Removing spellcasting from dragons...

[Delta]

I think you remember incorrectly. White dragons were the weakest spellcasters in core pre-3e, and even they got spellcasting, meager though it was (IIRC, the oldest white dragon got 4 1st level spells.)

1E Monster Manual, p. 31-34:

Black Dragon -- Chance of: Speaking 30%, Magic Use 10%, Sleeping 50%
Blue Dragon -- Chance of: Speaking 60%, Magic Use 30%, Sleeping 30%
Green Dragon -- Chance of: Speaking 45%, Magic Use 20%, Sleeping 40%
Red Dragon -- Chance of: Speaking 75%, Magic Use 40%, Sleeping 20%
White Dragon -- Chance of: Speaking 20%, Magic Use 5%, Sleeping 60%.

So that's an average of only about 20% chance of evil dragons in 1E casting spells. Only 1-in-20 for white dragons.

And worse, in the fine print on p. 30, first full paragraph, it actually says you need to roll for both a speaking, and then magic-using dragon, to actually get one. That would reduce overall magic use to only 12% average for evil dragons, by-the-book.

 

[Plecak]

Hi guys,

I do not have problems with spellcasting dragons. Mine use it for buffing and useful non-combat spells. If you strip spellcasting from dragons, you will end up with intelligent tarasques (with not so great defences). Boooring.

If you want to use simpler dragons use advanced wyverns (for stupid opponents) and drakes (for intelligent opponents). BTW, some drakes can be advanced to 48HD, so they fit in the role perfectly. No need weakening true dragons.

Why no one complains about balors and solars?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Because balors aren't as complex to run as dragons (spell-like abilities, not spells), and in all likelihood, not too many DMs use solars as adversaries.