D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Dragons Revisited

[Cadence]

I'm glad the green is back to breathing chlorine gas instead of generic acid - means what I've been telling my little one is canonical again and that a friendly green one would be useful for maintaining the swimming pool. (Since the chlorine is not in the d20 SRD I guess that's another one of those protected WotC things as far people running PF is concerned...)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm not a big fan of D&D Next's direction these days, but I always seem to like their dragons.

I've even converted the legendary black dragon to 4e, but found that instead of giving them "legendary actions", simply giving them a triggered action (triggers once at the start of each enemy's turn) works pretty well. Although that would provoke insanity if a mob attacked. (This is the real reason D&DN needs mob/swarm rules.)

The green dragon's use of fog is pretty creative. It keeps its controller role, making it automatically distinct from other dragon types. I always felt (up until 4e anyway) that the dragon types were too similar, with differences boiling down to what type of damage they dealt or were resistant/vulnerable too. A fight between an old red dragon and an older blue dragon would feel exactly the same.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I really like the overall direction, but I feel like both dragon descriptions are too one-dimensional. Granted, this is probably fine for the Monster Manual, but I like dragons to have complex personalities.

 

[Kinak]

I really like their stories (at least circa 2e-3e), but their mechanics have not lived up to that promise.

This kind of captures my feeling about this article. The story of these dragons sounds great. If the mechanics can capture that without becoming a complicated mess, it'll be a huge win.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[TwoSix]

They sound interesting, but it is sad to return to the two-dimensional characterisation of all dragons of a particular colour having the same motivation and basic personality. As the likely centre-pieces of a campaign dragons should be more nuanced in my opinion.

It's pretty hard to write a description of a dragon that says "Every dragon is a complete individual, and its impossible to draw any generalizations." I mean, you can, but what else do you write after that?

Monsters in general should have strong compelling hooks, so that you can feel clever as a DM when you invert the stereotype. "Evil, self-serving solar" isn't a compelling monster without the backdrop of "all solars are uber-powerful champions of good".

 

[Balesir]

It's pretty hard to write a description of a dragon that says "Every dragon is a complete individual, and its impossible to draw any generalizations." I mean, you can, but what else do you write after that?

That may be so, but I also found these write-ups too prescriptive. "Green Dragons like the shade and cover of verdant foliage" would be fine, but "Green dragons live in forests and jungles in any climate" is too fixed, IMO. It's like saying "humans live in areas of fields and farmland"; dragons, like humans, are supposed to be intelligent and adaptable, capable of finding a way to live anywhere. That's not to say there aren't environments they prefer - but it's a preference, not a limitation.

 

[TwoSix]

That may be so, but I also found these write-ups too prescriptive. "Green Dragons like the shade and cover of verdant foliage" would be fine, but "Green dragons live in forests and jungles in any climate" is too fixed, IMO. It's like saying "humans live in areas of fields and farmland"; dragons, like humans, are supposed to be intelligent and adaptable, capable of finding a way to live anywhere. That's not to say there aren't environments they prefer - but it's a preference, not a limitation.

Hmm. Few different thoughts.

1) I, personally, have never taken the MM lore as anything other than a suggestion. To my mind, it's assumed that any monster could appear in any location, and that the monster description only applies to the unexceptional 95% of the population. After all, one can write that "Humans are maritime creatures, as 90% of them live with 50 miles of a major body of water" and have the benefit of it being true in the real world!

2) Secondly, I also don't have a problem with dragons being intelligent and adaptable within their milieu, but lacking the ability to stretch outside of it. These are fantastical creatures that also seem to be able to live on certain inorganic minerals or dew from a flower. I have no problem with the idea that they literally can't survive outside of their intended habitat for more than brief periods because magic.

 

[Zaukrie]

This is how a monster book should be written.....I am curious about younger dragons, nut for mature ones, this was great.

 

[Libramarian]

I like these two dragons and I think they're well-differentiated, with the black dragon being all about rot and decay and the green one being about the sort of constant psychopathic striving for control and expansion that makes me think of an ecosystem thrown out of whack by an invasive species.

But I have to ask--what is up with that dungeon graphic in the OP? That's the worst dungeon map I've ever seen. There are 7 secret doors in a row down the same hallway.

 

[TwoSix]

But I have to ask--what is up with that dungeon graphic in the OP? That's the worst dungeon map I've ever seen. There are 7 secret doors in a row down the same hallway.

There was obviously a clearance sale at Dungeon Depot.