I'm following Faerun from a long time now : Novels, D&D gaming, etc... I like the lore, the characters... and since the new D&D edition, I'm very interested about all the things that happenned on the land, some interesting, others more a deception... but still, in it's whole, it gives us a new land, with an all new background and history.
BUT, since the start on all that, i tried to find WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DRAGONS after the Dracorage, after Sammaster was killed... it was like there was a war beginning between Bahamut and Tiamat... but no information on that...
In fact, there's not much information on WHAT HAPPENNED in the last 100 years, which leads me to that question : WHERE ARE THE METALLIC DRAGONS IN 1479 ?? What happenned to them after the Dracorage, or after the Spellplague ? Is there a timeline somewhere that i didn't found that explain in detail what happenned ??... or at least, if there's still dragons on Faerun !! (exception of Returned Abeir).
Thanks a lot !!
WHERE ARE THE METALLIC DRAGONS IN 1479 ??
They're there. Metallics just haven't been touched on yet in 4E.
They're there. Metallics just haven't been touched on yet in 4E.
It has been mentioned that we may well see the Metallics in a later Draconomicon. But since there are other groups of specifically Foe type Dragons that could be covered before these your guess is as good as mine as to when and, in fact, whether we will see this book.
-Well, their stats exist in 3e and before, so one can always make up their own stats for such creatures if they need them.
I, for one, don't care about the stats... one thing that does seem to be missing in the views of a few I have seen in another subforum on this board when discussing the metallics. It isn't their stats I am curious about, but their behaviour, manner and characters that intrigue me.
For some reason reducing a concept that has such wide ranging cultural and historical significance to the "next set of numbers" seems a little... sad to me.
I am probably in the minority though.
I, for one, don't care about the stats... one thing that does seem to be missing in the views of a few I have seen in another subforum on this board when discussing the metallics. It isn't their stats I am curious about, but their behaviour, manner and characters that intrigue me.
For some reason reducing a concept that has such wide ranging cultural and historical significance to the "next set of numbers" seems a little... sad to me.
I am probably in the minority though.
-The same thing applies: All of this information is available through previous sources. If anyone needs them, they can find them in said previous sources, and then update them to fit the ruleset/setting of their choice.
Using prior sources can work, although one must remember that in 4E, metallic dragons are not necessarily good. In general, one can no longer know what to expect from a dragon just by knowing what color it is.
Well looking at the interview with Mr Cordell posted yesterday about the Draconomicon I see that you are entirely correct, m'lady. The metallics are getting a book and why? Well to answer myself, because they have become Foe type dragons.
Well looking at the interview with Mr Cordell posted yesterday about the Draconomicon I see that you are entirely correct, m'lady. The metallics are getting a book and why? Well to answer myself, because they have become Foe type dragons.
So WotC is still on a butchering spree.....
I guess it would have been to much to break the "when you don't fight it you don't need it" philosophy of 4E.
As for using previous sources, thats kninda hard when in the meantime 100 years have passed, a magical armageddon happened and two worlds merged.
So WotC is still on a butchering spree.....
I guess it would have been to much to break the "when you don't fight it you don't need it" philosophy of 4E.
you're using someone's diction as a basis for an attack on WoTC, that's hardly fair. The entire reason behind stating something would have been to fight it, and 4e is not breaking any new ground on stating out metallic dragons.
As for using previous sources, thats kninda hard when in the meantime 100 years have passed, a magical armageddon happened and two worlds merged.
in the context of this thread (dealing with the running of metallic Dragons in a 4e game), it works great. All three of those things really don't phase a dragon much (at all?) .
also these are the kinds of posts people are talking about in that other thread. (an example, not an attack)
you're using someone's diction as a basis for an attack on WoTC, that's hardly fair. The entire reason behind stating something would have been to fight it, and 4e is not breaking any new ground on stating out metallic dragons.
So an honest question in response to your statement here.
If this option existed before then why change the character of the metallics? Mr Cordell made a point of saying that they aren't as benign as before...
Does this change mean that the "good" dragons we have heard about stay good? And the new ones, well, you just don't know? Or is this applied retroactively to previously named dragons using the spellplague (and events) as a reason for the "souring of their disposition"? We just don't know.
Personally I want to understand why metallics have been changed in this way.
you're using someone's diction as a basis for an attack on WoTC, that's hardly fair. The entire reason behind stating something would have been to fight it, and 4e is not breaking any new ground on stating out metallic dragons.
