# Fizban's Treasury of Dragons: An In-Depth Review



## Lyxen (Oct 18, 2021)

That is indeed an in-depth review. I can't say I'm extremely excited for it, most dragonic supplements have been preey meh for me in the past, but at least I'll give it a try...


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Oct 18, 2021)

I'll be honest, the First World and dragon echoes lore still feels weird to me, but this review has me a bit more tempted to get the book. I'm curious about how the magic associated with dragon hoards works, for one thing.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 18, 2021)

Weird thought about Dragon sight, what happens when a Dragon created by True Polymorph tries to do Dragon Sight?


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 18, 2021)

My quibble with the review:



brimmels said:


> One thing I liked is that they changed the breath weapon shape. In the *PHB* half of the breath weapons had a cone shape and half had a line but there was no rhyme or reason as to which was which. For example, brass dragonborn had a fire breath weapon in a line and gold and red dragonborn had cone-shaped fire breath weapons



???

No rhyme or reason?

Do I have to say it?


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 18, 2021)

brimmels said:


> Second, I *love* the gem dragons and was disappointed they weren't included in the 5E *Monster Manual.*



As do I, and their entire absence from 4E…


brimmels said:


> It ties the actual creation of the D&D multiverse to dragons, specifically Bahamut and Tiamat, who then created Sardior, the ruby dragon and first of the gem dragons.



Gutted over Sardior getting shattered, but that means his essence can be reassembled. Somehow.


brimmels said:


> More powerful is a Draconic Shard. Since gem dragons have psionic abilities, sometimes a gem dragon's mind and will refuses to go and instead inhabits an item in the dragon's hoard, usually a weapon. In its true form, it looks like a spectral dragon but people typically see the item it inhabits. The Draconic Shard will continue to pursue the original dragon's agenda. Formidable foes, Draconic Shards are difficult to destroy, are a CR 17, and have legendary actions.



So wait, is this now somewhat analogous to a dracolich's phylactery?


brimmels said:


> Moonstone dragons are gem dragons touched by the feywild. When the First World was invaded by gods creating their own followers, a dragon hid their clutch of eggs in the feywild, which transformed them. They can inspire artists and poets that live near their lairs by visiting their dreams. They also cherish treasure that doesn't have a material value, like a locket of hair of a beloved person or the memory of a song's heartfelt performance. That said, they're still fond of silver, mithral, and platinum.



I love this one. Moonstones _are_ after all gems but it's different enough from the other five with dreams effects.


brimmels said:


> The gem dragons have scales that glint like gems or, in the case of the sapphire dragon, have a depth of color appropriate for its namesake. And yet, if you look at the art that goes with the gem dragon stat blocks and compare it to the counterparts for metallic and chromatic dragons the art doesn't have the same majesty. I can't put my finger on why, but a side-by-side comparison makes the difference noticeable even though the new art is otherwise perfectly fine. It's a small quibble, but the difference is odd.



I don't like them looking too smooth (even though I plan to collect the WizKid gem dragon figures), as it makes them look like they are sculpted from glass. Which is not a gem, with some exceptions. I wanted their scales to actually look faceted like their namesake gems.


----------



## Scribe (Oct 18, 2021)

5e art is hit or miss to me, but I'm very excited for this book. 

That Gold Dragon looks amazing.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 18, 2021)

No info on how much you can get for different dragonscales? 

fail. /s 

no actually this sounds rad. I'm glad I preordered it.


----------



## Weiley31 (Oct 18, 2021)

I must say, the whole "Dragon Echoes" thing is probably the best part about 5E's Dragon lore.


----------



## darjr (Oct 18, 2021)




----------



## dave2008 (Oct 18, 2021)

Scribe said:


> 5e art is hit or miss to me, but I'm very excited for this book.
> 
> That Gold Dragon looks amazing.



that is true of pretty much every edition IMO.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Oct 18, 2021)

Is now Laurana redhaired? I remember her totally blonde. I am afraid this is a sign of a reboot of Dragonlance. (And now Kitiara is darker skin).


