4E Dragons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

4E Dragons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Chloramantis
03-12-08, 10:59 AM Hey,

I apologize if this topic has already been brought up, but what's the deal with 4E dragons? How can you reclassify the metallic dragons when they have been this way for 30 years?

I know I'm not the only one out there that doesn't like the way things are headed for Dungeons and DRAGONS, but how can you change something like change the games namesake: dragons.

Also, it isn't to clear which dragons were removed from the list (of 5). I think Brass and Copper?
Khaelieth
03-12-08, 11:21 AM Don't think they got removed, just gettin put in at a later stage=)

But yeah, i agree. Colour-coding the dragons made things far easier for the adventurers!
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-12-08, 01:23 PM Correct--no dragons have been "removed" from the game, they'll just show up later.:)

Worlds and Monsters explains the rationale for the design decisions about dragons.
Lord Karsus
03-12-08, 06:51 PM Worlds and Monsters explains the rationale for the design decisions about dragons.

-That's the whole 'monsters of the same type having different elements' bit?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-12-08, 08:23 PM -That's the whole 'monsters of the same type having different elements' bit?

Yeah. There are a few pages on dragons (as they are iconic monsters). They mentioned that the green dragon was changed in appearance because they felt it looked too much like a generic dragon rather than distinctively D&Dish (although personally, I liked the way it looked in 3E). Regarding the metallic dragons, it was pointed out that people often don't remember the differences between bronzes and brasses, so they are being replaced in the first MM with more distinctive looking dragons (Iron and Adamantine).
Lord Karsus
03-12-08, 11:14 PM Regarding the metallic dragons, it was pointed out that people often don't remember the differences between bronzes and brasses, so they are being replaced in the first MM with more distinctive looking dragons (Iron and Adamantine).

-Is Iron and Adamantine really that different?
Chloramantis
03-13-08, 09:59 AM Rinona..., I said "reclassify" not remove, and then "remove" from the list of 5 metallic. Anyways, are the Bronzes and Brasses being removed (from the 5 metallics)? It doesn't really say which dragons, but I assumed it was Brass and Copper.

Lord Karsus, my feelings exactly, Iron and Adamantine? Wow, that's quite a difference. Bronzes better not be "removed" from the big 5, they are way cooler than Brasses or Coppers.

Anyway, I think it's a big mistake messing around with something like this. If they wanted to add Iron and Adamantine, they should have added two more Chromatic dragons.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-13-08, 10:23 AM -Is Iron and Adamantine really that different?

I think they are meant to be more distinctive looking, yes. And of course, metallic dragons aren't automatically good anymore, so presumably people will combat them more.

W&M mentioned that good dragons and their characteristics weren't as well remembered partly because they generally weren't enemies (and when you have to fight a creature, you become familiar with the powers it has).
Lord Karsus
03-13-08, 10:54 AM I think they are meant to be more distinctive looking, yes. And of course, metallic dragons aren't automatically good anymore, so presumably people will combat them more.

W&M mentioned that good dragons and their characteristics weren't as well remembered partly because they generally weren't enemies (and when you have to fight a creature, you become familiar with the powers it has).

-I'm just commenting...They remove Bronze and Brass Dragons, because they feel the two are too similar, and replace them with Iron and Adamantine? Iron and Adamantine isn't pineapples and pears, you know?
Dark Wizard
03-13-08, 02:34 PM One of the seminars at DXP said 4E will have two new additions to the main chromatic family (making that 7 dragons?). Since even with the new alignment system, Chromatics will still present the most common draconic foe to parties, it makes sense.

The Iron and Adamantine Dragons are replacing the Brass and Copper (or was it Bronze?) dragons in the core rules. That does not mean Brass and Copper will not appear in subsequent books (just like 3e eventually had Iron, Adamantine and Mercury dragons, etc.).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-13-08, 03:22 PM -I'm just commenting...They remove Bronze and Brass Dragons, because they feel the two are too similar, and replace them with Iron and Adamantine? Iron and Adamantine isn't pineapples and pears, you know?