See Iluvriens post.
1. It was possible to fight metallic dragons in previous editions.
2. In previous edition metallic dragons were good.
So why must now metallic dragons become non good in order to be statted?
To me that is because of WotC philosophy of "You don't fight it, you don't need it" and "You only play good heroes".
in the context of this thread (dealing with the running of metallic Dragons in a 4e game), it works great. All three of those things really don't phase a dragon much (at all?) .
I disagree. So much things happened in the time shift that even dragons must have adapted to that. Especially that dragons lost quite a lot of their power with the loss of spellcasting and their other abilities.
"New" Metallics are all good in the same sense that "new" chromatics are all evil. This concept isn't new (and I doubt Eberron started the idea either). You can make metallics antagonistic without changing alot.
I think you are misunderstanding the "new" nature of metallics.
"New" Metallics are all good in the same sense that "new" chromatics are all evil. This concept isn't new (and I doubt Eberron started the idea either). You can make metallics antagonistic without changing alot.
I don't think so. Imo what was said in the interview means that metallics will be unaligned in 4E.
WotC made it quite clear that they only make stats for things you fight and that they mainly support good parties.
Is there any good monster in the Monster Manual?
However, I still hold to my ""New" Metallics are all good in the same sense that "new" chromatics are all evil." comment, and theres no proof either of us can bring to change it really.
I might further prophesize that the metallics may not be as generally benign as earlier editions have painted.
This feels like a shift. This may not be a new idea generally but my memory is not thrusting examples from FR into the spotlight for my cerebral edification. If it exists in Eberron (your example) does it need to exist in FR?
I used to enjoy the situation where, for example, a Silver turned up in a game (2E), CRPG or Novel... I knew that I/I/the character may have been subjected to many things, being munched on probably wasn't on the cards unless you were terminally stupid. Is this reassurance not now gone?
Is this reassurance not now gone?
-Apparently.
-I would want Gold and Silver Dragons to stay more-or-less paragons of justice and goodness. The other Metallic Dragons, eh. Their existence, to me, has always felt forced, in the sense that, since there are 5 "evil" Dragons, there need to be 5 "good" Dragons, when maybe two or three would have sufficed.
-Apparently.
-I would want Gold and Silver Dragons to stay more-or-less paragons of justice and goodness. The other Metallic Dragons, eh. Their existence, to me, has always felt forced, in the sense that, since there are 5 "evil" Dragons, there need to be 5 "good" Dragons, when maybe two or three would have sufficed.
Maybe, but I'm fond of copper dragons, the jokers.
-Sure, but without looking, what's the difference between the Copper Dragons, and the Bronze Dragons? I had to look up the name of the second group, just to ask the question! I'd appreciate more variance among the Metallic Dragons. If there was more variance, I'd have no problem with more Metallic Dragons. That's not to say that I don't like Metallic Dragons, or want more, but...
There isn't enough difference between fun loving trickster dragons in the desert and highly militaristic animal friend dragons which live near the ocean? (Without looking)
-Reading Dragons of Faerûn this afternoon however, in preparation for my campaign, I noticed that Steel and Mercury Dragons are both Metallic Dragons. Them, I like. Steel being militaristic and such, and Mercury being stealthy tricksters (again, we're getting into chaotic [good] fire-breathing Metallic Dragons being tricksters territory, already)...
-Again, I can't tell you one thing about either Copper Dragons or Bronze, other than both are chaotic, and both breathe fire (I think). Oh, and Brass Dragons. I completely forgot about them.
Bronzes are lawful and breath lightning and repulsion gas while coppers are indeed chaotic and breath acid (don't know their secondary breath weapon).
I can't tell you much about Gnolls, so are gnolls bad monsters or did I just not read their entry?
You decide.....
At one point they nearly killed Valamaradace, which was an eye-opening battle for the players and me.
I can't tell you much about Gnolls, so are gnolls bad monsters or did I just not read their entry?
You decide.....
-There's no other monsters in the Monster Manual like Gnolls, without broadening the criteria of how you are defining them. The same cannot be said for Metallic Dragons. Chromatic Dragons, they maintain enough individuality, in both behavior and in physical make-up. Whites, are savage and breathe frost. Reds are "grand", and breathe fire. Blacks are devious, live in swamps, and breathe acid. Blues live in deserts, and breathe electricity. There's too much overlap in the Metallic Dragon category. Same thing with the Gem Dragons, though I know much less about them. And, of course, the differences with Planar Dragons are very compelling and obvious.