----------



## HammerMan (Oct 18, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> I must say, the whole "Dragon Echoes" thing is probably the best part about 5E's Dragon lore.



is that the multiverse stuff where dragons echo across the multiverse? If so I hope to learn alot more and maybe even plan a campaign around a crisis across the multiverse...

'slides notes about how to make a monitor and anti monitor under my jacket' it is a 100% original idea.


----------



## Bolares (Oct 18, 2021)

darjr said:


>



I love the floating shards look on gem dragons and dragonborn


----------



## The Glen (Oct 18, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Is now Laurana redhaired? I remember her totally blonde. I am afraid this is a sign of a reboot of Dragonlance. (And now Kitiara is darker skin).



I just looked at all the classic art and she's always been a strawberry blond. So red hair is not out of the realm of possibility


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Oct 18, 2021)

Sounds like a good book. Wish I'd had it for my last campaign that climaxed with the 20th level PCs slaying Tiamat...


----------



## Erdric Dragin (Oct 18, 2021)

Gem Dragon art is derpy, just the scales floating slightly off looks cool. They should look more like they did back in 2e and 3e, like an unworked gem and not polished and shiny. That emerald dragon just looks like an anorexic green dragon.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 18, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> Gem Dragon art is derpy, just the scales floating slightly off looks cool. They should look more like they did back in 2e and 3e, like an unworked gem and not polished and shiny. That emerald dragon just looks like an anorexic green dragon.




 For me it's the opposite, I like the polished look, but I don't like the floating horns.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 18, 2021)

Bolares said:


> I love the floating shards look on gem dragons and dragonborn




 The crystal Dragon looks like it got a goiter.


----------



## Bolares (Oct 18, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> For me it's the opposite, I like the polished look, but I don't like the floating horns.



I like them both! Glad we could reach a consensus!


----------



## BrokenTwin (Oct 18, 2021)

Not surprised that the catastrophic dragons didn't make it, but I am disappointed. I loved those things in 4E.
Looks like a solid book for 5E gamers otherwise though.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 18, 2021)

Bolares said:


> I like them both! Glad we could reach a consensus!




 You laugh at the goiter in the Crystal Dragon's throat, but look that bulge in its throat, it either didn't eat enough salt (ironic for a crystal dragon) or it ate some orc adventurers whose bones and Armour got stuck in it leave throat and it's been trying to cough them up for days, which has put it in a pissy mood, hence why it picked the fight with the red dragon wo was just minding his own business looking for the best sulfur to spice his fried Aasimar with (clearly a Dragon with refined, dare I say divine, culinary taste), when all of a sudden he finds himself in a fight with a angry crystal Dragon who talking funny.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 18, 2021)

BrokenTwin said:


> Not surprised that the catastrophic dragons didn't make it, but I am disappointed. I loved those things in 4E.
> Looks like a solid book for 5E gamers otherwise though.




 Yeah the second most disappointing element after the demotion of Dragon Gods/Steel Dragons/Song Dragons was no Catastrophic Dragons (the hilarious irony being the Chromatic Dragon Great Wyrms straight up look like Catastrophic, I mean look at that Great Wyrm Red Dragon and tell me it doesn't look like a really big Volcano Dragon. Then look at the Blue Great Wyrm, with the Sandstorm.


----------



## Mercador (Oct 18, 2021)

Wow, that's quite a review! Can I read it without spoiling too much?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2021)

Mercador said:


> Wow, that's quite a review! Can I read it without spoiling too much?



The book doesn't have a plot to spoil, if that's what you mean? It's a rulebook, not an adventure.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 18, 2021)

Morrus said:


> The book doesn't have a plot to spoil, if that's what you mean? It's a rulebook, not an adventure.




 It doesn't even seem like a lore intensive book, like if you've seen the ToC and know about the first world, that 90% of what you can expect in the book.


