D&D General Which Edition Had The Best Dragons?

[dave2008]

Still better than other editions

The bad math 4e dragons were still better fights than other dragons. Only beat by good math 4e dragons.

I actually like 5e dragons (when you add lair actions) better than 4e dragons. They had better action economy and, when you add the distinct lair actions, they are interesting and thematic abilities like 4e. If you add spellcating on top of that it is not even close.

 

[dave2008]

Blog of Holding's MM3 on a business card was really close to perfect. Just a few tweaks here and there.

I didn't check out BoH during 4e, but did they use the DMG42 guys revised damage charts? If not, it was not close enough to perfect. I acutally revised the charts a bit more myself and posted them in the downloads section. Much better monsters if you use those tables.

 

[dave2008]

For anyone wondering why the 4E Monster Vault dragons are getting such universal love I thought I'd dig up the 4e Young Black Dragon statblock (and also link the 5e Adult Black Dragon as the young one has neither legendary nor lair actions and the PF1e Young Black Dragon as the 3.5 one is slightly disassembled). And then show off the parts that are neither raw generic numbers nor shared with all other dragons (which in 5e basically covers the breath weapon and lair actions)

Starting that statblock off with Acidic Blood is great both thematically (this is an acid dragon with really caustic ichor running through it's veins) and mechanically as combats get more intense as they go on. Something happens for all 4e dragon types - but acid blood is unique to black dragons (blue start spilling electricity and white get expanded crit ranges from memory). And it's only hurt enough to matter when bloodied, giving a visceral sense both of the dragon being hurt and it being even more dangerous because of it.

Next up is Aquatic. It's a minor thing, but emphasises that you can't just take a water breathing potion or ritual and be on even terms with the dragon in the water. It's genuinely good there. If you can then try to catch it or force it it onto land.

Then there's Instinctive Devouring. That thing is coming at you hard and fast. It moves twice in a turn - and how it moves is by dragon type (from memory greens make flyby attacks and blues take to the skies and lightning bolt you). Dragons are fast, mean, and unique.

Finally in the traits is the Action Recovery. Dragons aren't immune to powerful effects and can't simply no-sell them. This isn't a generic Legendary Resistance (although is shared by all dragons). But dragons are mighty enough that nothing can stop them for long.

Moving down we get to Generic Dragon Stuff (claw, claw, bite, breath weapon although acid doing ongoing as it sticks and burns is another "this isn't just a generic dragon" touch)

Then the Shroud of Gloom. Unique fell magics from the black dragon to distract and force a dilemma (whether to attack or try to get clean). At first it's fine - and then it doubles the Acidic blood damage. Every dragon colour gets their own fell magics.

Tail sweep? Every dragon gets one I think - but what triggers it is based (of course) on the type of dragon. Some are more defensive, slamming foes away and others more mean, in this case exploiting a miss.

And then Bloodied Breath. This fight just got even more serious. A free breath attack and acidic blood at half damage. All dragons get this.

No non-4e dragon comes close.

What I miss about 4e monsters is the iconography and jargon that let you make really efficient statblocks. If we added that to 5e I would be really happy.

 

[the Jester]

And then Bloodied Breath.

I use Bloodied Breath for (most all) dragons in my campaign.

 

[Teemu]

To me, the dragon being represented well in the fiction of the setting for what it's supposed to be is more important than how fun it is for the PCs to kick it's behind.

They're all the same though, at least 3.0 to 5e. They haven't changed the role of dragons as far as the story or world building is concerned, and often the differences are more setting specific. Dragonlance vs Eberron vs FR dragons. They're all a bit different. The edition changes didn't really impact the narrative function at all. At least not in my games.

Tail sweep? Every dragon gets one I think - but what triggers it is based (of course) on the type of dragon. Some are more defensive, slamming foes away and others more mean, in this case exploiting a miss.

They don't all get one and that's actually one of my favorite things about dragons in 4e. All the Monster Vault dragons do get an immediate action but it varies per dragon and often emphasizes their combat role. Green dragons have Cunning Glance, which is a mental attack that controls the target's movement (controller). Blue dragons have Wing Backblast, which knocks targets prone and allows the dragon to fly away without triggering OAs (artillery).

I also really like how the 4e dragons' breath weapons vary not only by damage type but by the additional effect they inflict. White dragons' cold breath slows. Black dragons' acid breath lingers. Blue dragons' lightning breath dazes. In fact the red dragon is the only one whose breath weapon simply deals damage.

The newer 5e dragons from Fizban's and Strixhaven have similar unique breath weapons and legendary actions that aren't all shared across every dragon type and that's why I'm hopeful that the updated core dragons will be distinct from one another. The 2014 dragons are honestly really disappointing since they have so few differences. It's largely just breath weapon damage type and optional spells, and the spells aren't unique or different since PCs and other creatures use them as well.

 

[overgeeked]

I actually like 5e dragons (when you add lair actions) better than 4e dragons. They had better action economy and, when you add the distinct lair actions, they are interesting and thematic abilities like 4e. If you add spellcating on top of that it is not even close.

You mean this one? I don't know if Blog of Holding used that as reference, but that's almost exactly how I did mine for 4E and revised it slightly for 5E. Revised based on average PC HP at 1st level and made sure it scaled well.

 

[Gadget]

I think I liked the idea of the 4e Dragons best. It took many iterations before monster design to really get 4e monsters going though. Other editions, even when dragons were not walk overs, just seemed to turn them into wizards with scaled cloaks (i.e. an NPC wizard with a breath weapon, lots of hp, high AC, and decent melee; and depending on edition, much of the other stuff didn't really matter beyond the spells). I like the fact that 4e attempted to make Dragons magical with unique powers, but didn't just turn them into a PC-ish sorcerer.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't have a clear favorite lore-wise as I tend to just blend it all together anyways. 4e, as usual, had the best mechanics IMO but I get why it bounces off some people.

BUT if I want dragon riders to be a core part of the game experience, I need to use the 1e version (with updated math). 5e dragons don't want, need, or care for riders. So 5e Dragon riders wouldn't ride 5e dragons - you'd need something closer to the old-school horse-sized fire-breathing lizards (dragonels in Fizban's) so that it's dumb enough not to be the one in charge, weak enough that the rider is the real threat, and common enough that it's potentially just set-dressing rather than always a main encounter.

Such a setting could have powerful ancient dragon-sorcerer god-kings, but those should be noteworthy for being so very different from "normal" dragons.

But that's a specific setting, not how DnD should be played in general.

 

[dave2008]

You mean this one? I don't know if Blog of Holding used that as reference, but that's almost exactly how I did mine for 4E and revised it slightly for 5E. Revised based on average PC HP at 1st level and made sure it scaled well.

Yep, that is the one!

I did that for 5e initially (in my 5e epic updates), but eventually thought it was not a good idea to "fight the system" and just decided that if something didn't fit the CR to get the effect I wanted, then I should change the CR per the guidelines, not change the guidelines.

However, maybe I need to go back to that idea again.

 

[overgeeked]

Yep, that is the one!

I did that for 5e initially (in my 5e epic updates), but eventually thought it was not a good idea to "fight the system" and just decided that if something didn't fit the CR to get the effect I wanted, then I should change the CR per the guidelines, not change the guidelines.

However, maybe I need to go back to that idea again.

CR is so messed up that it was easier to drop it and make something fresh. I ported in 4E's monster & encounter design idea of one standard monster per PC. Fixed the math accordingly and tweaked it from there. Works far better for me than CR ever did.