why I'm shocked they aren't in MM3 since 2010 is the year of psionics.

I would be fine with some redefinition. Add in some story elements, perhaps some sort of transformation, and I think they'd be good.

I've always thought of the gems as neutral in the sense of being detached from the world. Strange dragon mystics that most mortals don't know even exist, and some dragons might doubt as well . . . . which makes it tough to find one when you need to . . .

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

QFT. I could totally live with gem dragons redesigned from the ground up.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Admittedly, there's re-envisioning something but there's also a point where it ceases to be the original in much else but name and you'd be better served just calling the new monster by a new name. The 4e eladrin versus 2e/3e eladrin isn't the most extreme example, but it's nonetheless one where I think they would have been best served by not hijacking the name. There's a similar risk with gem dragons if you approach it in certain ways.

For instance when I looked at Pathfinder's NE fiends, I had to re-envision a lot of stuff because yugoloths aren't open content. As much as I adore them I had to approach PF's NE daemons from a perspective of paying homage to what I liked about the 'loths, while also making them stand on their own. I feel a re-envisioning succeeds when people look at version 2.0 and say to themselves, "I recognize this creature's origin, but that's a really cool way to look at them in a different light. I want to use these guys in my campaign." I don't want people to look at version 2.0 and say, "What the heck are these? Why did they take X's name."

Focus on what made them cool to you in the first place rather than coming at the issue from a position of "These made no sense before and I'm going to totally change them into something different that may have little to do with the original." At that point you're better served by having a new monster without ties to the original.

And on a tangent, sapphire dragons are awesome, and I had a grand time with one of them in my last campaign.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'm a fan of the gem dragons, but then again I recall them from way back when in Dragon, with their own ultimate "leader," the Ruby Dragon (to parallel the Platinum and Chromatic dragons).

In a way, the 4e purple dragon made me think that it was the lone remnant of the psionic dragons (essentially taking the deep dragon & amethyst dragon concepts with the old purple dragon name to make a new critter).

A reinvent of the gem dragons wouldn't bother me at all. Perhaps as elemental creations of the primordials akin to archons? Or, OTOH, perhaps they are angelic beings—maybe the angelic servants of the long-dead Io?

 

[MortalPlague]

Maybe with beam-weapon breath to play up the prism motif.

This line gave me an idea.

The dragon is constantly focusing its breath as a beam, which is represented on the battlefield as occupying a square. It can move on the dragon's initiative, and it attacks anyone in it on the start of their turn. It could make for some very unique fights, using movement powers to help allies "dodge" away from the beam weapon...