----------



## Bolares (Oct 19, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> You laugh at the goiter in the Crystal Dragon's throat, but look that bulge in its throat, it either didn't eat enough salt (ironic for a crystal dragon) or it ate some orc adventurers whose bones and Armour got stuck in it leave throat and it's been trying to cough them up for days, which has put it in a pissy mood, hence why it picked the fight with the red dragon wo was just minding his own business looking for the best sulfur to spice his fried Aasimar with (clearly a Dragon with refined, dare I say divine, culinary taste), when all of a sudden he finds himself in a fight with a angry crystal Dragon who talking funny.



To be fair, a crystal dragon doesn’t need a throat to talk…


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> The crystal Dragon looks like it got a goiter.



I get that they meant it to be a dewlap… but yeah, the crystal dragon in that concept art is a bit on the chubby side.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 19, 2021)

Bolares said:


> To be fair, a crystal dragon doesn’t need a throat to talk…




 Is it really talking if it's telepathic? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Bolares (Oct 19, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Is it really talking if it's telepathic? Asking for a friend.



I’m not the one who will tell the dragon it’s not


----------



## Mercador (Oct 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> The book doesn't have a plot to spoil, if that's what you mean? It's a rulebook, not an adventure.



Well, I watched a video last week and I didn't know who was Fizban. I never read the Dragonlance series so I couldn't know who was Fizban...


----------



## Morrus (Oct 19, 2021)

Mercador said:


> Well, I watched a video last week and I didn't know who was Fizban. I never read the Dragonlance series so I couldn't know who was Fizban...



Right. Yeah, I guess there is that spoiler for the _Dragonlance Chronicles_ book series. I didn't think of that. But that's right in the book description and on the cover, so the horse as well and true bolted the stable on that one. It's in "I am your father!" territory.


----------



## Mercador (Oct 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Right. Yeah, I guess there is that spoiler for the _Dragonlance Chronicles_ book series. I didn't think of that. But that's right in the book description and on the cover, so the horse as well and true bolted the stable on that one. It's in "I am your father!" territory.



Yeah probably... Well, I was just asking if I can read the review without spoiling suprises too much. You know, even if it isn't a story, it's nice to read some nice catchs. Or I'm just a old grumpy cat because I didn't know for Fizban... Probably the latter.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 19, 2021)

Erdric Dragin said:


> Gem Dragon art is derpy, just the scales floating slightly off looks cool. They should look more like they did back in 2e and 3e, like an unworked gem and not polished and shiny. That emerald dragon just looks like an anorexic green dragon.



The 3e art in the MM2 was just disappointing for me. The illustrations just looked rough and unfinished, especially the amethyst and crystal dragons, with awkward poses. The color versions of the 2e gem dragons were ok, but a bit bland, as they didn't bring out the "gem-ness" of them. I mostly like these, but the having the amethyst's tail be the center of focus (which can be seen in other previews) seemed an odd framing choice...


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 19, 2021)

The review and lore seems to imply that 5E is pushing further into high-magic & world-hopping territory.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> The 3e art in the MM2 was just disappointing for me. The illustrations just looked rough and unfinished, especially the amethyst and crystal dragons, with awkward poses.



The artist for the gem dragons was the late Glen Angus, who IMO was spectacular in depicting the gods in _Deities and Demigods_. He might have gone for the roughly cut gemstone look for the amethyst and crystal dragon scales which did not appeal to everyone, so I get what you're saying. I wonder how the definitive dragon artist Todd Lockwood would have rendered them.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Right. Yeah, I guess there is that spoiler for the _Dragonlance Chronicles_ book series. I didn't think of that. But that's right in the book description and on the cover, so the horse as well and true bolted the stable on that one. It's in "I am your father!" territory.




 Spoiler alert expectations have an expiry date, if a book has been out for literally decades, it's way passed that expiry date.


----------



## twincast (Oct 19, 2021)

Out of curiosity, they've said that Tarkir (MTG) would get mentioned in the book. Not in any major way, since it's a setting-neutral D&D book, after all, but it sounded like more than just a namedrop, so...?

