I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Klaus said: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.
See, to me, it removed their interesting abilities, and replaced them with MOAR FITAN POWERZ RARH. 2e/3e blue dragon: deceptive illusionist that lures enemies to their doom wandering for days in the sandy wastes. 4e blue dragon: Dire Pikachu. 2e/3e white dragon: Hunter in the blizzard, picking off flailing prey in the snow and ice. 4e white dragon: Lion with a breath weapon.
The spellcasting in general I can take or leave, it's the iconic spell-like abilities and behaviors implied by them that made D&D dragons what they are to me: masters of weather, wind, and the elements, devious plague-spreaders, avaricious creatures who watch every last gold piece, deceivers and manipulators, creatures who can shape the world and who cause adventure to be created by their very presence. I need a dragon to be so much more than a good fight. I need monsters in general to be that, but as dragons are the iconic monster, one of the two great challenges in the game, I especially need dragons to be that.
Fightin' powers certainly fit a need, and I wouldn't really begrudge folks that, but it's not interesting or fun or enjoyable to me. I need a bigger footprint, larger versatility, and less pure focus on the encounter, with more usability in the game at large.