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

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I wouldn't be surprised if the highest CR thing is a gold dragon... unless they don't appear in the MM (it's not like I'd miss them).

Dragons are top-of-the-scale in terms of complexity... but so are fiends.

I think dragons are just hard to write plots for. Dragons used to be loners who spent most of their time living with their gold and, while sometimes intelligent, didn't do anything more complicated than extort villagers and kidnap their virgins. (Only top of the line dragons did anything more complicated, from what I've read.) Unfortunately in DnD, dragons are used to fill the same role as fiends; manipulative shape-changing masterminds with rafts of minions (often leaving behind half-dragon offspring with the weirdest creatures) who have a lair full of unique magic items along with the gold. Why make them into new fiends when fiends already exist and are cooler when they pull off the "Magnificent Bastardy"?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

The comments are full of some really good speculation about what the Big Bad will be, but we probably won't know anything solid until the MM is released.

Orcus?
He is on the cover, after all.

 

[Reynard]

Actually, dragons as Godzilla would work fine for me. I love dragons. I use them in everything. I always have them masterminding plots and/or secretly ruling the world. This, I think, is entirely too much DragonLance during my formative years.

Someone upthread said Smaug was the ultimate iconic dragon, and I agree: Smaug was Godzilla. No matter what his life might have been in the ages past, he was a fat wyrm sitting on a pile of gold who -- thanks to Beowulf -- went on a killing spree because some fool had the gaul to steal a cup from him. intelligent? Yes. Ancient beyond man's measure? Sure. But, when push came to shove, he was a smash and burn monstrosity that had to be put down by steel.

And that makes a great dragon story.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm always amused at the objections to dragons not being the toughest critters in the MM, considering that they never have been. And it's always been the arch-fiends who beat them out. This is nothing new to 3E or 4E.

Judging by XP values, for instance, Tiamat is only the fourth-most dangerous critter in the 1e MM, coming in behind Demogorgon, Orcus, and Asmodeus.

Now, whether it needs to be that way is a whole different issue. But it's hardly a new issue.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

But if you actually have them fight who wins? No matter the edition, if Orcus is better than Tiamat he better have the in game stats to back it up. So far ive never seen it be done.
If they dont have the in game stats to bakc it up then the "story" in my opinion means nothing, as well as the CR or XP awarded.

 

[StarFyre]

god no....

I hope dragons can still do multiple attacks, as they should be able to, as a person can use 2 weapons for an extra attack or a marilith with 6 arms can get multiple attacks.

Also, if they remove spellcasting/natural casting from a dragon..that will prob be the first ability I add back from 3.5E.

In my vision, it makes sense for them to have a link to magic and be able to unleash a barrage of spells.

Sanjay

 

[AffableVagrant]

Heresy!

Prepare your eyes to read utter heresy

I don't think dragons are that cool, especially after MM4, in which there are several dozen different dragon-like critters. As mysterious, epic, bad ass lizards, they are ok... but to turn them into run-of-the-mill dungeon crawl fodder is just weak.

Also, what is the deal with dragons having sex with every other species on the planet? I've heard of half-human/half-gold dragons... but have you ever heard of a half-black dragon/half-red dragon? Dragons just don't seem to be too interested in sex within their own species. In fact, I see more half-dragons than whole dragons! What's the deal with dragons being a bunch of sexual deviants??

 

[Glyfair]

I'm always amused at the objections to dragons not being the toughest critters in the MM, considering that they never have been. And it's always been the arch-fiends who beat them out. This is nothing new to 3E or 4E.

Well, archfiends weren't in the Monstrous Compendium (which was the 2E MM). I admit, I don't remember which monsters there were the highest, though.

Even so, I don't buy the argument that since the name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons that dragons should be the top of the power totem pole. Clearly dungeons aren't as dominant as they once were and aren't the top of the "adventure totem pole."

 

[Reynard]

Even so, I don't buy the argument that since the name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons that dragons should be the top of the power totem pole. Clearly dungeons aren't as dominant as they once were and aren't the top of the "adventure totem pole."

Actually, dungeons have been a refocus of the game since 3E came out. Really, it was 2E that largely ignored the dungeon -- I think high fantasy written by chicks for chicks was in at the time -- without even a chapter in the DMG on them. One of the things 3e got really, really right was "back to the dungeon".

 

[Mouseferatu]

Actually, dungeons have been a refocus of the game since 3E came out. Really, it was 2E that largely ignored the dungeon -- I think high fantasy written by chicks for chicks was in at the time -- without even a chapter in the DMG on them. One of the things 3e got really, really right was "back to the dungeon".

Eh. I disagree. I mean, yes, dungeons should be a focus in the DMG section on adventure-building, but not even remotely the only one. 3E went way too far in terms of "back to the dungeon," IMO.