*chuckles* I think you make a good point.:) I don't necessarily agree with the dragon-tweaking that's going on (like I said, I liked the 3E green dragon), but I'm trying to be a type of "objective reporter" here.:)
GreenKnight
03-23-08, 02:16 AM *chuckles* I think you make a good point.:) I don't necessarily agree with the dragon-tweaking that's going on (like I said, I liked the 3E green dragon), but I'm trying to be a type of "objective reporter" here.:)

The reason they eliminated the Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons from the main list is simple. They're called Metallic Dragons. Copper is a metal. Gold is a metal. Silver is a metal. Brass isn't. Neither is bronze. They're alloys. About time somebody at WotC figured that out. Which is why they're being replaced with Iron Dragons and Adamantine Dragons. Iron is a metal, and presumably, so is adamantine.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-23-08, 09:15 PM The reason they eliminated the Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons from the main list is simple. They're called Metallic Dragons. Copper is a metal. Gold is a metal. Silver is a metal. Brass isn't. Neither is bronze. They're alloys. About time somebody at WotC figured that out. Which is why they're being replaced with Iron Dragons and Adamantine Dragons. Iron is a metal, and presumably, so is adamantine.

*laughs* That could be a reason.
GreenKnight
03-24-08, 01:04 AM Yeah, Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons aren't real Metallic Dragons. They're halfbreeds. The Brass Dragon is the result when a Copper Dragon and a Zinc Dragon love each other very much. The Bronze Dragon comes about when the Copper Dragon is feeling randy, steps out on the mrs., and knocks up a Tin Dragon.
Rauric
03-24-08, 01:31 AM I think the Chromatic/metalic good/evil deal has been played out. I enjoy Eberrons method of both "kinds" can have different alignments.
Another Gnome
03-24-08, 04:57 AM Even in early 3E I always felt a gold dragon would be just as likely to eat anyone ******* him off as a red dragon would, so this change makes no difference to me. :)
Derren S.
03-24-08, 09:57 AM Considering that there is evidence out there at the core books won't contain any metallic dragon this whole discussion might be moot anyway.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-24-08, 11:40 AM Yeah, Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons aren't real Metallic Dragons. They're halfbreeds. The Brass Dragon is the result when a Copper Dragon and a Zinc Dragon love each other very much. The Bronze Dragon comes about when the Copper Dragon is feeling randy, steps out on the mrs., and knocks up a Tin Dragon.

I would like to point out, though, that Brass and Bronze Dragons still have an appearance that can be described as "metallic", from an aesthetic viewpoint if not from a geological one.:)
Lord Karsus
03-24-08, 01:42 PM Considering that there is evidence out there at the core books won't contain any metallic dragon this whole discussion might be moot anyway.

-As in "ever", or as in "for now".
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-24-08, 02:31 PM Where was it stated or implied that metallics wouldn't be in the core books?
GreenKnight
03-24-08, 08:32 PM Where was it stated or implied that metallics wouldn't be in the core books?

I don't have a link handy, but I do remember reading that Metallic Dragons won't be in the first MM (Which I can understand, as it's gonna be packed to the brim with Chromatic Dragons usable at Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers). But as Karsus points out, that doesn't mean that they've been eliminated from the game.
Lord Karsus
03-24-08, 11:18 PM (Which I can understand, as it's gonna be packed to the brim with Chromatic Dragons usable at Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers).

-So, they are including different write-ups for Dragons of the same type, of differing levels?
MarkusTay63
03-25-08, 12:39 AM Thats the idea.

We don't apply PC levels to monsters and NPCs in the 4e game, so they must provide us with 137 versions of each creature in the books.

This way, each book will have WAY less types of monsters, and they will be able to spread the usual MM ones over a dozen books or so.

Pretty slick, huh? :smirk:

You can see some of it in MM4 and even moreso in MM5, both of which came out after the 4e planning was well under way.

