D&D 5E Shapeshifting dragons - only metallic?

[CapnZapp]

There's a decent discussion here as well that pretty much summarizes a lot of what's been discussed here:
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...make-it-so-chromatic-dragons-cant-shapechange

Ilbranteloth

Excellent find!

Now what remains for me to do is hope a 5E designer weighs in on the question: how much of a deviation from canon would it be to give the Change Shape ability of metallics to a) a young dragon, b) a chromatic dragon, and c) a young chromatic dragon

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I missed that the true dragons where a different type, thanks for catching that. Still doesnt change the fact that there are polymorphing / shapechanging chromatic dragons in ad&d (ember), and that they existed in 3e, 4e, and now 5e per my other references. Though they are rare, the have existed thoughot the editions with 3e seeing a big increase in frequency.

Oh, no doubt there has been inconsistencies and changes throughout the history of D&D.

I'm convinced that a lot of the issues in the novels, for example, arise when the authors don't know the D&D rules. Of course, there are plenty of other things that exist in the novels that don't exist in the game at all.

As always, it really doesn't matter for a given campaign which direction you take. But for the 'as written' it's pretty clear that the metallic dragons were originally designed to be more powerful, and drew a lot from the asian dragon mythologies (before they published ones directly inspired by them), and the chromatic dragons are more the 'monstrous' style of European legends.

That is, chromatic dragons are the evil beasts that hoard treasures, destroy the countryside, demand sacrifices, and breathe fire (and now other materials), while the metallic dragons are the benevolent beings that walk among men and sometimes reveal themselves in their frightening natural state.

Ilbranteloth

 

[dave2008]

Oh, no doubt there has been inconsistencies throughout the history of D&D. I'm convinced that a lot of the issues in the novels, for example, arise when the authors don't know the D&D rules. Of course, there are plenty of other things that exist in the novels that don't exist in the game at all.

As always, it really doesn't matter for a given campaign which direction you take. But for the 'as written' it's pretty clear that the metallic dragons were originally designed to be more powerful, and drew a lot from the asian dragon mythologies (before they published ones directly inspired by them), and the chromatic dragons are more the 'monstrous' style of European legends.

That is, chromatic dragons are the evil beasts that hoard treasures, destroy the countryside, demand sacrifices, and breathe fire (and now other materials), while the metallic dragons are the benevolent beings that walk among men and sometimes reveal themselves in their frightening natural state.

Ilbranteloth

Yes, it is interesting that over time the chromatics have become more and more powerful relative to the metallic dragons. The only difference now really is the consistent shapechanging, and that seems to more for roleplaying reasons than mechanical one these days.

It always bothered my when I was playing D&D in the early 80s that the dragons were not equal, so I've always homebrewed the chromatics stronger than RAW, sometimes even stronger than the metallics!

 

[dave2008]

Excellent find!

Now what remains for me to do is hope a 5E designer weighs in on the question: how much of a deviation from canon would it be to give the Change Shape ability of metallics to a) a young dragon, b) a chromatic dragon, and c) a young chromatic dragon

I would guess:

a) Not good as none of the young dragons in the MM have the ability (metallic or chromatic)

b) Very good and essentially a non-issue (since it doesn't change the CR at all)

c) Not good, see a.

That being said, pg 6 of the MM states "Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, perhaps by burrowing a trait or two from a different monster..."

So grab the change shape trait and go!

 

[jrowland]

Wow, I guess my memory is not as bad as I thought!

Re: true dragons etc of Dragon #50 article:

In many ways, Dragon articles of this time were like "Dev twitter feeds" today or even UA articles today. This article falls under "Canon" by the rules of the day. It's a tacit admission that Dragons in the MM need more oomph, and they present options for such. It's essentially errata in an era where people didn't care much about RAW.

Anyone have access to the old Andy Collins website pre- and post 3rd edition? Was the Metallic/Chromatic shapechange split discussed there? Another possibility.

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyone have access to the old Andy Collins website pre- and post 3rd edition? Was the Metallic/Chromatic shapechange split discussed there? Another possibility.

Wow, talk about a blast from the past. What was the name of that forum-hosting solution before they changed name into... Yuku something?

 

[jrowland]

Wow, talk about a blast from the past. What was the name of that forum-hosting solution before they changed name into... Yuku something?

I do not recall, lol...

as an aside, We have Andy to thank for Snilloc's (Collins backward) Snowball Swarm...

 

[CapnZapp]

It appears even Jane Austen used "Snillocs" to refer to her Mr Collins...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Wow, I guess my memory is not as bad as I thought!

Re: true dragons etc of Dragon #50 article:

... This article falls under "Canon" by the rules of the day. ...

Actually it doesn't. From Sage Advice, Dragon #75, pg 64:

"Is everything that appears in DRAGON Magazine an official rule change or addition?
No. Virtually all of the magazine’s contents are not official, excepting only those writings that are defined as official, either by their nature (such as most articles written by E. Gary Gygax, which are “automatically” official) or by a note prefacing the article that indicates it should be considered official. For the most part, the material in DRAGON Magazine is intended only as possible suggestions for referees and players to adopt into their campaigns if they so choose. No one is obligated to use any of the material in the magazine — but if you try something out and you find you like it, have fun with it."

The question and answer immediately preceding it is also relevant here:

"In reading through past issues of DRAGON Magazine, I
noticed that several times characters and monsters have been described
differently from the presentations in the official AD&D
books. I now have two different versions of Circe, Medea, the
phoenix, and several others. Which version is correct?
DRAGON Magazine frequently prints material that is not necessarily considered official, but is presented as a reasonable alternative to already existing material. Often two or more writers have differing views, taken from different sources, on how a certain personage or monster should appear in the AD&D game. Presenting these different perspectives on the character or monster is done to give the DM the freedom to select a version that best fits the DM’s campaign and personal conception of what such a being would be like."

Ilbranteloth

 

[jrowland]

Actually it doesn't. From Sage Advice, Dragon #75, pg 64:


...


Ilbranteloth

Canon != Official

An over-simple way to distinguish is canon is adopted law, where as official would be written law. My use of canon here was on purpose to distinguish it from official.

If you must "be that guy" and lawyer this, then consider the word "canon" in my post replaced by "widely adopted and accepted".

While the "sage" at the time made it clear Dragon was not official, it does not mean Dragon was not widely adopted and accepted. On the contrary, it very much was widely adopted and accepted, thus the reason to point out its non-official status as you quoted.