D&D 5E Wandering Monsters Chosen of Bahamut Dragons part two!

[Blackwarder]

Five dragons down, seven to go.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130115

Great article, I'm really disliked the way 4e treated metallic dragons.
Personaly I like this article.

What do you think?

Warder

 

[Sunseeker]

Seems plain. I could barely read their fluff blocks, I mean it's nice, but I'm not impressed, just indifferent.

 

[Zaukrie]

Given the goal of Next, to be D&D through the ages, there is nothing here to surprise us. They look like dragons from D&D.

 

[Klaus]

Five dragons down, seven to go.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130115

Great article, I'm really disliked the way 4e treated metallic dragons.
Personaly I like this article.

What do you think?

Warder

Didn't like it, really. For one, it suffers from the age-old paradigm that the good guys (dragons, outsiders, etc) are more powerful than the bad guys. Second, it misses on some of the best aspects of 4e, which were the additions to the dragon families. I'd like to see iron, cobalt and orium dragons included (and purples, grays and browns).

Also, the line "[bronze dragons] do not compete with other dragons for territory" is the biggest reason to move blue dragons to coastal areas.

 

[TerraDave]

Given the goal of Next, to be D&D through the ages, there is nothing here to surprise us. They look like dragons from D&D.

I think thats why I liked it. (and really, really disagree with Klaus for that reason...save it for the supplements).

Plus, I haven't actually read stuff on good dragons in ages...I got a fair number of ideas from it, so I take that as a good sign.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For one, it suffers from the age-old paradigm that the good guys (dragons, outsiders, etc) are more powerful than the bad guys.

I didn't quite get the same impression. I mean, yeah, the Gold is bigger than the Red, but the Brass is about on par with a Black, which isn't exactly a powerhouse. I guess overall the good folks do out-power the bad folks in total, but I can't imagine that the gold's edge on the red is going to affect much in terms of how the game gets played?

Second, it misses on some of the best aspects of 4e, which were the additions to the dragon families. I'd like to see iron, cobalt and orium dragons included (and purples, grays and browns).

Well, if we're going to start eulogizing dragons that got left out of this "iconic initial run," we can go with faerie dragons and fang dragons and gem dragons and cloud dragons and linnorms and....

Those dragons could still make an appearance, but I do think the idea that these additional dragons were one of the "best aspects of 4e" might not be a majority opinion. IMO, 4e dragons are a great example of how 4e didn't get what I needed from monsters in my games, and I'm really glad to see the metallics back in their rightful place.

And I don't mind the promotion of Dragon Turtle to ancient and powerful, either.

And as to breath weapons: I imagine that there can be a lot of extra options for breath weapons for those who make their own dragons or customize the existing dragons, but the first blush of the iconic metallics should fit with their history in this at first. Once the game has the confusion and the sleep and the like, we can get more inventive.

Some of the descriptions of their other powers lean a bit on the idea they presented in the Chromatics article: that "some" dragons are like old-school dragons, and other dragons are like new-school dragons. Which, okay, in the name of inclusiveness, I guess. As long as MY gold dragons have powers of luck and sunlight, and MY blue dragons are masterful illusionists, I don't really care if others want to ditch those elements.

 

[TwoSix]

I didn't quite get the same impression. I mean, yeah, the Gold is bigger than the Red, but the Brass is about on par with a Black, which isn't exactly a powerhouse. I guess overall the good folks do out-power the bad folks in total, but I can't imagine that the gold's edge on the red is going to affect much in terms of how the game gets played?

It probably doesn't matter, but it's pretty hard to avoid the impression that the metallics are just chromatic+. The two articles lay out that there are 6 "tiers" of dragon power.

1 - White
2 - Brass, Black
3- Copper, Green
4 - Bronze, Blue
5 - Silver, Red
6- Gold

 

[Klaus]

It's not only "gold is more powerful than red". The silver is described as being on par with the red, but should come out on top because it's smarter. Huh? And the weakest metallic is on par with the black, which is stronger than the weakest chromatic (white). So yeah, the good guys are more powerful than the bad guys (specially if you take into account the Celestials, where solars are god-like in their power, stronger than pit fiends and balors).

As for dragons, 4e made dragons fun (IMHO). It implemented changes from 3.5e's "Xorvinthaal dragons" (MM5), which removed a dragon's spellcasting in exchange for abilities that were, for a lack of a better word, draconic. This made them more exciting to include, easier to run and no less versatile, since customization in 4e is so easy.

 

[Stalker0]

Didn't like it, really. For one, it suffers from the age-old paradigm that the good guys (dragons, outsiders, etc) are more powerful than the bad guys.

I actually think that makes a lot of sense. Evil has so much more flexibility and tends to be greater in numbers. It makes sense that the good guys are stronger, else they would have been snuffed out long ago.

 

[Klaus]

Nah. Evil backstabs its own, Good stands together in the face of adversity.