-Sure, but without looking, what's the difference between the Copper Dragons, and the Bronze Dragons?
Good point, although I knew of the top of my head that Coppers are CG and Bronzes are LG.
In previous editions, anyway.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
-Blue Dragons live by the Sea now, Sand Dragons are the desert dwellers in 4E. :P
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
-Suffice to say, not where I come from. At least concerning Blues. Sand Dragons already live in sandy places, obviously. That'd be a major misnomer, them not being in such places. Kind of like saying Deep Dragons live high above the clouds.
-There's no other monsters in the Monster Manual like Gnolls, without broadening the criteria of how you are defining them. The same cannot be said for Metallic Dragons. Chromatic Dragons, they maintain enough individuality, in both behavior and in physical make-up. Whites, are savage and breathe frost. Reds are "grand", and breathe fire. Blacks are devious, live in swamps, and breathe acid. Blues live in deserts, and breathe electricity. There's too much overlap in the Metallic Dragon category. Same thing with the Gem Dragons, though I know much less about them. And, of course, the differences with Planar Dragons are very compelling and obvious.
Golds live in secluded lair, fanatically fight evil and breath fire&weakening gas
Silvers like humans, often spend time in humanoid form, lair in high mountains, breath cold & paralyzation gas
Bronzes live on the coast, don't like to harm animals and are fascinated by the military and often join it in disguise. They breath lightning and repulsion gas
Coppers live in dessert, like to play pranks and breath acid and slowing gas
Brass dragons live in dry mountains and liek to talk to people and often force bypassing humans to extensively talk with them. Like golds they breath fire but also sleep gas.
I don't see much overlap between those.
Without looking, tell me the differences between goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls and orcs.
Or the difference between bugbears, ogres and ettins.
I think the issue is that dragons are known mainly by their colors (not by "experts" on the issue, but by the average gamer), and various metallic shades aren't as distinguishable from each other as the regular colors (blue, red, white, green, black). Gold and Silver probably stand out more because those concepts (as far as I know) are more prominent in the real life cultures of most gamers than brass, bronze, and copper.
But that doesn't mean that those dragons overlap. Especially the bronze was very unique among dragons because he lives near the sea.
-You are fighting an uphill battle, in that, primarily, most of the creatures you are naming are unrelated, except for the Goblinoids (Goblin, Hobgoblin and Bugbears), whereas with the Dragons, they are related.
And still, those monsters overlap more than the metallic dragons do.
But that doesn't mean that those dragons overlap.
I did not say that they did.
-Suffice to say, not where I come from. At least concerning Blues. Sand Dragons already live in sandy places, obviously. That'd be a major misnomer, them not being in such places. Kind of like saying Deep Dragons live high above the clouds.
-:P Blue is the color of water, right. Or is it Green.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
And still, those monsters overlap more than the metallic dragons do.
-If you want to expand the criterion of definitions to "biped, savage Humanoids", as I alluded to earlier, then sure. If you don't, however, then no, no they don't. Whereas, concerning the Dragons in question, they are all Dragons, and they are all Metallic Dragons. The range is narrowed quite a bit, whereas, with your list, the range is quite broad, and accurate grouping can only occurred when the specific criterion are broad as well.
-:P Blue is the color of water, right. Or is it Green.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
-Where I come from, green.
-If you want to expand the criterion of definitions to "biped, savage Humanoids", as I alluded to earlier, then sure. If you don't, however, then no, no they don't. Whereas, concerning the Dragons in question, they are all Dragons, and they are all Metallic Dragons. The range is narrowed quite a bit, whereas, with your list, the range is quite broad, and accurate grouping can only occurred when the specific criterion are broad as well.
So if there wasn't a heading "metallic dragons" and instead they were presented as separate monsters all would be well?
So if there wasn't a heading "metallic dragons" and instead they were presented as separate monsters all would be well?
-Would all be well? No. Would some of what I see as being a problem being eliminated? Not necessarily. That would make it worse, I think. Then you have 5 monsters that aren't related running around. Why are they so similar? You'd have new problems, now.
Heck I can't even count how many chaotic evil humanoids with no sense of tactics who only attack with superior numbers are there in D&D.
But in reality those monsters have much more overlap than the metallic dragons have. So when you have no problems with them you shouldn't have a problem with the metallics as each of them has much different abilities and personalities.