Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Romulus LoneWolf 01-15-06, 10:15 PM	Frankly.. ...Are any Dragons -besides- the Red Dragons absolutely necessary? I mean, the classic image of Western Dragons is that they're big, firebreathing, hoard-building monsters. All you really need for a dragon is "Big", "Winged" and "Firebreathing", all of which the Red Dragon can do. And as a plus, it's also intelligent. One could easily just take the Red Dragon, change it's color and make it into a "Generic Dragon", with an alignment of "Any" or "Mostly Neutral", and just make every other ability a question of roleplaying and adding classes or templates... ...What do you think?
Athanatos 01-15-06, 10:20 PM	Frankly, are any humanoids besides the human necessary? I mean, they all have two legs, two arms, a torso, and a head... anything else can be filled in by roleplaying and templates.
Romulus LoneWolf 01-15-06, 11:33 PM	Frankly, are any humanoids besides the human necessary? I mean, they all have two legs, two arms, a torso, and a head... anything else can be filled in by roleplaying and templates. Anybody have a serious opinion on the matter?
Velocity 01-16-06, 12:16 AM	Good dragons juxtapose evil dragons, breath weapon juxtaposes breath weapon. Each type of dragon presents it's own unique personality and uniquely flavors any encounter with it, including as an NPC. Different types of dragons dwell in different climates and environments. Good dragons also need to exist to provide combat encounters for evil adventuring parties. Yes, they are necessary, especially the core dragons. One of the main reasons i play this game is to escape mundane reality. Taking away 9 or more types of dragons all with their own personalities and limits would only serve to make the game more mundane and ordinary. And i for one would not like that.
Athanatos 01-16-06, 12:54 AM	Anybody have a serious opinion on the matter? If you strip the sarcasm away, my comment is perfectly serious. Different types of dragons add variety in both combat and roleplay just as different types of humanoids do. Strictly speaking, they're not NECESSARY, but they're sure a plus to have.
Steel_Dragon 01-16-06, 01:54 AM	Of coarse it matters! Before Dragons went extinct, they grew into many different formats! It's only natral that D&D reflects the actual Dragon.
dok 01-16-06, 02:17 AM	I mean, the classic image of Western Dragons is that they're big, firebreathing, hoard-building monsters. All you really need for a dragon is "Big", "Winged" and "Firebreathing", all of which the Red Dragon can do. Except that not all images of dragons are "big". Not all images of dragons are "winged" and (you saw this coming) not all images of dragons are "firebreathing". One could easily just take the Red Dragon, change it's color and make it into a "Generic Dragon", with an alignment of "Any" or "Mostly Neutral", and just make every other ability a question of roleplaying and adding classes or templates... If you look closely at the MM, you'll see that there are actually three "generic dragons", in terms of size, ability scores, hit dice, and spellcasting, with the big changes being spell-like abilities, breath weapons, AC, and a few other minor points. And, of course, you already know that the Dragons in the MM don't have skills or feats asigned, which lets every DM customize the flavor of each individual dragon, so the idea of making a "generic dragon" and then 'customizing' it is already somewhat redudant, right? I mean, you did look closely at the monster in the Monster Manual before posting this, right? It would just be stupid not to know the subject you're talking about, wouldn't it? I mean, you've obviously looked at the Red Dragon's CR ratings, and the problem of adding enough class levels to be meaningful resulting in too high of a CR, right? Athanatos' comments are pretty dead-on. If you want to "house rule" that in your campaigns, there is only one kind of dragon, then customize each one, that's fine, but the idea has no merit or value to me.
TheLastOfTheFallen 01-16-06, 02:52 AM	I gotta agree with Athanatos. Sure, you don't need the other dragon types. If every dragon in your world is a firebreathing red, good for you. But that'd get boring really quickly. I personally love every different true dragon out there, but that's just me.
Angelus_the_white_Gnoll 01-16-06, 04:16 AM	I may be new at this but isn't more dragons generally a good thing? Besides dragons just rule...can you actually play as any of them or is that just a dream?
Slagger the Chuul 01-16-06, 05:18 AM	Keep in mind that not every monster in the book is likely to be used in a single campaign. Sure, you might like the red as the "classic" dragon, that's fine, but if someone else wants something different, the statistics ready to go, instead of them needing to build it out of templates. Considering that dragons are an extremely iconic part of the game, it's not surprising that there are so many variations on offer.
Romulus LoneWolf 01-16-06, 03:53 PM	While I understand the criticism, I think that making posts that essentially made fun of my original suggestion was a bit rude. And to me, the Iconic Dragon will always be the Big, Firebreathing dragon, and thus the Red dragon. ...Nonetheless, I withdraw my suggestion in response to popular criticism.
RCS3389 01-17-06, 12:54 AM	Ok I get where people are coming from as far as one dragon goes. And if I had to choose the one that was most like the representations on earth it would be the Red. If you want to use the Red only and just adapt it for other situations go ahead, but then you may as well just create a world based totally off of medieval europe. Myself I play D&D to get away from earth and all that entails, so I will take my gay gold dragons and go party with the wicked silvers and the pimp bronzes. Thank you.
Velocity 01-17-06, 08:47 PM	You may find this odd, but before D&D was invented in the mid 1970's,most dragons represented in films, cartoons, theater, storybooks, etc.... were almost invariably green in color. They breathed fire yes, but almost all of them were green. The one notable exception i can think of is the deep purple dragon in Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" which was a witch transformed into a dragon.
SinisterSeraph 01-18-06, 11:09 AM	Of coarse it matters! Before Dragons went extinct, they grew into many different formats! It's only natral that D&D reflects the actual Dragon. Huh-wha? Duder, dragons never went extinct, because they are fictional. Heavily prevalent throughout human cultures, but not real. One interesting theory is that they are an amalgamation of the most recognizable traits from early hominid predators, carried over in some kind of genetic program or memory. Specifically the Talons of large predatory birds, the neck and coils of large constrictors, and the open maw/face of large predatory cats. The early hominids that were most afraid of these traits would pass on that timidness to their young, allowing them to be more alert to and better avoid those predators. This ingrained fear is manifested in the common traits we ascribe to "dragons".
Athanatos 01-18-06, 08:56 PM	Well, uh, that's real nice, but I'm pretty sure he meant to say before dragons fell out of prevelant cultural use.
Th_Ar_Al 01-18-06, 09:07 PM	Anybody have a serious opinion on the matter? I do, I actually considered in create a world where there is only humans and half-humans (half-elfs, half-orcs and new ones) as playable races =P. Also I was thinking in creating the "Just Dragon" that the guy is talking about. EDIT: Why are everyone so hard on this guy?