Supposedly, this means they can more 'fluff' attention to each monster, but I predict it will just be a way of loading dozrns of stat blocks into a single entry. The'll probably make a lot of money... if anyone buys this edition.
Lord Karsus
03-25-08, 01:24 AM Thats the idea.

This way, each book will have WAY less types of monsters, and they will be able to spread the usual MM ones over a dozen books or so.

Pretty slick, huh? :smirk:

-Blech, that's what I was afraid of. I'm not even buying into 4e, but I feel bad for just D&D in general, if such is the plan.

You can see some of it in MM4 and even moreso in MM5, both of which came out after the 4e planning was well under way.

-Ah, two books that I didn't buy, as, after glancing through them, saw very little that I actually thought was interesting. I mean, I don't need stats for "Orc Archer", "Orc Swordsman", "Orc Berserker", and so on...
Another Gnome
03-25-08, 02:58 AM The'll probably make a lot of money... if anyone buys this edition.

Regardless of what you may think of 4E Realms or WotC's marketing practices, make no mistake, the new ruleset itself will walk over any competitors and its predecessors.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-25-08, 12:57 PM I don't have a link handy, but I do remember reading that Metallic Dragons won't be in the first MM (Which I can understand, as it's gonna be packed to the brim with Chromatic Dragons usable at Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers). But as Karsus points out, that doesn't mean that they've been eliminated from the game.

I'm just confused, because I thought the designers wanted metallics to be used as enemies in 4E.:confused: That was the whole point in making them less tied to alignment (same goes for the chromatics).

If it's true that metallics won't be in the first MM...well, I'm surprised to hear it, given how they were talked up, along with the chromatics, as the iconic monsters of D&D.
selunatic2397
03-25-08, 02:35 PM I'm confused too, all I read was how the devs intended everything to be an enemy, from dryads to metallic dragons.

Did I miss something? :confused:
Lord Karsus
03-25-08, 03:06 PM Did I miss something? :confused:

-Not enough room in the book, maybe?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-26-08, 08:42 PM -Not enough room in the book, maybe?

That's a likely reason. I'm still surprised, though, because as I said "Dragons are ICONIC!" was practically written all over the promotional material.
Lord Karsus
03-26-08, 11:31 PM That's a likely reason. I'm still surprised, though, because as I said "Dragons are ICONIC!" was practically written all over the promotional material.

-Only the Dragons they want are iconic, it seems...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-27-08, 10:57 AM Yeah. :-/ And I thought they said there was going to be, like, 10+ pages dedicated to dragons in the MM. I'm surprised they just didn't have room for iconic metallics (if they truly don't end up in the book, that is).
Lord Karsus
03-27-08, 02:21 PM Yeah. :-/ And I thought they said there was going to be, like, 10+ pages dedicated to dragons in the MM. I'm surprised they just didn't have room for iconic metallics (if they truly don't end up in the book, that is).

-Well, if what others are saying is true, and different colors of Dragons got various different stats, dependent on their age category, than it's no surprise that they ran out of room. Again, if this is true.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-27-08, 04:18 PM Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Lord Karsus
03-27-08, 04:24 PM Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

-Soon enough is right! It's already (mostly) April, and the Core 4e books are due out, when? June? July?
Draco Spirit
03-27-08, 04:36 PM I'm confused too, all I read was how the devs intended everything to be an enemy, from dryads to metallic dragons.

Did I miss something? :confused:

They only want creatures you can kill in the MM, also note things like hound archons don't exsist anymore.
Lord Karsus
03-27-08, 05:34 PM They only want creatures you can kill in the MM, also note things like hound archons don't exsist anymore.

-Again, don't exist for now, or don't exist forevermore? If the latter is the case, it just got a little more boring being evil.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-27-08, 07:03 PM -Soon enough is right! It's already (mostly) April, and the Core 4e books are due out, when? June? July?

I heard "June" on Candlekeep.:)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-27-08, 07:04 PM -Again, don't exist for now, or don't exist forevermore? If the latter is the case, it just got a little more boring being evil.

