Gem Dragons? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Gem Dragons?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
LordDreadman
Jul 01, 2009 12:54:58 Do we know what happened to Gem Dragons? I don't see them mentioned in the list of dragon types in the MM ... and, frankly, I miss them. If for no other reason than that they looked really cool, they need to come back.

Yours,
Lord Dreadman
#2
smacintush
Jul 01, 2009 13:14:30 I thought I read somewhere in an article (or maybe it was a podcast) that they had no intention of bringing gem dragons back (at the time anyway).

I could be mistaken.
#3
Vilnias_Nastavnik
Jul 01, 2009 17:23:56
Do we know what happened to Gem Dragons? I don't see them mentioned in the list of dragon types in the MM ... and, frankly, I miss them. If for no other reason than that they looked really cool, they need to come back.

Yours,
Lord Dreadman

In the meanwhile, feel free to work some up on your own, the monster creator on DDI works very well and you can use the current dragons as an example and the old ones as inspiration.
#4
undrave
Jul 01, 2009 17:31:00 The monster creator only works for standard monsters though no?

Well we got Chromatic and Metallics so far and if the Volcanic Dragon preview is any indication we'll get more of those 'Catastrophic Dragon' in MM3... maybe Gem Dragons will be in MM4?
#5
Vilnias_Nastavnik
Jul 01, 2009 17:34:50
The monster creator only works for standard monsters though no?

Well we got Chromatic and Metallics so far and if the Volcanic Dragon preview is any indication we'll get more of those 'Catastrophic Dragon' in MM3... maybe Gem Dragons will be in MM4?

You can make any moster you want, you write up the stats you want, the powers you want, it handles the basics like HP and such based on the level and role you tell it you want.
#6
Nautilus
Jul 01, 2009 18:05:36 I believe gem dragons were originally invented to provide a neutral-aligned alternative to good dragons (metallic) and evil ones (chromatic).

In 4e, the metallic dragons are now mainly "neutral" (unaligned), so perhaps the designers thought they now filled the niche that gem dragons once did. If R&D thinks up another compelling niche for gem dragons, then they might come back.
#7
Tharag_Bocc
Jul 01, 2009 18:20:18
I believe gem dragons were originally invented to provide a neutral-aligned alternative to good dragons (metallic) and evil ones (chromatic).

In 4e, the metallic dragons are now mainly "neutral" (unaligned), so perhaps the designers thought they now filled the niche that gem dragons once did. If R&D thinks up another compelling niche for gem dragons, then they might come back.

Well, the gem dragons were also psionic (at least in 3.5). Giving their abilities a psionic flavor instead of the elemental/arcane flavor of the current dragons could be their niche. Though were that to be the case MM3 would seem to be the most ideal home for them so as to compliment PH3's psionic power source.
#8
undrave
Jul 01, 2009 18:29:00 Plus aren't purple dragons already 'sorta' psionic with their psychic stuff?

Maybe the Gem Dragon's niche would be as living loot XD you kill 'em you get a certain amount of parcel worth of gems hahaha.
#9
MaoiNeko
Jul 01, 2009 19:26:19 I always thought the gem dragons were pretty interesting. And I was hoping they bring them back with the psionic power source. Guess we'll jus have to wait n see.
#10
malegnomebard
Jul 01, 2009 19:37:39 Personally, I think they should have a different set of dragons in each Monster Manual. They've only announced five types, which could mean that either a) Wizards are not going to publish new dragons after Monster Manual 5 and Draconomicon 5, in which case they're meanies since dragons are so popular; or b) they'll have new dragon types ready for the second half of 4th Edition, in which case YAAAAAAAAY (now there's a palindrome)! As for gem dragons, I personally would like to find out more about them...for now though, I guess I'll create new versions of Orange and Yellow Dragons...:D
#11
ranadiel
Jul 01, 2009 20:37:00
Well, the gem dragons were also psionic (at least in 3.5). Giving their abilities a psionic flavor instead of the elemental/arcane flavor of the current dragons could be their niche. Though were that to be the case MM3 would seem to be the most ideal home for them so as to compliment PH3's psionic power source.

MM3 is covering Catastrophic Dragons. The earliest I would expect to see Gem Dragons, assuming they are done, is MM5 or MM6.
#12
undrave
Jul 01, 2009 20:50:20
MM3 is covering Catastrophic Dragons. The earliest I would expect to see Gem Dragons, assuming they are done, is MM5 or MM6.

what would be in MM4?
#13
sigil_beguiler
Jul 01, 2009 20:53:24
what would be in MM4?

Scourge Dragons.
#14
wizardmon
Jul 02, 2009 17:21:10 It almost seems to me that Gem dragons might be the Metalic's Planar Dragons.
#15
salla
Jul 02, 2009 17:25:09 Like the Metallics, Gem dragons are likely to need a new schtick beyond simply being 'the neutral dragons' to sit between 'the good dragons' and 'the evil dragons'.
#16
Tharag_Bocc
Jul 02, 2009 21:29:12
It almost seems to me that Gem dragons might be the Metalic's Planar Dragons.