And since we're on the topic of D&D dragons, two to three things have always bothered me about them:

Metallic dragons getting fire breath twice and no poison breath.
Sardior being a unique ruby dragon. Ruby dragons should be a common species. And the deity of all gem dragons ought to be crystals shimmering across the spectrum.
Likewise, Tiamat's body should not be predominantly a single color.
Obviously nothing all that hard to alter at home, but this doesn't change the fact of the official fluff - and to varying degrees crunch - irking me. It's honestly why I've never even included gem dragon cameos.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

twincast said:


> Sardior being a unique ruby dragon. Ruby dragons should be a common species. And the deity of all gem dragons ought to be crystals shimmering across the spectrum.



On Mystara they are. But for whatever reason, the original author of the _Dragon_ #37 gem dragons article, Arthur W. Collins, chose ruby for the gem dragon deity. Ideally Sardior should be a diamond dragon, with ruby, emerald, sapphire, amethyst and topaz as the five gem dragon species. If we're going to go by multi-colored gemstones, it would have to be either opal or multi-colored tourmaline.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

twincast said:


> Metallic dragons getting fire breath twice and no poison breath.
> Sardior being a unique ruby dragon. Ruby dragons should be a common species. And the deity of all gem dragons ought to be crystals shimmering across the spectrum.
> Likewise, Tiamat's body should not be predominantly a single color.




Fully agreed. I also never liked how two of the different types of Metallic Dragons were alloys (Bronze, Brass). I think a grouping of 5 Metallic Dragons would be way more fitting if it was "Copper, Silver, Gold, Mithral, and Adamantine", instead of "Copper, Copper-Alloy, Copper-Alloy, Gold, Silver". Hell, I'd even go for Iron and Mercury (or perhaps Tin) over the Brass and Bronze. 
Also agreed. I feel similarly about Bahamut being the Platinum Dragon. Also, I really dislike "Crystal Dragons". Crystal isn't a type of gemstone. Diamond would work better. Actually, I think it would work better if Sardior was the Diamond Dragon, and then the main types of Gem Dragons were Amethyst, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, and Pearl Dragons. I've never been much of a fan of Topaz or Topaz Dragons, and I really don't understand why Topaz dragons do Necrotic damage. (If I were to redo the Breath Weapon damage types for this array of Gem Dragons, Amethyst would be Psychic, Emerald would be Force, Ruby would be Radiant, Sapphire would be Necrotic, and Pearl would be Thunder.)
. . I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Striped-body Tiamat would be weird.


----------



## pogre (Oct 19, 2021)

I just wanted to make a quick comment to say thank you for the review. Your review of _The Wild Beyond the Witchlight_ led me to buy a book I had no intention of even considering - and my players are having a blast with it. This review has convinced me this is a book I am not interested in for now. Although you might not intend the latter, (indeed, you say as much), it does mean the reviews are valuable to me.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Also, I really dislike "Crystal Dragons". Crystal isn't a type of gemstone. Diamond would work better. Actually, I think it would work better if Sardior was the Diamond Dragon, and then the main types of Gem Dragons were Amethyst, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, and Pearl Dragons. I've never been much of a fan of Topaz or Topaz Dragons, and I really don't understand why Topaz dragons do Necrotic damage. (If I were to redo the Breath Weapon damage types for this array of Gem Dragons, Amethyst would be Psychic, Emerald would be Force, Ruby would be Radiant, Sapphire would be Necrotic, and Pearl would be Thunder.)



As anyone might guess, I go crazy over gem dragons so:

Collins may have gone for "crystal" because it is actually an archaic name for quartz (from the Greek "krystallos" to refer to completely clear quartz that was assumed to be permanently frozen ice), but the latter just doesn't give off that precious gemstone feel. I rule out pearl for two reasons: 1) it's an organic gemstone (like amber); and 2) it's more strongly associated with aquatic settings (as I recall the 2e pearl dragon was a coastal beast that enjoys diving into the sea). The gems ruby, emerald, sapphire and topaz are almost always are associated with a single color (red, green, blue and yellow respectively), so we got the color-coded dragon species name going on.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

RavinRay said:


> 1) it's an organic gemstone (like amber)



So what? Dragons are organic. Surely a Gemstone Dragon can be based off of an organic gemstone. 