No kidding!

As for the truth of the matter, the details surrounding celestials and what will become of them in 4E are surprisingly fuzzy. I asked Rich not too long ago about how the forces of good in D&D seemed to be "shrinking" for 4E, and he did say that angels who serve good deities will probably fit the celestial role just fine (although of course "angels" in 4E can be of any alignment, depending on the god they serve--as monsters they are not strictly good).
Lord Karsus
03-27-08, 08:13 PM -Chaotic Evil Angels. How silly...
Another Gnome
03-28-08, 03:14 AM The biggest threat to evil beings has always been other evil beings, while the role of good monsters has pretty much been given as "Yeah, well, sure they could get up from their lazy butts and actually do something good in the world with their super good powers, but, uh, there are... rules, and regulations... look, you're adventurers, you go stop the evil guys and the, uh, legions of angels will... will cheer for you! And they'll sing hymns in praise of your goody... goodness. Yeah."

Really, the only reason for good monsters to exist has been that big bad evil guys can look more evil by killing unicorns or whatever other things nobody gives a rat's ass about otherwise.

(Though unicorns for one were said to still be around and predominantly good.)
Lord Karsus
03-28-08, 11:14 AM The biggest threat to evil beings has always been other evil beings, while the role of good monsters has pretty much been given as "Yeah, well, sure they could get up from their lazy butts and actually do something good in the world with their super good powers, but, uh, there are... rules, and regulations... look, you're adventurers, you go stop the evil guys and the, uh, legions of angels will... will cheer for you! And they'll sing hymns in praise of your goody... goodness. Yeah."

