Dragon Disapointments [Archive] - Wizards Community

Dragon Disapointments [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
DarkPaladine
09-19-05, 10:36 PM hey im new to these forums and just recently got into 3.5 edition of dnd and Im a bit disapointed with the new dragon designs for instance the blue dragons really dont need that horn thats is in the middle of their snouts as it is too ridiculous and as for the gold dragon Im not even going to comment on that species other than to say that they are absolutely horribly design plus in my opinion dragons dont get clumsier in flight as they get older they would actually get better in flight than wizards of the coast give them credit for sorry if this doesnt make that much sense but im a bit disgruntled
Slagger the Chuul
09-19-05, 10:55 PM If they had better maneuverability as such big creatures, they'd be making ridiculous little dime-turns, instead of the majestic swoops that they currently makes. It would be like seeing a 747 hop about like a hummingbird.
Algorithm_X
09-19-05, 11:22 PM Dragons are fairly well designed, though I did find it disheartening that they didn't suggest that maybe they would wear some of those stat boosting magical items rather than sleeping on them in a giant pile of coins. I like my more powerful dragons to be properly buffed, helps them keep the lead over adventurers with gear.

There is a difference between skill from experience (which would be making good choices as to positioning) and actually increasing maneuvering class. Also if you bothered to read monstrous feats (starting page 303 MM3.5) Feats such as Flyby attack, Hover, Wingover are much more likely in dragons who have more feats to spare (because dragons have many HD and they get a feat every three HD this would make sense) So dragons can be quite agile in the air.

What you are suggesting doesn't make sense, and I would say if they followed your advice it would have been poorly designed.
Kothardarastrix
09-19-05, 11:40 PM I disagree, whole-heartily, except for the Gold Dragon thing. I don't know why, I just think they chould have left it be after Silvers.
RavinRay
09-20-05, 08:50 AM I assume everyone here is referring to the quasi-serpentine body and ray-like wings of the gold dragon. Well, ths is my own humble opinion about the matter.

I read that in the very first D&D, there was only one good dragon (gold) versus the five evil ones. The gold was modelled after Chinese dragons, and it originally did not have wings. When 2e came out, the gold dragon was changed so that in its natural form it does have wings, but it can adapt a wingless form at the expense of manueverability. The 3e version is something of a compromise. The gold dragon still has wings, but they are no longer bat-like, and making then run the length of the body reminds me of the spined frills on chinese dragons.

And as I recall from the Monstrous Manual 2e (and even the 1e MM) illustrations, the blue dragon does have that central horn, though not as massive as in the 3e version.
digoraccoon
09-20-05, 09:03 AM I've made my own art on the dragons, adding my own artistic license to it for flavor. For example there's a black dragon in my campaign that has red stripes. You don't have to use the discriptors in the book. Just draw your own or print out images of dragons from other works of art to show your players: "This is what you see coming down upon you."

It also helps curb metagaming if your players do that often: "Oh its a gold dragon, it's automatically on our side cause it's good."
Thrasher
09-20-05, 09:23 AM Personally I love the way the gold dragon looks. Its my favorate dragon, followed closely by the blue dragon. I love the way the gold looks. It just has that oriental look to it and i love that. and as for the blue at first i was not wild about the horn in the middle of its head but its grown on me. It gives it some distinction. I like the way they made the dragons. they made them all a little different and that makes them recognizeable (sp?). well thats my 2 copper
Slagger the Chuul
09-20-05, 09:25 AM well thats my 2 copper

Dragons?
Gurthoron
09-20-05, 09:30 AM Well, I agree that the dragons don't look great. But I find the blue's design quite fitting for that dragon. The gold has a look of an ancient scholarly type about him, with the tendrils being a sort of Fu Man Chu mustache and beard. The only dragon I have an issue with is the white. It looks dumb and it is dumb. There is nothing worse than a dumb dragon. I'm sorry, but whites are just an insult to dragonkind and should have been hunted down by all the other types.

As for manueverability, if I saw something the size of a large building pulling 180s on a dime, I'd wonder who told physics to shut up and sit down. Its not possible for a creature that big to do that, especially when you are not really made for flight. (And dragons are far from the best shape for flight.) They really don't need better manueverability; they manage quite well as clumsy, but beautiful flyers.