RavinRay said:


> 2) it's more strongly associated with aquatic settings (as I recall the 2e pearl dragon was a coastal beast that enjoys diving into the sea).



I mean, I was kinda intending that. I would have Pearl Dragons be the "Aquatic Gemstone Dragon". There's an aquatic Chromatic (Black/Green) and aquatic Metallic Dragon (Bronze/and kinda Gold).


----------



## darjr (Oct 19, 2021)

pogre said:


> I just wanted to make a quick comment to say thank you for the review. Your review of _The Wild Beyond the Witchlight_ led me to buy a book I had no intention of even considering - and my players are having a blast with it. This review has convinced me this is a book I am not interested in for now. Although you might not intend the latter, (indeed, you say as much), it does mean the reviews are valuable to me.



Seconded, about the review.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Fully agreed. I also never liked how two of the different types of Metallic Dragons were alloys (Bronze, Brass). I think a grouping of 5 Metallic Dragons would be way more fitting if it was "Copper, Silver, Gold, Mithral, and Adamantine", instead of "Copper, Copper-Alloy, Copper-Alloy, Gold, Silver". Hell, I'd even go for Iron and Mercury (or perhaps Tin) over the Brass and Bronze.
> Also agreed. I feel similarly about Bahamut being the Platinum Dragon. Also, I really dislike "Crystal Dragons". Crystal isn't a type of gemstone. Diamond would work better. Actually, I think it would work better if Sardior was the Diamond Dragon, and then the main types of Gem Dragons were Amethyst, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, and Pearl Dragons. I've never been much of a fan of Topaz or Topaz Dragons, and I really don't understand why Topaz dragons do Necrotic damage. (If I were to redo the Breath Weapon damage types for this array of Gem Dragons, Amethyst would be Psychic, Emerald would be Force, Ruby would be Radiant, Sapphire would be Necrotic, and Pearl would be Thunder.)
> . . I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Striped-body Tiamat would be weird.



Gold - Silver - Bronze is something of a natural progression because of the Olympic Medals and the Ages of Man. And gold - sliver -copper makes sense as the traditional currency order. Brass is always what gets me; it just doesn't seem to fit anywhere and is just kind of random. If anything, they should have continued the Ages of Man order and added Iron at the end as the fifth metallic type.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Gold - Silver - Bronze is something of a natural progression because of the Olympic Medals and the Ages of Man



I see your point, but also would like to point out that dragons are not Olympic Medals or based off of the Ages of Man. They're based off of colors, metals, and gemstones.


Demetrios1453 said:


> gold - sliver -copper makes sense as the traditional currency order



That, and because of how the Periodic Table works. Those three are all in the same column.


Demetrios1453 said:


> Brassss is always what gets me; it just doesn't seem to fit anywhere and is just kind of random. If anything, they should have continued the Ages of Man order and added Iron at the end as the fifth metallic type.



Yeah, Brass is the one I dislike the most, especially because it gets Fire as a breath weapon, but I'm also not a huge fan of Bronze being one of the core types of Metallic Dragons. Iron and Platinum, or Adamantine and Mithral would have worked better, IMO.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> So what? Dragons are organic. Surely a Gemstone Dragon can be based off of an organic gemstone.



Of course we can base a gem dragon from an organic gemstone. Just that including them among the five main gem dragon species leaves them the odd man out. I homebrewed the converted 3.5e amber and pearl dragons as a sister branch to those five gem dragons. They're not psionic out of the egg, but develop psionics in later age categories. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> I mean, I was kinda intending that. I would have Pearl Dragons be the "Aquatic Gemstone Dragon". There's an aquatic Chromatic (Black/Green) and aquatic Metallic Dragon (Bronze/and kinda Gold).