-And that envokes The Simbul's Fallacy, in a roundabout way, as it does not apply to the Chosen of Mystra. Just because of creature is good doesn't mean it needs to run around, fighting evil and injustice everywhere.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
03-28-08, 11:40 AM The argument also assumes that because there is evil to be fought in the world that other people/creatures haven't taken care of, it's because the good creatures are just "being lazy" (once again, they can't be everywhere).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chloramantis 03-12-08, 10:59 AM	Hey, I apologize if this topic has already been brought up, but what's the deal with 4E dragons? How can you reclassify the metallic dragons when they have been this way for 30 years? I know I'm not the only one out there that doesn't like the way things are headed for Dungeons and DRAGONS, but how can you change something like change the games namesake: dragons. Also, it isn't to clear which dragons were removed from the list (of 5). I think Brass and Copper?
Khaelieth 03-12-08, 11:21 AM	Don't think they got removed, just gettin put in at a later stage=) But yeah, i agree. Colour-coding the dragons made things far easier for the adventurers!
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-12-08, 01:23 PM	Correct--no dragons have been "removed" from the game, they'll just show up later.:) Worlds and Monsters explains the rationale for the design decisions about dragons.
Lord Karsus 03-12-08, 06:51 PM	Worlds and Monsters explains the rationale for the design decisions about dragons. -That's the whole 'monsters of the same type having different elements' bit?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-12-08, 08:23 PM	-That's the whole 'monsters of the same type having different elements' bit? Yeah. There are a few pages on dragons (as they are iconic monsters). They mentioned that the green dragon was changed in appearance because they felt it looked too much like a generic dragon rather than distinctively D&Dish (although personally, I liked the way it looked in 3E). Regarding the metallic dragons, it was pointed out that people often don't remember the differences between bronzes and brasses, so they are being replaced in the first MM with more distinctive looking dragons (Iron and Adamantine).
Lord Karsus 03-12-08, 11:14 PM	Regarding the metallic dragons, it was pointed out that people often don't remember the differences between bronzes and brasses, so they are being replaced in the first MM with more distinctive looking dragons (Iron and Adamantine). -Is Iron and Adamantine really that different?
Chloramantis 03-13-08, 09:59 AM	Rinona..., I said "reclassify" not remove, and then "remove" from the list of 5 metallic. Anyways, are the Bronzes and Brasses being removed (from the 5 metallics)? It doesn't really say which dragons, but I assumed it was Brass and Copper. Lord Karsus, my feelings exactly, Iron and Adamantine? Wow, that's quite a difference. Bronzes better not be "removed" from the big 5, they are way cooler than Brasses or Coppers. Anyway, I think it's a big mistake messing around with something like this. If they wanted to add Iron and Adamantine, they should have added two more Chromatic dragons.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-13-08, 10:23 AM	-Is Iron and Adamantine really that different? I think they are meant to be more distinctive looking, yes. And of course, metallic dragons aren't automatically good anymore, so presumably people will combat them more. W&M mentioned that good dragons and their characteristics weren't as well remembered partly because they generally weren't enemies (and when you have to fight a creature, you become familiar with the powers it has).
Lord Karsus 03-13-08, 10:54 AM	I think they are meant to be more distinctive looking, yes. And of course, metallic dragons aren't automatically good anymore, so presumably people will combat them more. W&M mentioned that good dragons and their characteristics weren't as well remembered partly because they generally weren't enemies (and when you have to fight a creature, you become familiar with the powers it has). -I'm just commenting...They remove Bronze and Brass Dragons, because they feel the two are too similar, and replace them with Iron and Adamantine? Iron and Adamantine isn't pineapples and pears, you know?
Dark Wizard 03-13-08, 02:34 PM	One of the seminars at DXP said 4E will have two new additions to the main chromatic family (making that 7 dragons?). Since even with the new alignment system, Chromatics will still present the most common draconic foe to parties, it makes sense. The Iron and Adamantine Dragons are replacing the Brass and Copper (or was it Bronze?) dragons in the core rules. That does not mean Brass and Copper will not appear in subsequent books (just like 3e eventually had Iron, Adamantine and Mercury dragons, etc.).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-13-08, 03:22 PM	-I'm just commenting...They remove Bronze and Brass Dragons, because they feel the two are too similar, and replace them with Iron and Adamantine? Iron and Adamantine isn't pineapples and pears, you know? chuckles I think you make a good point.:) I don't necessarily agree with the dragon-tweaking that's going on (like I said, I liked the 3E green dragon), but I'm trying to be a type of "objective reporter" here.:)