And no offense, but would you mind using punctuation? It took me way to long to comprehend what you were saying.
Olly
09-20-05, 10:12 AM My sole problem with the blue dragon is it's colouring.

It seems to me like WotC wanted to colour coordinate the dragons to their environments. Green dragons live in forests, because, you know, like, forests are green. Red dragons live in volcanoes, because, well, lava's red. White dragons live in the snow because snow is white. I actually wonder aloud how in the hell they decided that the blue dragon should live in the desert as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the ocean!! :rolleyes:

A blue dragon against a desert of yellow sand just seems so alien and ill-fitting to me.
Slagger the Chuul
09-20-05, 10:25 AM A blue dragon against a desert of yellow sand just seems so alien and ill-fitting to me.

Not if you usually see it against the blue sky of the desert. Of course, the way the standard blue is coloured, they'd be best off flying upside down.
erc1971
09-20-05, 11:09 AM I read that in the very first D&D, there was only one good dragon (gold) versus the five evil ones. The gold was modelled after Chinese dragons, and it originally did not have wings. When 2e came out, the gold dragon was changed so that in its natural form it does have wings, but it can adapt a wingless form at the expense of manueverability.

All the colored and metallic dragons in the 3.5 MM existed back in 1st edition. (Now I am dating myself). The problem with dragons back them, was they were too whimpy. A Great Wyrm red dragon has something like 88 hit points.

I think red dragons had 11 hit die. In 1st edition, dragons had 8 age categories, and had 1 hit point per hit die per age category. And thier breath weapon did damage equal to thier hit points - so when one breathed on ya, you knew how many hit points it had!
Rotipher
09-20-05, 12:42 PM Most of the dragons' facial features actually reverted back to resemble their 1E appearance (e.g. facial tendrils of gold, frilled crest of white) in the 3E artwork, having looked different in the 2E era. The only exception I recall was the black dragon, which became much more crocodile-like than ever before.

FWIW, I was a little disappointed with the 3E black dragon art when I first saw it -- up until then, I'd always pictured them as rather long and lithe, like herons or similar wetland birds -- but I'll admit the "death croc" look has grown on me. I also enjoy the look of the unusual wing-structure of some 3E metallic species: it makes them look like kites (the kind you fly on a string, not the birds of prey), and I can easily imagine their "sails" rippling as they ride the wind.
BeyondFated
09-20-05, 12:51 PM On the note of the Blue's horn, it's used for burrowing into the sand.

The Draconomicon is your friend. :D
obrysii
09-20-05, 01:09 PM I dislike the Silver Dragon art (too disporportianate) and the White Dragon art (I don't know why)...besides that, I think their designs are awesome.

Except for the Howling Dragon, but that's because of the rather terrible artist who drew it.
Nuntius128
09-20-05, 01:19 PM sorry if this doesnt make that much sense but im a bit disgruntled

Since your other points were already answered, I'll just mention your punctuation: That is one needlessly long sentence you have, there.
Thrasher
09-20-05, 02:02 PM Well, I agree that the dragons don't look great. But I find the blue's design quite fitting for that dragon. The gold has a look of an ancient scholarly type about him, with the tendrils being a sort of Fu Man Chu mustache and beard. The only dragon I have an issue with is the white. It looks dumb and it is dumb. There is nothing worse than a dumb dragon. I'm sorry, but whites are just an insult to dragonkind and should have been hunted down by all the other types.

As for manueverability, if I saw something the size of a large building pulling 180s on a dime, I'd wonder who told physics to shut up and sit down. Its not possible for a creature that big to do that, especially when you are not really made for flight. (And dragons are far from the best shape for flight.) They really don't need better manueverability; they manage quite well as clumsy, but beautiful flyers.

And no offense, but would you mind using punctuation? It took me way to long to comprehend what you were saying.