They're more like terrestrial dragons with aquatic adaptations, basically just giving them the water breathing ability and enhanced swim skills. The Oceanus and Styx dragons in the 3.5e _Draconomicon_ are the aquatic true dragons that we had in 3.5e. I homebrewed an entire group of aquatic metallic, chromatic, and gem dragons such as quicksilver (which I differentiated from mercury), sepia, and aquamarine as respective examples. I did it mostly as a spin-off from the lore of Bahamut's Children: if Medrinia is his representative to the good aquatic dragons, where are they? Granted, bronze dragons could fall under her dominion as well, but that's it? Makes her feel kinda lonely not having an entire group of species to watch over.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 19, 2021)

If you are going to be sciencey and technical about your dragons then brass is more of a metal than white is a color.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 19, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Gold - Silver - Bronze is something of a natural progression because of the Olympic Medals and the Ages of Man. And gold - sliver -copper makes sense as the traditional currency order. Brass is always what gets me; it just doesn't seem to fit anywhere and is just kind of random. If anything, they should have continued the Ages of Man order and added Iron at the end as the fifth metallic type.



There's also the problem that the Brass - Bronze - Copper trio just don't have a distinct identity.

Green dragons are the poison dragons that live in forests. Black dragons are the acid dragons that live in swamps. Red dragons are the fire dragons that live in mountains. Clear, iconic, easy to remember. Copper dragons are acid dragons that live in rocky uplands. That's less memorable and a lot more niche. Same with Bronze dragons being lightning dragons that live in coastal regions. And Brass dragons being the fire dragons that... wait, aren't Gold dragons the metallic fire dragons? Well, yes, but apparently we can't have good poison dragons so Brass are fire too. And they prefer hot dry areas like deserts, which makes total sense for dragons described as especially social and gregarious.

Chromatic dragons get very distinct identity hooks and are associated with major biomes. Gold and Silver dragons dispense with the biome links and focus on being shapeshifters who meddle in mortal affairs as their central hook. But the Brass - Bronze - Copper trio just feel like dollar store knockoffs. Their elemental associations aren't reflected in their appearance or attitudes. Their biome associations are the crummy leftovers after the chromatics took the good ones. There's few good hooks for who they are or what they do or how you keep track of which is which. I've been playing D&D for 30 years and I had to _look up_ which was which for this post!

Now, maybe Fizban's will offer some more compelling identity for them. I'm open to being convinced they have some value. But right now, I don't believe I've ever seen one of those three types in actual play in my 30 years, and I don't expect that to change any time soon.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> There's also the problem that the Brass - Bronze - Copper trio just don't have a distinct identity.
> 
> Green dragons are the poison dragons that live in forests. Black dragons are the acid dragons that live in swamps. Red dragons are the fire dragons that live in mountains. Clear, iconic, easy to remember. Copper dragons are acid dragons that live in rocky uplands. That's less memorable and a lot more niche. Same with Bronze dragons being lightning dragons that live in coastal regions. And Brass dragons being the fire dragons that... wait, aren't Gold dragons the metallic fire dragons? Well, yes, but apparently we can't have good poison dragons so Brass are fire too. And they prefer hot dry areas like deserts, which makes total sense for dragons described as especially social and gregarious.
> 
> ...



I actually think that Bronze Dragons are the most compelling of the Brass - Bronze - Copper trio, but I still don't think that they should be one of the 5 main Metallic Dragons. Coastal Dragons that breathe lighting is more interesting than . . . whatever the purpose of Copper and Brass Dragons are. I do think that Copper has potential, but it's not great right now, IMO. And Brass is just plain boring and redundant, in more than one way. The only interesting thing it has going for it is the line of fire that it breathes, and that isn't enough to justify it existing or being a core Metallic Dragon.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I see your point, but also would like to point out that dragons are not Olympic Medals or based off of the Ages of Man. They're based off of colors, metals, and gemstones.
> 
> That, and because of how the Periodic Table works. Those three are all in the same column.
> 
> Yeah, Brass is the one I dislike the most, especially because it gets Fire as a breath weapon, but I'm not a huge fan of Bronze being one of the core types of Metallic Dragons. Iron and Platinum, or Adamantine and Mithral would have worked better, IMO.



