D&D 5E Shapeshifting dragons - only metallic?

[steeldragons]

To be fair, [MENTION=94389]jrowland[/MENTION] , I think you may be the only one (or among a distinct minority) that makes such a distinction.

I know when I read "canon", in an RPG or genre context, it is synonymous with "official." See also, "sanctioned [officially/by the creators] as default."

 

[jrowland]

To be fair, @jrowland , I think you may be the only one (or among a distinct minority) that makes such a distinction.

I know when I read "canon", in an RPG or genre context, it is synonymous with "official." See also, "sanctioned [officially/by the creators] as default."

Dragon magazine (and its content) was "sanctioned" [officially/by the creators] and widely accepted. Therefore, Canon. Lots of Forgotten Realms lore first appeared in Dragon, and is/was canon, and only later became "official". Widely accepted is the key point.

You don't need official sanction, by the way, to be canonical. Often official sanction convinces people to accept something as canon, but it is not necessary. Case in point - Which is canon and which is official: Han Shot First? Or Han shot Second? Officially its the later, but the first is widely accepted among the fan base and can be considered Canonical. (note: schisms are often a contest of canon. Offically, G. Lucas can say what he wants about the IP, but the fan base has other ideas about the canon and so we have two canonical views in schism).

Luther would not have succeed if the dogma of papal indulgences were widely accepted in germany. They were not, so to many of the northern Catholics, it was not canon, despite its "offical" status. To many others it remained canonical (an offical). Thus a schism developed over the differing canon. The schism was resolved in forming a new "official" canon of the Protestant churches vs the "official" canon of the Catholic church.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I thought that was weird as well. But as DM, if I need my metallic dragon to shape change, which I did for one of my last adventures, I gave him that ability. It's good to be the DM. Always remember, monsters are written on paper, not stone......

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Dragon magazine (and its content) was "sanctioned" [officially/by the creators] and widely accepted. Therefore, Canon. Lots of Forgotten Realms lore first appeared in Dragon, and is/was canon, and only later became "official". Widely accepted is the key point.

You don't need official sanction, by the way, to be canonical. Often official sanction convinces people to accept something as canon, but it is not necessary. Case in point - Which is canon and which is official: Han Shot First? Or Han shot Second? Officially its the later, but the first is widely accepted among the fan base and can be considered Canonical. (note: schisms are often a contest of canon. Offically, G. Lucas can say what he wants about the IP, but the fan base has other ideas about the canon and so we have two canonical views in schism).

Luther would not have succeed if the dogma of papal indulgences were widely accepted in germany. They were not, so to many of the northern Catholics, it was not canon, despite its "offical" status. To many others it remained canonical (an offical). Thus a schism developed over the differing canon. The schism was resolved in forming a new "official" canon of the Protestant churches vs the "official" canon of the Catholic church.

Actually, I believe the definition of canon is official. The Forgotten Realms articles are a good example. They started as a series of articles highlighting a home campaign. It couldn't be canonical because the setting didn't yet exist outside of that campaign. Once the setting was published, then there was canon.

Regardless, I want trying to be difficult. I remembered believing the articles in that era of Dragon be optional or variant rules, like the Unearthed Arcana articles published on the Web today.

Rather than state that without a source, I decided to find what I recalled as a statement in the magazine itself. Just putting it out there without prejudice or ill-will because I thought it was relevant.

I'm the only one I know personally that used Dragon articles extensively. That's my (limited) experience. But none of the other players I knew used much from Dragon outside of monsters, magic items and spells.

Ilbranteloth

 

[77IM]

FWIW, to my mind, it's not that chromatic dragons can't shapeshift; they just don't. Why transform into a puny humanoid when your physical form is already the pinnacle of draconic perfection? In theory, a chromatic dragon who wanted to could master the power of shapeshifting as well as any metallic. So the reason metallic dragon stat blocks lack "shape change" is the same reason that the archmage stat block lacks "multiattack;" it's a capability that they've chosen not to develop. That's my explanation, anyway (not supported by any official source that I know of).

 

[CapnZapp]

FWIW, to my mind, it's not that chromatic dragons can't shapeshift; they just don't. Why transform into a puny humanoid when your physical form is already the pinnacle of draconic perfection?

Because the DM wants them to?

 

[Halivar]

FWIW, to my mind, it's not that chromatic dragons can't shapeshift; they just don't. Why transform into a puny humanoid when your physical form is already the pinnacle of draconic perfection?

Because they are covetous in the extreme, and the idea that such minuscule, inconsequential creatures as humanoids can enjoy pleasures they do not is inexcusable to them.