D&D General Which Edition Had The Best Dragons?

[thundershot]

2E

 

[Kannik]

I very distinctly remember 2e dragons. Hitting the gym and getting their stats/power bumped really turned them into foes to remember as compared to their 1e incarnations! Suddenly the big name on the front of the book really meant something.

And then there were the specific rules for FR, where their breath weapons were (if memory serves) based on their HP, and they could deal up to that amount per day... including all at once, if they wanted to. Brutal.

I remember on the whole liking the look/artwork of the dragons as done in 3e. (Though I haven't revisited them recently.)

Total agreement that 4e had the most interesting and flavourful dragons when it came to their use in encounters, moving away from "scaly sorcerers with big teeth" to foes that not only used their environment, but they WERE the environment, coupled with so many interesting and tactical things to do. And that also made them tie more into the world/elemental cosmology.

5e is a step back from 4e, but fortunately not as flat as 3e when it comes to using them.

And regardless of any edition or any game, there is the red dragon painting to rule them all, that I had on my wall for many years (and still have the poster): THE GREAT RED DRAGON – Glossy Photo Print

 

[Celebrim]

3e most likely, although I really didn't like 3e Dragons either.

I've got a thread where I fixed the 1e dragons: D&D 1E - Revised and rebalanced dragons for 1e AD&D The reason I wrote that was I wanted to reboot dragons so that I could then translate them into higher additions in a more functional manner.

 

[Argyle King]

for people talking about 4e dragons. Maybe the monster vault ones, I didn't get use them much myself. I can say the core 4e MM dragons were actually quite bad. they got brought in in that initial batch of monsters before solo design was polished, and those dragons often performed badly

I was thinking the same thing.

I remember 4E fights with dragons during which some of them didn't even get to take an action before getting killed.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I very distinctly remember 2e dragons. Hitting the gym and getting their stats/power bumped really turned them into foes to remember as compared to their 1e incarnations! Suddenly the big name on the front of the book really meant something.

1E and B/X had dragons that were actually at a power level you could throw at characters.
...
Though 1E dragons do have the charm that you can encounter and defeat them from around level 5 upwards. They aren't necessarily "boss" creatures and more like a common enemy for 7th+ level parties (i.e., it's just a fire-breathing lizard). The non-spellcasting versions can be mooks or pets to more powerful villians, thrown as pairs or larger groups against high-level PCs. There's a different philosophy behind them than all the other editions. You can see the change around the release of Dragonlance, where like vampires (with the coming of Strahd) they went from being a generic enemy to being something to be feared and respected, with single specimens meant to be a high-level challenge, if not the big bad target at the end of a campaign.

I think this highlights the dichotomy I see. For me, the question is -- should dragons (particularly since they are in the game title*) 1) be iconic monsters to be feared above all else, or 2) be something you see a lot of in your game**?
*and should that matter
**or 3) both, but that becomes more complex

Apparently the name of the game Dungeons and Dragons was chosen by two year old Cindy Gygax from a list of alliterative names, and the game wasn't necessarily supposed to treat them as specifically greater than other threats*. It makes sense in that context that dragons are not the "boss" monsters of the game. There's some value to that, in that you can actually have dragon opponents in your game -- not just once, but maybe once per adventure. It also means you can have them in most levels of play without resorting to fighting baby dragons**. Moreover, you could subdue dragons, possibly keeping them as mounts or pets, without it completely unbalancing the game! This was an interesting set of play patterns, and one I appreciated from the oD&D-AD&D and oD&D-BECMI lines.
*although even in Chainmail they seemed to have more special rules than most high-value units.
**although age categories existed since forever, and that was one way to do it,

The 2e+ lines had dragons as boss-monsters, and that too has value. I get why people like that, particularly for the name-on-the-title enemy. The only two critiques I have for that are: 1) with aboleths, archmages, deities, devils & demons (including unique ones which are basically deities in their own right), evil kings/kingdoms/empires, liches, mind flayers, NPC parties, slaads, vampire lords -- to say nothing of ‘non-evil, just against you’ antagonists -- the game is positively top-heavy in options for boss monsters; and 2) creatures known for sleeping in far-away caves on top of treasure mounds don't have the same innate plot hooks for being the 'boss monster' challenge to cap off a campaign or plot arc (or at least something like vampires, illithids, wererat crime lords, and 'that invading kingdom over there' have more straightforward explanations). That said, I get why people would want to use them for this, and why they wanted higher-cap versions of the creatures to use with this*. For that, I think 2e has the best flavor**, and will agree with the 4e stans that it has the best rules (actual non-trivial diversity between types being a major component).
*I just wish 2e+ had better ways to keep low-level options for them, other than actual newborns
**2e Monster Compendium entries, with actual ecology and worldbuilding, is something I wish would come back in force.