Bronze and Brass are _metallic_. They're just alloys and not pure metals. So yeah, I think that will echo the sentiment that I would almost want Metallic dragons to follow the legendary ages of humanity from Greek myth rather than the current set-up. But "tradition!" is a thing, so I doubt that we will escape the yoke of tradition for something that makes more sense.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Bronze and Brass are _metallic_. They're just alloys and not pure metals.



Yup, and while they are alloys, they are alloys of metals. Steel is traditionally an alloy of iron and carbon, a nonmetal. So it makes sense that the steel dragon feels different from the 100% metallic dragons. Also both bronze and brass are alloys of copper, one of the three gold group of metals (Cu, Ag, Au) that form a column in the periodic table of elements. So at least the five main metallic dragons are based on the gold group.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

RavinRay said:


> (Cu, Ag, Au)



Side note: I know you're just writing the symbols for Copper, Silver, and Gold, but "Cuagau" sounds like a fantasy name.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 19, 2021)

A steel dragon should be a cross between an iron dragon and a diamond dragon.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 19, 2021)

Kurotowa said:


> Copper dragons are acid dragons that live in rocky uplands. That's less memorable and a lot more niche. Same with Bronze dragons being lightning dragons that live in coastal regions. And Brass dragons being the fire dragons that... wait, aren't Gold dragons the metallic fire dragons? Well, yes, but apparently we can't have good poison dragons so Brass are fire too. And they prefer hot dry areas like deserts, which makes total sense for dragons described as especially social and gregarious.



I recall that up until 2E, gold dragons had a chlorine (poison - same as a green dragon's) breath weapon in addition to their fire breath weapon. I guess the idea that the "good guys" shouldn't use poison kicked in during the transition to 3E, and it got replaced with the current weakening breath.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 19, 2021)

FireLance said:


> I recall that up until 2E, gold dragons had a chlorine (poison - same as a green dragon's) breath weapon in addition to their fire breath weapon. I guess the idea that the "good guys" shouldn't use poison kicked in during the transition to 3E, and it got replaced with the current weakening breath.



Didnt the Old Gray FR boxed set for 1E also state that Faerunian dragons could use their breath weapon every round as opposed to the normal MM dragons.  I dont recall the actually frequency they could breathe but pretty sure it was more than dragons on other worlds.  .


----------



## NotAYakk (Oct 19, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Weird thought about Dragon sight, what happens when a Dragon created by True Polymorph tries to do Dragon Sight?



Polmorph does not create something new.  It plunders the multuverse for something to copy; this is why you can't attach arbitrary class levels to anything, it must exist.

The polymorphed dragon is a new incarnation of a being elsewhere, a thread of fate stolen from another tapestry.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Oct 19, 2021)

We should remember the possibilities of new species created "artificially" by powerful spellcasters (or as divine reward) who wished enjoy the dragons' longevity. For example a yuan-ti cult creating the cobra dragon as the ultimate war beast. 

An elysian dragonborn with that duck beak would be very funny as April's Fool (and later as a toy for children). And the infernal (lower planar) dragonborn are perfect as "guests" for Ravenloft and Innistrad.


----------



## Bitbrain (Oct 19, 2021)

twincast said:


> And since we're on the topic of D&D dragons...
> 
> Sardior being a unique ruby dragon. Ruby dragons should be a common species. And the deity of all gem dragons ought to be crystals shimmering across the spectrum.
> Likewise, Tiamat's body should not be predominantly a single color.
> Obviously nothing all that hard to alter at home, but this doesn't change the fact of the official fluff - and to varying degrees crunch - irking me. It's honestly why I've never even included gem dragon cameos.