I agree on the whites. They just look kinda retarded to me. Everytime I see a pic of one I keep expecting to see a thought bubble above its head that says "Duh, Duh, Which way did he go george, which way did he go?" I must admit one thing though, the zombie white dragon in the minis looks freakin sweet. The art for the pic in the minis handbook looks cool and the mini looks awesome. and thats my 2 copper. And no not the dragons. :dragon:
BlueLikeYou
09-20-05, 04:38 PM I would say the blue dragons are my favorite. I actually like how they look (horn and all). :)

Speaking of dragons and their environments, I always wondered how useful some of their breath weapons really are. Specifically, white dragons live in cold places, where a lot of their potential prey is probably resistant or immune to cold...so how useful is a cold breath weapon? With reds, they might live in a volcano, but the creatures living in its territory wouldn't have to have fire resistance.
Grizelda
09-20-05, 04:49 PM hey im new to these forums and just recently got into 3.5 edition of dnd and Im a bit disapointed with the new dragon designs for instance the blue dragons really dont need that horn thats is in the middle of their snouts as it is too ridiculous and as for the gold dragon Im not even going to comment on that species other than to say that they are absolutely horribly design plus in my opinion dragons dont get clumsier in flight as they get older they would actually get better in flight than wizards of the coast give them credit for sorry if this doesnt make that much sense but im a bit disgruntled

well if is the design of the mosters you have issues with you are out of luck, its pretty blatantly apparent that whatever budget WoTC allocates to D&D none of it is spent on hiring competant artist.. across the board the artwork in all the core books is horrible. it seriously looks like they went to some middle school art class and said hey draw me an elf. and we go mialee... you just have to rely on you imagination in describing monsters as you will receive absolutley no help from the illustrations. :)

that being said i agree with bluelikeyou, blues are my favorite.. i actually translate all the stats over from reds to make them equal in power as i feel they should be.. kinda like gold/silver are basically equal :) and that is actually one of the better illustrations.. horn and all. ;)

Not if you usually see it against the blue sky of the desert. Of course, the way the standard blue is coloured, they'd be best off flying upside down.

my logic is.. WTF does a Blue Dragon need to hide from? they *should* stand out like jewels.. it plays into the whole arrogance thing, they want everyone for a 20 mile radius to see them and know to stay the heck away from that swath of desert.. and if they needed to they always have magical means of going unseen
Kothardarastrix
09-20-05, 05:02 PM I'm sorry making blues equal to Reds, that just shouldnt be done. Red Dragons are the symbolic dragon, when a child thinks dragon they think of big fire breathing creatures that eat maidens in distress (which happen to be mine and other Red Dragons favorite food), not your desert dwelling sand lizard who breathes electricity and eat camels! Reds strongest of chromatic, leave em be!
Grizelda
09-20-05, 05:28 PM I'm sorry making blues equal to Reds, that just shouldnt be done. Red Dragons are the symbolic dragon, when a child thinks dragon they think of big fire breathing creatures that eat maidens in distress (which happen to be mine and other Red Dragons favorite food), not your desert dwelling sand lizard who breathes electricity and eat camels! Reds strongest of chromatic, leave em be!

request denied.. i prefer blues to reds anyday. :)
Balor von Balorvitch
09-20-05, 05:56 PM ..... i actually translate all the stats over from reds to make them equal in power as i feel they should be.. kinda like gold/silver are basically equal :) and that is actually one of the better illustrations.. horn and all. ;)

Blue are cool for sure and the desert makes a more unquie encounter than the volcanic cave. But if the Blues were pumped up more than the slivers and golds would cease peeking under ignous rocks and head into the desert! Come on the Blues are slightly weaker than red and their biggest threat is brass dragons! Brass are more likely to bore you to death than offer a blue a real threat. So let the overly choatic fool reds have their holes unchallenged!

PS: have you seen other RPG illustrators? Count your self lucky we have the ones we do
Grizelda
09-20-05, 06:04 PM PS: have you seen other RPG illustrators? Count your self lucky we have the ones we do

perhaps, i guess I was just spoiled by palladium/rifts actually having quality artwork in the books.
Olly
09-20-05, 06:27 PM my logic is.. WTF does a Blue Dragon need to hide from? they *should* stand out like jewels.. it plays into the whole arrogance thing, they want everyone for a 20 mile radius to see them and know to stay the heck away from that swath of desert.. and if they needed to they always have magical means of going unseen

Egads! You're right!

Thankyou, Grizelda, you have restored my faith in blue dragons. I am now a convert to blue dragons living in deserts. :D
DarkPaladine
09-20-05, 10:43 PM hey first off I want to thank you all for not flaming me and secondly unfortunately I was a tinker gnome in a past life so sorry j/k actually just never got the hang of punctuation at school so forgive me for that.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DarkPaladine 09-19-05, 10:36 PM	hey im new to these forums and just recently got into 3.5 edition of dnd and Im a bit disapointed with the new dragon designs for instance the blue dragons really dont need that horn thats is in the middle of their snouts as it is too ridiculous and as for the gold dragon Im not even going to comment on that species other than to say that they are absolutely horribly design plus in my opinion dragons dont get clumsier in flight as they get older they would actually get better in flight than wizards of the coast give them credit for sorry if this doesnt make that much sense but im a bit disgruntled
Slagger the Chuul 09-19-05, 10:55 PM	If they had better maneuverability as such big creatures, they'd be making ridiculous little dime-turns, instead of the majestic swoops that they currently makes. It would be like seeing a 747 hop about like a hummingbird.
Algorithm_X 09-19-05, 11:22 PM	Dragons are fairly well designed, though I did find it disheartening that they didn't suggest that maybe they would wear some of those stat boosting magical items rather than sleeping on them in a giant pile of coins. I like my more powerful dragons to be properly buffed, helps them keep the lead over adventurers with gear. There is a difference between skill from experience (which would be making good choices as to positioning) and actually increasing maneuvering class. Also if you bothered to read monstrous feats (starting page 303 MM3.5) Feats such as Flyby attack, Hover, Wingover are much more likely in dragons who have more feats to spare (because dragons have many HD and they get a feat every three HD this would make sense) So dragons can be quite agile in the air. What you are suggesting doesn't make sense, and I would say if they followed your advice it would have been poorly designed.
Kothardarastrix 09-19-05, 11:40 PM	I disagree, whole-heartily, except for the Gold Dragon thing. I don't know why, I just think they chould have left it be after Silvers.
RavinRay 09-20-05, 08:50 AM	I assume everyone here is referring to the quasi-serpentine body and ray-like wings of the gold dragon. Well, ths is my own humble opinion about the matter. I read that in the very first D&D, there was only one good dragon (gold) versus the five evil ones. The gold was modelled after Chinese dragons, and it originally did not have wings. When 2e came out, the gold dragon was changed so that in its natural form it does have wings, but it can adapt a wingless form at the expense of manueverability. The 3e version is something of a compromise. The gold dragon still has wings, but they are no longer bat-like, and making then run the length of the body reminds me of the spined frills on chinese dragons. And as I recall from the Monstrous Manual 2e (and even the 1e MM) illustrations, the blue dragon does have that central horn, though not as massive as in the 3e version.
digoraccoon 09-20-05, 09:03 AM	I've made my own art on the dragons, adding my own artistic license to it for flavor. For example there's a black dragon in my campaign that has red stripes. You don't have to use the discriptors in the book. Just draw your own or print out images of dragons from other works of art to show your players: "This is what you see coming down upon you." It also helps curb metagaming if your players do that often: "Oh its a gold dragon, it's automatically on our side cause it's good."
Thrasher 09-20-05, 09:23 AM	Personally I love the way the gold dragon looks. Its my favorate dragon, followed closely by the blue dragon. I love the way the gold looks. It just has that oriental look to it and i love that. and as for the blue at first i was not wild about the horn in the middle of its head but its grown on me. It gives it some distinction. I like the way they made the dragons. they made them all a little different and that makes them recognizeable (sp?). well thats my 2 copper
Slagger the Chuul 09-20-05, 09:25 AM	well thats my 2 copper Dragons?
Gurthoron 09-20-05, 09:30 AM	Well, I agree that the dragons don't look great. But I find the blue's design quite fitting for that dragon. The gold has a look of an ancient scholarly type about him, with the tendrils being a sort of Fu Man Chu mustache and beard. The only dragon I have an issue with is the white. It looks dumb and it is dumb. There is nothing worse than a dumb dragon. I'm sorry, but whites are just an insult to dragonkind and should have been hunted down by all the other types. As for manueverability, if I saw something the size of a large building pulling 180s on a dime, I'd wonder who told physics to shut up and sit down. Its not possible for a creature that big to do that, especially when you are not really made for flight. (And dragons are far from the best shape for flight.) They really don't need better manueverability; they manage quite well as clumsy, but beautiful flyers. And no offense, but would you mind using punctuation? It took me way to long to comprehend what you were saying.