GreenKnight 03-23-08, 02:16 AM	chuckles I think you make a good point.:) I don't necessarily agree with the dragon-tweaking that's going on (like I said, I liked the 3E green dragon), but I'm trying to be a type of "objective reporter" here.:) The reason they eliminated the Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons from the main list is simple. They're called Metallic Dragons. Copper is a metal. Gold is a metal. Silver is a metal. Brass isn't. Neither is bronze. They're alloys. About time somebody at WotC figured that out. Which is why they're being replaced with Iron Dragons and Adamantine Dragons. Iron is a metal, and presumably, so is adamantine.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-23-08, 09:15 PM	The reason they eliminated the Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons from the main list is simple. They're called Metallic Dragons. Copper is a metal. Gold is a metal. Silver is a metal. Brass isn't. Neither is bronze. They're alloys. About time somebody at WotC figured that out. Which is why they're being replaced with Iron Dragons and Adamantine Dragons. Iron is a metal, and presumably, so is adamantine. laughs That could be a reason.
GreenKnight 03-24-08, 01:04 AM	Yeah, Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons aren't real Metallic Dragons. They're halfbreeds. The Brass Dragon is the result when a Copper Dragon and a Zinc Dragon love each other very much. The Bronze Dragon comes about when the Copper Dragon is feeling randy, steps out on the mrs., and knocks up a Tin Dragon.
Rauric 03-24-08, 01:31 AM	I think the Chromatic/metalic good/evil deal has been played out. I enjoy Eberrons method of both "kinds" can have different alignments.
Another Gnome 03-24-08, 04:57 AM	Even in early 3E I always felt a gold dragon would be just as likely to eat anyone ******* him off as a red dragon would, so this change makes no difference to me. :)
Derren S. 03-24-08, 09:57 AM	Considering that there is evidence out there at the core books won't contain any metallic dragon this whole discussion might be moot anyway.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-24-08, 11:40 AM	Yeah, Brass Dragons and Bronze Dragons aren't real Metallic Dragons. They're halfbreeds. The Brass Dragon is the result when a Copper Dragon and a Zinc Dragon love each other very much. The Bronze Dragon comes about when the Copper Dragon is feeling randy, steps out on the mrs., and knocks up a Tin Dragon. I would like to point out, though, that Brass and Bronze Dragons still have an appearance that can be described as "metallic", from an aesthetic viewpoint if not from a geological one.:)
Lord Karsus 03-24-08, 01:42 PM	Considering that there is evidence out there at the core books won't contain any metallic dragon this whole discussion might be moot anyway. -As in "ever", or as in "for now".
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-24-08, 02:31 PM	Where was it stated or implied that metallics wouldn't be in the core books?
GreenKnight 03-24-08, 08:32 PM	Where was it stated or implied that metallics wouldn't be in the core books? I don't have a link handy, but I do remember reading that Metallic Dragons won't be in the first MM (Which I can understand, as it's gonna be packed to the brim with Chromatic Dragons usable at Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers). But as Karsus points out, that doesn't mean that they've been eliminated from the game.
Lord Karsus 03-24-08, 11:18 PM	(Which I can understand, as it's gonna be packed to the brim with Chromatic Dragons usable at Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers). -So, they are including different write-ups for Dragons of the same type, of differing levels?
MarkusTay63 03-25-08, 12:39 AM	Thats the idea. We don't apply PC levels to monsters and NPCs in the 4e game, so they must provide us with 137 versions of each creature in the books. This way, each book will have WAY less types of monsters, and they will be able to spread the usual MM ones over a dozen books or so. Pretty slick, huh? :smirk: You can see some of it in MM4 and even moreso in MM5, both of which came out after the 4e planning was well under way. Supposedly, this means they can more 'fluff' attention to each monster, but I predict it will just be a way of loading dozrns of stat blocks into a single entry. The'll probably make a lot of money... if anyone buys this edition.
Lord Karsus 03-25-08, 01:24 AM	Thats the idea. This way, each book will have WAY less types of monsters, and they will be able to spread the usual MM ones over a dozen books or so. Pretty slick, huh? :smirk: -Blech, that's what I was afraid of. I'm not even buying into 4e, but I feel bad for just D&D in general, if such is the plan. You can see some of it in MM4 and even moreso in MM5, both of which came out after the 4e planning was well under way. -Ah, two books that I didn't buy, as, after glancing through them, saw very little that I actually thought was interesting. I mean, I don't need stats for "Orc Archer", "Orc Swordsman", "Orc Berserker", and so on...
Another Gnome 03-25-08, 02:58 AM	The'll probably make a lot of money... if anyone buys this edition. Regardless of what you may think of 4E Realms or WotC's marketing practices, make no mistake, the new ruleset itself will walk over any competitors and its predecessors.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-25-08, 12:57 PM	I don't have a link handy, but I do remember reading that Metallic Dragons won't be in the first MM (Which I can understand, as it's gonna be packed to the brim with Chromatic Dragons usable at Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers). But as Karsus points out, that doesn't mean that they've been eliminated from the game. I'm just confused, because I thought the designers wanted metallics to be used as enemies in 4E.:confused: That was the whole point in making them less tied to alignment (same goes for the chromatics). If it's true that metallics won't be in the first MM...well, I'm surprised to hear it, given how they were talked up, along with the chromatics, as the iconic monsters of D&D.