I could live with that. It wouldn't be my preference, but it's better than nothing.
#17
undrave
Jul 02, 2009 22:12:13 Everything's shinier and brighter in the Feywild!
#18
Tharag_Bocc
Jul 02, 2009 23:36:32
Everything's shinier and brighter in the Feywild!

Except when it's darker and more malevolent. Dark Faeries are no laughing matter.
#19
undrave
Jul 04, 2009 13:45:35
Except when it's darker and more malevolent. Dark Faeries are no laughing matter.

Dark Fairies shine too...just in blacklight!

The Feydark is the best spot for raves :P
#20
johnnype
Jul 04, 2009 17:26:02 I'd love to see them come back. I always thought of them as psionic first and neutral second but that's just me. Perhaps a nice detailed write up in Dragon or Dungeon Magazine at the time PHB3 comes out?
#21
maletwi-lekjedi_dup
Jul 04, 2009 19:18:40 They could always swap the roles that Metallics and Gems apparently had in earlier editions (I say 'apparently' because I only really got into D&D through 4th Ed - 3.5 was just not newbie-friendly!)...I mean, there are evil dragons (Chromatics - remind me to post new stats for Oranges and Yellows BTW) and there are unaligned dragons (Metallics...well...except for Silvers (the closest thing to a good dragon right now)), so why not make Gem Dragons good instead of unaligned?

Oh, and before you start blasting criticism at me, just remember that 4th Edition is very different from earlier editions (like the cosmology, alignments...I mean even the WORLDS are different with the new 'Points of Light' system!), so really, there is reason to swap the roles of both Metallics and Gems (besides, I always preferred the thought of a pretty, sparkly dragon being good rather than a hulking, metal-scaled one...see? Metallic Dragons are (visually) a bit like machines, which are truly unaligned, aren't they?)

Oops...I meant to post this as MaleGnomeBard!
#22
ranadiel
Jul 04, 2009 19:55:57
so why not make Gem Dragons good instead of unaligned?

Because then there is no point in making them? The reason that metallic dragons(and angels also actually) are not universally good anymore is because the developers feel it is a waste of space to stat out creatures that the average party will rarely fight. As the assumption is that most parties are good(or at worst unaligned), there is no need for a race of dragons that is primarily good.
#23
undrave
Jul 04, 2009 21:58:18 Its also poor design for a race to have 'always X alignement' as a defining characteristic and reason to exists. You can make races who are always of that alignement but that should come later.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 LordDreadman Jul 01, 2009 12:54:58	Do we know what happened to Gem Dragons? I don't see them mentioned in the list of dragon types in the MM ... and, frankly, I miss them. If for no other reason than that they looked really cool, they need to come back. Yours, Lord Dreadman
#2 smacintush Jul 01, 2009 13:14:30	I thought I read somewhere in an article (or maybe it was a podcast) that they had no intention of bringing gem dragons back (at the time anyway). I could be mistaken.
#3 Vilnias_Nastavnik Jul 01, 2009 17:23:56	Do we know what happened to Gem Dragons? I don't see them mentioned in the list of dragon types in the MM ... and, frankly, I miss them. If for no other reason than that they looked really cool, they need to come back. Yours, Lord Dreadman In the meanwhile, feel free to work some up on your own, the monster creator on DDI works very well and you can use the current dragons as an example and the old ones as inspiration.
#4 undrave Jul 01, 2009 17:31:00	The monster creator only works for standard monsters though no? Well we got Chromatic and Metallics so far and if the Volcanic Dragon preview is any indication we'll get more of those 'Catastrophic Dragon' in MM3... maybe Gem Dragons will be in MM4?
#5 Vilnias_Nastavnik Jul 01, 2009 17:34:50	The monster creator only works for standard monsters though no? Well we got Chromatic and Metallics so far and if the Volcanic Dragon preview is any indication we'll get more of those 'Catastrophic Dragon' in MM3... maybe Gem Dragons will be in MM4? You can make any moster you want, you write up the stats you want, the powers you want, it handles the basics like HP and such based on the level and role you tell it you want.
#6 Nautilus Jul 01, 2009 18:05:36	I believe gem dragons were originally invented to provide a neutral-aligned alternative to good dragons (metallic) and evil ones (chromatic). In 4e, the metallic dragons are now mainly "neutral" (unaligned), so perhaps the designers thought they now filled the niche that gem dragons once did. If R&D thinks up another compelling niche for gem dragons, then they might come back.
#7 Tharag_Bocc Jul 01, 2009 18:20:18	I believe gem dragons were originally invented to provide a neutral-aligned alternative to good dragons (metallic) and evil ones (chromatic). In 4e, the metallic dragons are now mainly "neutral" (unaligned), so perhaps the designers thought they now filled the niche that gem dragons once did. If R&D thinks up another compelling niche for gem dragons, then they might come back. Well, the gem dragons were also psionic (at least in 3.5). Giving their abilities a psionic flavor instead of the elemental/arcane flavor of the current dragons could be their niche. Though were that to be the case MM3 would seem to be the most ideal home for them so as to compliment PH3's psionic power source.
#8 undrave Jul 01, 2009 18:29:00	Plus aren't purple dragons already 'sorta' psionic with their psychic stuff? Maybe the Gem Dragon's niche would be as living loot XD you kill 'em you get a certain amount of parcel worth of gems hahaha.
#9 MaoiNeko Jul 01, 2009 19:26:19	I always thought the gem dragons were pretty interesting. And I was hoping they bring them back with the psionic power source. Guess we'll jus have to wait n see.
#10 malegnomebard Jul 01, 2009 19:37:39	Personally, I think they should have a different set of dragons in each Monster Manual. They've only announced five types, which could mean that either a) Wizards are not going to publish new dragons after Monster Manual 5 and Draconomicon 5, in which case they're meanies since dragons are so popular; or b) they'll have new dragon types ready for the second half of 4th Edition, in which case YAAAAAAAAY (now there's a palindrome)! As for gem dragons, I personally would like to find out more about them...for now though, I guess I'll create new versions of Orange and Yellow Dragons...:D
#11 ranadiel Jul 01, 2009 20:37:00	Well, the gem dragons were also psionic (at least in 3.5). Giving their abilities a psionic flavor instead of the elemental/arcane flavor of the current dragons could be their niche. Though were that to be the case MM3 would seem to be the most ideal home for them so as to compliment PH3's psionic power source. MM3 is covering Catastrophic Dragons. The earliest I would expect to see Gem Dragons, assuming they are done, is MM5 or MM6.
#12 undrave Jul 01, 2009 20:50:20	MM3 is covering Catastrophic Dragons. The earliest I would expect to see Gem Dragons, assuming they are done, is MM5 or MM6. what would be in MM4?
#13 sigil_beguiler Jul 01, 2009 20:53:24	what would be in MM4? Scourge Dragons.
#14 wizardmon Jul 02, 2009 17:21:10	It almost seems to me that Gem dragons might be the Metalic's Planar Dragons.
#15 salla Jul 02, 2009 17:25:09	Like the Metallics, Gem dragons are likely to need a new schtick beyond simply being 'the neutral dragons' to sit between 'the good dragons' and 'the evil dragons'.
#16 Tharag_Bocc Jul 02, 2009 21:29:12	It almost seems to me that Gem dragons might be the Metalic's Planar Dragons. I could live with that. It wouldn't be my preference, but it's better than nothing.
#17 undrave Jul 02, 2009 22:12:13	Everything's shinier and brighter in the Feywild!
#18 Tharag_Bocc Jul 02, 2009 23:36:32	Everything's shinier and brighter in the Feywild! Except when it's darker and more malevolent. Dark Faeries are no laughing matter.
#19 undrave Jul 04, 2009 13:45:35	Except when it's darker and more malevolent. Dark Faeries are no laughing matter. Dark Fairies shine too...just in blacklight! The Feydark is the best spot for raves :P
#20 johnnype Jul 04, 2009 17:26:02	I'd love to see them come back. I always thought of them as psionic first and neutral second but that's just me. Perhaps a nice detailed write up in Dragon or Dungeon Magazine at the time PHB3 comes out?
#21 maletwi-lekjedi_dup Jul 04, 2009 19:18:40	They could always swap the roles that Metallics and Gems apparently had in earlier editions (I say 'apparently' because I only really got into D&D through 4th Ed - 3.5 was just not newbie-friendly!)...I mean, there are evil dragons (Chromatics - remind me to post new stats for Oranges and Yellows BTW) and there are unaligned dragons (Metallics...well...except for Silvers (the closest thing to a good dragon right now)), so why not make Gem Dragons good instead of unaligned? Oh, and before you start blasting criticism at me, just remember that 4th Edition is very different from earlier editions (like the cosmology, alignments...I mean even the WORLDS are different with the new 'Points of Light' system!), so really, there is reason to swap the roles of both Metallics and Gems (besides, I always preferred the thought of a pretty, sparkly dragon being good rather than a hulking, metal-scaled one...see? Metallic Dragons are (visually) a bit like machines, which are truly unaligned, aren't they?) Oops...I meant to post this as MaleGnomeBard!
#22 ranadiel Jul 04, 2009 19:55:57	so why not make Gem Dragons good instead of unaligned? Because then there is no point in making them? The reason that metallic dragons(and angels also actually) are not universally good anymore is because the developers feel it is a waste of space to stat out creatures that the average party will rarely fight. As the assumption is that most parties are good(or at worst unaligned), there is no need for a race of dragons that is primarily good.
#23 undrave Jul 04, 2009 21:58:18	Its also poor design for a race to have 'always X alignement' as a defining characteristic and reason to exists. You can make races who are always of that alignement but that should come later.