 

[Reynard]

I think this highlights the dichotomy I see. For me, the question is -- should dragons (particularly since they are in the game title*) 1) be iconic monsters to be feared above all else, or 2) be something you see a lot of in your game**?
*and should that matter
**or 3) both, but that becomes more complex

Apparently the name of the game Dungeons and Dragons was chosen by two year old Cindy Gygax from a list of alliterative names, and the game wasn't necessarily supposed to treat them as specifically greater than other threats*. It makes sense in that context that dragons are not the "boss" monsters of the game. There's some value to that, in that you can actually have dragon opponents in your game -- not just once, but maybe once per adventure. It also means you can have them in most levels of play without resorting to fighting baby dragons**. Moreover, you could subdue dragons, possibly keeping them as mounts or pets, without it completely unbalancing the game! This was an interesting set of play patterns, and one I appreciated from the oD&D-AD&D and oD&D-BECMI lines.
*although even in Chainmail they seemed to have more special rules than most high-value units.
**although age categories existed since forever, and that was one way to do it,

The 2e+ lines had dragons as boss-monsters, and that too has value. I get why people like that, particularly for the name-on-the-title enemy. The only two critiques I have for that are: 1) with aboleths, archmages, deities, devils & demons (including unique ones which are basically deities in their own right), evil kings/kingdoms/empires, liches, mind flayers, NPC parties, slaads, vampire lords -- to say nothing of ‘non-evil, just against you’ antagonists -- the game is positively top-heavy in options for boss monsters; and 2) creatures known for sleeping in far-away caves on top of treasure mounds don't have the same innate plot hooks for being the 'boss monster' challenge to cap off a campaign or plot arc (or at least something like vampires, illithids, wererat crime lords, and 'that invading kingdom over there' have more straightforward explanations). That said, I get why people would want to use them for this, and why they wanted higher-cap versions of the creatures to use with this*. For that, I think 2e has the best flavor**, and will agree with the 4e stans that it has the best rules (actual non-trivial diversity between types being a major component).
*I just wish 2e+ had better ways to keep low-level options for them, other than actual newborns
**2e Monster Compendium entries, with actual ecology and worldbuilding, is something I wish would come back in force.

Good post. Nice analysis. Thanks.

 

[Celebrim]

I think this highlights the dichotomy I see. For me, the question is -- should dragons (particularly since they are in the game title*) 1) be iconic monsters to be feared above all else, or 2) be something you see a lot of in your game**?
*and should that matter
**or 3) both, but that becomes more complex

So to understand where I'm coming from you have to understand my idea of what a monster should be is built around the idealized D&D combat. The idealized D&D combat is 3-7 rounds long (average about 5) and in each of those 5 rounds both the PCs and the NPCs are making choices, moving around, or generally doing visually interesting and exciting things that prompt everyone at the table to collectively imagine the scene as it plays out.

And if you go and read my rewrite of the 1e AD&D Dragon you'll see that one of my main goals is to try to achieve that idealized D&D combat with a dragon for basically every level of play you are likely to experience (1st level to 24th level is the range covered by the rewrite).

One of my other goals was to present dragons in such a way that they could be both common and still iconic depending on just how high of level you were when you met just how potent of a dragon. I wasn't really trying to make them feared above all else, but to make them respectable while doing away with the thing I hate about dragons in every addition up to at least 3e which is they are glass cannons that tend to be dealt with by evading the idealized D&D combat.

 

[Dragonhelm]

The best dragons, IMO, are in any edition where they're drawn by Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley.

Also, I will add that the best dragons are the ones in Dragonlance, as they're fleshed-out characters themselves.

That has nothing to do with stats and everything to do with my own personal preference. I am, of course, biased.

 

[cbwjm]

I like the 2e and 3e dragons the most.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The best dragons, IMO, are in any edition where they're drawn by Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley.

Also, I will add that the best dragons are the ones in Dragonlance, as they're fleshed-out characters themselves.

That has nothing to do with stats and everything to do with my own personal preference. I am, of course, biased.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, the best dragon in D&D is Cyan Bloodbane.