Olly 09-20-05, 10:12 AM	My sole problem with the blue dragon is it's colouring. It seems to me like WotC wanted to colour coordinate the dragons to their environments. Green dragons live in forests, because, you know, like, forests are green. Red dragons live in volcanoes, because, well, lava's red. White dragons live in the snow because snow is white. I actually wonder aloud how in the hell they decided that the blue dragon should live in the desert as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the ocean!! :rolleyes: A blue dragon against a desert of yellow sand just seems so alien and ill-fitting to me.
Slagger the Chuul 09-20-05, 10:25 AM	A blue dragon against a desert of yellow sand just seems so alien and ill-fitting to me. Not if you usually see it against the blue sky of the desert. Of course, the way the standard blue is coloured, they'd be best off flying upside down.
erc1971 09-20-05, 11:09 AM	I read that in the very first D&D, there was only one good dragon (gold) versus the five evil ones. The gold was modelled after Chinese dragons, and it originally did not have wings. When 2e came out, the gold dragon was changed so that in its natural form it does have wings, but it can adapt a wingless form at the expense of manueverability. All the colored and metallic dragons in the 3.5 MM existed back in 1st edition. (Now I am dating myself). The problem with dragons back them, was they were too whimpy. A Great Wyrm red dragon has something like 88 hit points. I think red dragons had 11 hit die. In 1st edition, dragons had 8 age categories, and had 1 hit point per hit die per age category. And thier breath weapon did damage equal to thier hit points - so when one breathed on ya, you knew how many hit points it had!
Rotipher 09-20-05, 12:42 PM	Most of the dragons' facial features actually reverted back to resemble their 1E appearance (e.g. facial tendrils of gold, frilled crest of white) in the 3E artwork, having looked different in the 2E era. The only exception I recall was the black dragon, which became much more crocodile-like than ever before. FWIW, I was a little disappointed with the 3E black dragon art when I first saw it -- up until then, I'd always pictured them as rather long and lithe, like herons or similar wetland birds -- but I'll admit the "death croc" look has grown on me. I also enjoy the look of the unusual wing-structure of some 3E metallic species: it makes them look like kites (the kind you fly on a string, not the birds of prey), and I can easily imagine their "sails" rippling as they ride the wind.
BeyondFated 09-20-05, 12:51 PM	On the note of the Blue's horn, it's used for burrowing into the sand. The Draconomicon is your friend. :D
obrysii 09-20-05, 01:09 PM	I dislike the Silver Dragon art (too disporportianate) and the White Dragon art (I don't know why)...besides that, I think their designs are awesome. Except for the Howling Dragon, but that's because of the rather terrible artist who drew it.
Nuntius128 09-20-05, 01:19 PM	sorry if this doesnt make that much sense but im a bit disgruntled Since your other points were already answered, I'll just mention your punctuation: That is one needlessly long sentence you have, there.
Thrasher 09-20-05, 02:02 PM	Well, I agree that the dragons don't look great. But I find the blue's design quite fitting for that dragon. The gold has a look of an ancient scholarly type about him, with the tendrils being a sort of Fu Man Chu mustache and beard. The only dragon I have an issue with is the white. It looks dumb and it is dumb. There is nothing worse than a dumb dragon. I'm sorry, but whites are just an insult to dragonkind and should have been hunted down by all the other types. As for manueverability, if I saw something the size of a large building pulling 180s on a dime, I'd wonder who told physics to shut up and sit down. Its not possible for a creature that big to do that, especially when you are not really made for flight. (And dragons are far from the best shape for flight.) They really don't need better manueverability; they manage quite well as clumsy, but beautiful flyers. And no offense, but would you mind using punctuation? It took me way to long to comprehend what you were saying. I agree on the whites. They just look kinda retarded to me. Everytime I see a pic of one I keep expecting to see a thought bubble above its head that says "Duh, Duh, Which way did he go george, which way did he go?" I must admit one thing though, the zombie white dragon in the minis looks freakin sweet. The art for the pic in the minis handbook looks cool and the mini looks awesome. and thats my 2 copper. And no not the dragons. :dragon:
