Looking at the new Sorcerer class, his abilities depend on what type of dragon he descended from, which is not a problem. What I do object to is the way the dragons are named. Every other species with variants has a meaningful variety - hill dwarves live in the hills, mountain dwarves in the mountains; lightfoot halflings are kender, stout halflings hobbits, etc. But what does the name blue dragon tell about the dragon? Nothing except that it has blue scales and, due to the chromatic-metallic nomenclature, that it's evil. But without looking it up nor knowing beforehand, how does the name show a white dragon to be any different? White scales. Fifth edition doesn't seem to want to break with tradition, but I wouldn't mind seeing more evocative names; even "swamp dragon" and "snow dragon" would be better.
No they would be much, much worse.
Also has 4E really ignored dragons that much so that all the lore about them from 2E and 3E has been forgotten?
Use the 2E/3E lore for dragons and it will tell you much more about them than "hill dwarves" about a dwarf.
Blue dragons for example mostly live in deserts in a very rigid social structure (unique among the rather chaotic chromatic dragons) and are master illusionists which are often used to trick enemies or torture them by mirages of water sources.
4E has removed a lot of such lore because monsters were only there for combat, but look at the older editions and you will find enough.
Mod Note: Folks, trash-talking a game in a thread about other things is lame, and pretty obvious edition warring. Please don't do it. Thanks. ~Umbran
Last edited by a moderator: