Draconomicon Excerpt - Origins - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Draconomicon Excerpt - Origins

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
mudbunny
Oct 20, 2008 8:26:14 Draconomicon Excerpt - Origins

In today’s Draconomicon preview, we present the origins of dragons (at least, according to the sages), including a look at the first dragons and the sundering of Io's children.

#2
mudbunny
Oct 20, 2008 9:13:41 I found that the 5 (yes, five) different types of dragons to be really interesting and open a whole host of possibilities.

Not just chromatic and metallic, you also have catastrophic (associated with storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions), scourge dragons (strongly asocuiated with brute reality, enjoy visiting afflictions on mortals) and planar dragons.
#3
ranadiel
Oct 20, 2008 10:46:53 I really enjoyed how the history of how the dragons split up. It seemed like something that made a lot of sense, although currently the scourge dragons are very iffy to me. Something about them just feels off to me.
#4
mudbunny
Oct 20, 2008 11:02:27 I got hte same feeling, although I am not sure if that is a mistaken impression due to my experience with 3.5 Dragons.

I think, while reading the article, that it is important to remember that metallic dragons can be any alignment, much as with chromatic dragons. The scourge dragons would have been chromatic dragons in 3.5 and they are given a chaotic evil alignment according to the article.
#5
Dralenan
Oct 20, 2008 12:02:49 Well I was already looking forward to the book, but I really enjoyed the article. I hope the rest of the book is as interesting, I do still wish there was more information in 4e on Metallic dragons...
#6
ranadiel
Oct 20, 2008 14:12:57
I got hte same feeling, although I am not sure if that is a mistaken impression due to my experience with 3.5 Dragons.

I think, while reading the article, that it is important to remember that metallic dragons can be any alignment, much as with chromatic dragons. The scourge dragons would have been chromatic dragons in 3.5 and they are given a chaotic evil alignment according to the article.

Well I think what bugs me is sort of the orgin of the scourge dragons. It just feels somewhat random that a large portion of the dragon population took this route. Perhaps it is just the way the path they took is described that bugs me. *shrugs*
#7
mudbunny
Oct 20, 2008 14:28:28 I thik it will probably be clearer once we get the book in our grubby little mits.
#8
GMforPowergamers
Oct 21, 2008 8:06:55 excuse me well I troll

"whers teh gem dragonz..."

OK now seriusely I wonder if they gave any thought to the Gen Shadow and Deep dragons, they wer always good reading...
#9
ranadiel
Oct 21, 2008 8:54:56
excuse me well I troll

"whers teh gem dragonz..."

OK now seriusely I wonder if they gave any thought to the Gen Shadow and Deep dragons, they wer always good reading...

I'm sure they gave some thought to them, and I'm sure the shadow dragon will return as planar dragons that reside on the shadowfell(the mental image I got while I typed that was freaking awesome).

I'm not too familiar with deep dragons, but they could potentially be absorbed by some other dragon family(off the top of my head maybe be the name for the catastrophe dragons that burrows under the earth and causes earthquakes).

Gem dragons though seem like a much more odd fit. Assuming they keep the psionic connection and eventually do make gem dragons, I really don't think we can do any meaningful speculation on them right now. However one way they could go with gem dragons would be essentially artifically created dragons made out of gems to serve as guards and such, but they eventually gained sentience and a means of reproduction. So they wouldn't be "true" dragons, but they could certainly be roughly on par with them and keep the dragon name.

Right now though I am more interested in how they are going to do eastern dragons(I forgot what they were called in previous editions) because I don't see any easy way to work them in with the other dragon families.
#10
Artifact
Oct 21, 2008 13:50:28 They sure have been doing a number on me with these excerpts ;). Draconomicon: Chromatic was another supplement that I was well on the way to "overlooking" as just another re-hash . . . until I saw this latest excerpt.

Right up front, I'll admit that I'm not a fan of the new edition. What I really do like though, is some of the "re-imagining" (that's what I call it ;)) being brought to D&D. After so many years, the flavor feels fresh to me again, not just rehashed.

The idea of catastrophic and scourge dragons is interesting, enough that I may actually consider buying the book now. A successful excerpt, eh? I may end up sticking around with the new edition longer than I anticipated.
#11
Grazel
Oct 21, 2008 15:15:30 Well some of hte gem and eastern dragons could fit in with the other dragon types. Eastern dragons especially would fit with the catastrophe dragons as they were associated with typhoons and similiar natural disasters. Gem dragons could blend in with some of the scourge or planar dragons.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mudbunny Oct 20, 2008 8:26:14	Draconomicon Excerpt - Origins In today’s Draconomicon preview, we present the origins of dragons (at least, according to the sages), including a look at the first dragons and the sundering of Io's children.
#2 mudbunny Oct 20, 2008 9:13:41	I found that the 5 (yes, five) different types of dragons to be really interesting and open a whole host of possibilities. Not just chromatic and metallic, you also have catastrophic (associated with storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions), scourge dragons (strongly asocuiated with brute reality, enjoy visiting afflictions on mortals) and planar dragons.
#3 ranadiel Oct 20, 2008 10:46:53	I really enjoyed how the history of how the dragons split up. It seemed like something that made a lot of sense, although currently the scourge dragons are very iffy to me. Something about them just feels off to me.
#4 mudbunny Oct 20, 2008 11:02:27	I got hte same feeling, although I am not sure if that is a mistaken impression due to my experience with 3.5 Dragons. I think, while reading the article, that it is important to remember that metallic dragons can be any alignment, much as with chromatic dragons. The scourge dragons would have been chromatic dragons in 3.5 and they are given a chaotic evil alignment according to the article.
#5 Dralenan Oct 20, 2008 12:02:49	Well I was already looking forward to the book, but I really enjoyed the article. I hope the rest of the book is as interesting, I do still wish there was more information in 4e on Metallic dragons...
#6 ranadiel Oct 20, 2008 14:12:57	I got hte same feeling, although I am not sure if that is a mistaken impression due to my experience with 3.5 Dragons. I think, while reading the article, that it is important to remember that metallic dragons can be any alignment, much as with chromatic dragons. The scourge dragons would have been chromatic dragons in 3.5 and they are given a chaotic evil alignment according to the article. Well I think what bugs me is sort of the orgin of the scourge dragons. It just feels somewhat random that a large portion of the dragon population took this route. Perhaps it is just the way the path they took is described that bugs me. shrugs
#7 mudbunny Oct 20, 2008 14:28:28	I thik it will probably be clearer once we get the book in our grubby little mits.
#8 GMforPowergamers Oct 21, 2008 8:06:55	excuse me well I troll "whers teh gem dragonz..." OK now seriusely I wonder if they gave any thought to the Gen Shadow and Deep dragons, they wer always good reading...
#9 ranadiel Oct 21, 2008 8:54:56	excuse me well I troll "whers teh gem dragonz..." OK now seriusely I wonder if they gave any thought to the Gen Shadow and Deep dragons, they wer always good reading... I'm sure they gave some thought to them, and I'm sure the shadow dragon will return as planar dragons that reside on the shadowfell(the mental image I got while I typed that was freaking awesome). I'm not too familiar with deep dragons, but they could potentially be absorbed by some other dragon family(off the top of my head maybe be the name for the catastrophe dragons that burrows under the earth and causes earthquakes). Gem dragons though seem like a much more odd fit. Assuming they keep the psionic connection and eventually do make gem dragons, I really don't think we can do any meaningful speculation on them right now. However one way they could go with gem dragons would be essentially artifically created dragons made out of gems to serve as guards and such, but they eventually gained sentience and a means of reproduction. So they wouldn't be "true" dragons, but they could certainly be roughly on par with them and keep the dragon name. Right now though I am more interested in how they are going to do eastern dragons(I forgot what they were called in previous editions) because I don't see any easy way to work them in with the other dragon families.
#10 Artifact Oct 21, 2008 13:50:28	They sure have been doing a number on me with these excerpts ;). Draconomicon: Chromatic was another supplement that I was well on the way to "overlooking" as just another re-hash . . . until I saw this latest excerpt. Right up front, I'll admit that I'm not a fan of the new edition. What I really do like though, is some of the "re-imagining" (that's what I call it ;)) being brought to D&D. After so many years, the flavor feels fresh to me again, not just rehashed. The idea of catastrophic and scourge dragons is interesting, enough that I may actually consider buying the book now. A successful excerpt, eh? I may end up sticking around with the new edition longer than I anticipated.
#11 Grazel Oct 21, 2008 15:15:30	Well some of hte gem and eastern dragons could fit in with the other dragon types. Eastern dragons especially would fit with the catastrophe dragons as they were associated with typhoons and similiar natural disasters. Gem dragons could blend in with some of the scourge or planar dragons.