selunatic2397 03-25-08, 02:35 PM	I'm confused too, all I read was how the devs intended everything to be an enemy, from dryads to metallic dragons. Did I miss something? :confused:
Lord Karsus 03-25-08, 03:06 PM	Did I miss something? :confused: -Not enough room in the book, maybe?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-26-08, 08:42 PM	-Not enough room in the book, maybe? That's a likely reason. I'm still surprised, though, because as I said "Dragons are ICONIC!" was practically written all over the promotional material.
Lord Karsus 03-26-08, 11:31 PM	That's a likely reason. I'm still surprised, though, because as I said "Dragons are ICONIC!" was practically written all over the promotional material. -Only the Dragons they want are iconic, it seems...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-27-08, 10:57 AM	Yeah. :-/ And I thought they said there was going to be, like, 10+ pages dedicated to dragons in the MM. I'm surprised they just didn't have room for iconic metallics (if they truly don't end up in the book, that is).
Lord Karsus 03-27-08, 02:21 PM	Yeah. :-/ And I thought they said there was going to be, like, 10+ pages dedicated to dragons in the MM. I'm surprised they just didn't have room for iconic metallics (if they truly don't end up in the book, that is). -Well, if what others are saying is true, and different colors of Dragons got various different stats, dependent on their age category, than it's no surprise that they ran out of room. Again, if this is true.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-27-08, 04:18 PM	Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Lord Karsus 03-27-08, 04:24 PM	Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough. -Soon enough is right! It's already (mostly) April, and the Core 4e books are due out, when? June? July?
Draco Spirit 03-27-08, 04:36 PM	I'm confused too, all I read was how the devs intended everything to be an enemy, from dryads to metallic dragons. Did I miss something? :confused: They only want creatures you can kill in the MM, also note things like hound archons don't exsist anymore.
Lord Karsus 03-27-08, 05:34 PM	They only want creatures you can kill in the MM, also note things like hound archons don't exsist anymore. -Again, don't exist for now, or don't exist forevermore? If the latter is the case, it just got a little more boring being evil.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-27-08, 07:03 PM	-Soon enough is right! It's already (mostly) April, and the Core 4e books are due out, when? June? July? I heard "June" on Candlekeep.:)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-27-08, 07:04 PM	-Again, don't exist for now, or don't exist forevermore? If the latter is the case, it just got a little more boring being evil. No kidding! As for the truth of the matter, the details surrounding celestials and what will become of them in 4E are surprisingly fuzzy. I asked Rich not too long ago about how the forces of good in D&D seemed to be "shrinking" for 4E, and he did say that angels who serve good deities will probably fit the celestial role just fine (although of course "angels" in 4E can be of any alignment, depending on the god they serve--as monsters they are not strictly good).
Lord Karsus 03-27-08, 08:13 PM	-Chaotic Evil Angels. How silly...
Another Gnome 03-28-08, 03:14 AM	The biggest threat to evil beings has always been other evil beings, while the role of good monsters has pretty much been given as "Yeah, well, sure they could get up from their lazy butts and actually do something good in the world with their super good powers, but, uh, there are... rules, and regulations... look, you're adventurers, you go stop the evil guys and the, uh, legions of angels will... will cheer for you! And they'll sing hymns in praise of your goody... goodness. Yeah." Really, the only reason for good monsters to exist has been that big bad evil guys can look more evil by killing unicorns or whatever other things nobody gives a rat's ass about otherwise. (Though unicorns for one were said to still be around and predominantly good.)
Lord Karsus 03-28-08, 11:14 AM	The biggest threat to evil beings has always been other evil beings, while the role of good monsters has pretty much been given as "Yeah, well, sure they could get up from their lazy butts and actually do something good in the world with their super good powers, but, uh, there are... rules, and regulations... look, you're adventurers, you go stop the evil guys and the, uh, legions of angels will... will cheer for you! And they'll sing hymns in praise of your goody... goodness. Yeah." -And that envokes The Simbul's Fallacy, in a roundabout way, as it does not apply to the Chosen of Mystra. Just because of creature is good doesn't mean it needs to run around, fighting evil and injustice everywhere.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 03-28-08, 11:40 AM	The argument also assumes that because there is evil to be fought in the world that other people/creatures haven't taken care of, it's because the good creatures are just "being lazy" (once again, they can't be everywhere).