What About Dragons? (NOT the highest-level monster?)

[CleverNickName]

There is a lot of talk in this forum, as well as on blogs, Gleemax, and other 4E info/rumor sites, about demons, devils, and other "fiendish" stuff. There is at least one planetouched playable race in the upcoming 4E PHB with fiendish roots, and one of the more recent (and interesting) blog posts detailed the differences between devils and demons, and gave us a glimpse of the cosmology of the default 4E campaign setting. And it's all been a lot of fun to read; I do not diminish it.

But I'm beginning to wonder if they should change the name of the game to Dungeons & Demons.

Seriously, why so quiet about dragons? Where is the draconic love?

I am curious about the dragons in the upcoming edition on a game mechanic level, just like every other DM on the planet...how do these new talent trees, "encounter-based abilities," and save throw modifications affect my serpentine villains? But I would also like to know a bit of fluff about these most-awesome beasties, as well...how do they fit into the game setting, what influence do they have on the "Points of Light" realm, and so forth. I would like to see a draconic playable race in the 4E PHB--more than I would have liked to see a tiefling, at least. Changlings? Eladrin? Give me a half-dragon, baby. Dragons are what this game is supposed to be about, man.

Come on. We've got data and rumors up to our armpits on fiends, demons, devils, the hells and the abyss, the planar cosmology, the nature of evil and chaos. We've got more fire-wreathed and hellspawned rumors than we can shake our new-fangled wizard orbs at. Let's hear about the game's namesake monster....let's hear about the DRAGONS!

Update 9/28: dragons got a brief, and indirect mention in Schubert's "Slaad & what the highest level monster in the MM isn't" post. In that thread, it was mentioned that the elder red (dragon) was not the highest-level monster in the MM , but that it was "very close."

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

One of the earlier Design and Development articles dealt with a battle against a Dragon. Remember, the 500-hp trigger? According to that, Dragons are near the top of the complexity scale for monsters, so they're better off dealing in the previews with monsters which are more representative of the kind of opposition our characters will encounter. Otherwise we'll get an impression of 4e combat being a lot more complex than it will be, because we'll be focusing on a pathological case.

 

[CleverNickName]

One of the earlier Design and Development articles dealt with a battle against a Dragon. Remember, the 500-hp trigger? According to that, Dragons are near the top of the complexity scale for monsters, so they're better off dealing in the previews with monsters which are more representative of the kind of opposition our characters will encounter. Otherwise we'll get an impression of 4e combat being a lot more complex than it will be, because we'll be focusing on a pathological case.

True, but there's more to dragons than combat...at least there should be, IMO.

I guess dragons aren't as "sexy" as demons are, in today's pop culture. And WotC has to do what they gotta do to sell books. :\

 

[Pygon]

I would guess that the base dragon design isn't going to change that much, so they see no need to talk about it. That, or they just haven't gotten to mentioning it yet.

 

[Cadfan]

I doubt basic dragon design will change.

I wish it would. Honestly, D&D dragons suck. They're a horrible hybrid of western "big rampaging animal" dragons with norse "ancient lizard that slumbers on a pile of gold" dragons and with eastern "ancient magical shapechanging spellcasting being which intervenes in the lot of mankind" dragons.

By schmooshing every possible type of dragon into one critter, then allowing your design work to be guided by the color wheel, dragons have become the least evocative monster (to me) in all of D&D.

If I ruled WOTC for a day, the first thing I'd do is separate out the dragon archetypes into different dragons. I'd be guided in dragon design by archetype, not by a box of crayons.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

It could be that, before they reveal TOO much about dragons (the iconic D&D creature), they might be wanting to get their mechanics down.

Remember, things are still in a state of flux.

 

[Ambrus]

Dragons are what this game is supposed to be about, man. Let's hear about the game's namesake monster....let's hear about the DRAGONS!

Hear hear!

I guess dragons aren't as "sexy" as demons are, in today's pop culture.

I beg to differ. Dragons are damned sexy!

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually, I am pretty sure that dragons will change in 4E. At the very least they'll look different and have different abilities. The MM5 entry about the 'Dragons of the Great Game' and the Xorvintaal template can probably be considered a preview of things to come.

The changes to the alignment system may also have an effect on the new dragons, maybe they'll go the Eberron route or maybe the classic division between metallic and chromatic dragons will be gone. Everything could happen

 

[Lord Zardoz]

My own wild speculation

I do not have the article that did the high level combat vs 1 ancient dragon handy. I leave digging that link up to someone else. Here is what I recall, followed by my own speculation.

What I recall:
- Several abilities are performed as immediate actions
- they appear to have given more abilities based on its attack type, and dropped spell caster progression
- There are some new abilities mentioned, like a tail sweep that can push back opponents
- The general idea was that Dragons were supposed to be massive scary creatures that killed with breath, tooth and claw. They enhanced that instead of adding spell caster levels.

My own speculation:
- They will probably keep the Chromatic / Metallic archtype for alignments and some breath weapons
- They will probably keep the age / size progression
- I think they will get away from the bite / claw / claw / wing / wing / tail attack routine, since they want to get rid of iterative attacks. No idea how they will do this.
- I expect the magical nature of dragons to be implied rather than explicit
- I expect dragons to be one of the few monsters intended to be run solo, and to have the means to engage the entire party (The beholder as described in a 3rd ed thread is the basis for that guess)
- I hope that level appropriate dragons are better able to simply land, enter melee, and manhandle the players than in 3rd edition, as opposed to having to rely on hit and run. They should be very resilient, though beatable with alot of effort.
- I want the Brass dragon to be tweaked (its breath weapon is just not very interesting to me)

- Flavor wise, I expect that they will be set up as being more likely to be a primary villain than the primary villains mount.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Klaus]

I think Dragons made a strong resurgence in 3e, after losing some of the spotlight in late 1e and 2e (Dragonlance notwithstanding). So much so, in fact, that Dragons became the most thematic creatures in 3e (from "sorcerers as dragon scions" to "Draconic as a language" to "kobolds as sorcerers" to "Draconomicon" to "Dragon Magic" to "Tiamat as a full-blown goddess"). If I had to guess, I'd say Dragons will become a bit rarer in 4e and fiends will be a bit more common than they are now (starting with tieflings).