BlueLikeYou 09-20-05, 04:38 PM	I would say the blue dragons are my favorite. I actually like how they look (horn and all). :) Speaking of dragons and their environments, I always wondered how useful some of their breath weapons really are. Specifically, white dragons live in cold places, where a lot of their potential prey is probably resistant or immune to cold...so how useful is a cold breath weapon? With reds, they might live in a volcano, but the creatures living in its territory wouldn't have to have fire resistance.
Grizelda 09-20-05, 04:49 PM	hey im new to these forums and just recently got into 3.5 edition of dnd and Im a bit disapointed with the new dragon designs for instance the blue dragons really dont need that horn thats is in the middle of their snouts as it is too ridiculous and as for the gold dragon Im not even going to comment on that species other than to say that they are absolutely horribly design plus in my opinion dragons dont get clumsier in flight as they get older they would actually get better in flight than wizards of the coast give them credit for sorry if this doesnt make that much sense but im a bit disgruntled well if is the design of the mosters you have issues with you are out of luck, its pretty blatantly apparent that whatever budget WoTC allocates to D&D none of it is spent on hiring competant artist.. across the board the artwork in all the core books is horrible. it seriously looks like they went to some middle school art class and said hey draw me an elf. and we go mialee... you just have to rely on you imagination in describing monsters as you will receive absolutley no help from the illustrations. :) that being said i agree with bluelikeyou, blues are my favorite.. i actually translate all the stats over from reds to make them equal in power as i feel they should be.. kinda like gold/silver are basically equal :) and that is actually one of the better illustrations.. horn and all. ;) Not if you usually see it against the blue sky of the desert. Of course, the way the standard blue is coloured, they'd be best off flying upside down. my logic is.. WTF does a Blue Dragon need to hide from? they should stand out like jewels.. it plays into the whole arrogance thing, they want everyone for a 20 mile radius to see them and know to stay the heck away from that swath of desert.. and if they needed to they always have magical means of going unseen
Kothardarastrix 09-20-05, 05:02 PM	I'm sorry making blues equal to Reds, that just shouldnt be done. Red Dragons are the symbolic dragon, when a child thinks dragon they think of big fire breathing creatures that eat maidens in distress (which happen to be mine and other Red Dragons favorite food), not your desert dwelling sand lizard who breathes electricity and eat camels! Reds strongest of chromatic, leave em be!
Grizelda 09-20-05, 05:28 PM	I'm sorry making blues equal to Reds, that just shouldnt be done. Red Dragons are the symbolic dragon, when a child thinks dragon they think of big fire breathing creatures that eat maidens in distress (which happen to be mine and other Red Dragons favorite food), not your desert dwelling sand lizard who breathes electricity and eat camels! Reds strongest of chromatic, leave em be! request denied.. i prefer blues to reds anyday. :)
Balor von Balorvitch 09-20-05, 05:56 PM	..... i actually translate all the stats over from reds to make them equal in power as i feel they should be.. kinda like gold/silver are basically equal :) and that is actually one of the better illustrations.. horn and all. ;) Blue are cool for sure and the desert makes a more unquie encounter than the volcanic cave. But if the Blues were pumped up more than the slivers and golds would cease peeking under ignous rocks and head into the desert! Come on the Blues are slightly weaker than red and their biggest threat is brass dragons! Brass are more likely to bore you to death than offer a blue a real threat. So let the overly choatic fool reds have their holes unchallenged! PS: have you seen other RPG illustrators? Count your self lucky we have the ones we do
Grizelda 09-20-05, 06:04 PM	PS: have you seen other RPG illustrators? Count your self lucky we have the ones we do perhaps, i guess I was just spoiled by palladium/rifts actually having quality artwork in the books.
Olly 09-20-05, 06:27 PM	my logic is.. WTF does a Blue Dragon need to hide from? they should stand out like jewels.. it plays into the whole arrogance thing, they want everyone for a 20 mile radius to see them and know to stay the heck away from that swath of desert.. and if they needed to they always have magical means of going unseen Egads! You're right! Thankyou, Grizelda, you have restored my faith in blue dragons. I am now a convert to blue dragons living in deserts. :D
DarkPaladine 09-20-05, 10:43 PM	hey first off I want to thank you all for not flaming me and secondly unfortunately I was a tinker gnome in a past life so sorry j/k actually just never got the hang of punctuation at school so forgive me for that.