From Mystara
1) Ruby dragons are a thing.  They breathe fire and hire themselves out as mercenaries.
2) Tiamat’s equivalent in this setting is Pearl, a dragon immortal whose scales refract all the colors of the rainbow.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> Also agreed. I feel similarly about Bahamut being the Platinum Dragon. Also, I really dislike "Crystal Dragons". Crystal isn't a type of gemstone. Diamond would work better. Actually, I think it would work better if Sardior was the Diamond Dragon, and then the main types of Gem Dragons were Amethyst, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire, and Pearl Dragons.




There actually is a dragon Immortal in the setting of Mystara called Diamond.  He’s kinda-sorta the Bahamut equivalent.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Side note: I know you're just writing the symbols for Copper, Silver, and Gold, but "Cuagau" sounds like a fantasy name.



A unique three-headed copper silver gold dragon named Cuagau!


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 19, 2021)

NotAYakk said:


> Polmorph does not create something new.  It plunders the multuverse for something to copy; this is why you can't attach arbitrary class levels to anything, it must exist.
> 
> The polymorphed dragon is a new incarnation of a being elsewhere, a thread of fate stolen from another tapestry.




 Is this official lore or your head canon? I like it either way.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 19, 2021)

Does anyone know when the hard copy drops in the UK? as I preordered with my flgs?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> Does anyone know when the hard copy drops in the UK? as I preordered with my flgs?



Did you hear about the book's release date being delayed about a week? It shouldn't come until the 26th at the earliest.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Did you hear about the book's release date being delayed about a week? It shouldn't come until the 26th at the earliest.



okay, I just need to know for pick up reasons.


----------



## Guang (Oct 19, 2021)

Love the review. Very informative. Makes me want even more to read the book.

So - floating horns? They look really nice, and I get what they are supposed to represent, but how does that work, practically? Could I grab a gem dragonborn's horn and play keep-away with it? Could they wedge something in the gap, like a book maybe, and conveniently hold it? Is the horn actually/seemingly separated, and is there actually/seemingly a gap?

Put me down for another one that was always confused with the brass/bronze/copper trio. I was trying to explain the metallics and chromatics to my son at lunch today, and I realized in the middle of the explanation that I had the three copperys all jumbled together in my mind.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 19, 2021)

Guang said:


> Love the review. Very informative. Makes me want even more to read the book.
> 
> So - floating horns? They look really nice, and I get what they are supposed to represent, but how does that work, practically? Could I grab a gem dragonborn's horn and play keep-away with it? Could they wedge something in the gap, like a book maybe, and conveniently hold it? Is the horn actually/seemingly separated, and is there actually/seemingly a gap?
> 
> Put me down for another one that was always confused with the brass/bronze/copper trio. I was trying to explain the metallics and chromatics to my son at lunch today, and I realized in the middle of the explanation that I had the three copperys all jumbled together in my mind.



brass and bronze never made sense as dragons.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> brass and bronze never made sense as dragons.



Don't you even dare suggest getting rid of my favorite dragons.


----------



## doctorhook (Oct 19, 2021)

Scribe said:


> 5e art is hit or miss to me, but I'm very excited for this book.
> 
> That Gold Dragon looks amazing.



Several pieces of the art shown here were featured in this year’s Adventures in the Forgotten Realms set for Magic the Gathering. This confirmed my suspicions that that set was previewing a lot of stuff for later.


----------



## doctorhook (Oct 19, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> brass and bronze never made sense as dragons.



Why not? They don’t match the dragons you’ve seen in real life?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Guang said:


> Love the review. Very informative. Makes me want even more to read the book.
> 
> So - floating horns? They look really nice, and I get what they are supposed to represent, but how does that work, practically? Could I grab a gem dragonborn's horn and play keep-away with it? Could they wedge something in the gap, like a book maybe, and conveniently hold it? Is the horn actually/seemingly separated, and is there actually/seemingly a gap?



I'm guessing that it's some type of passive Telekinesis ability that Gem Dragons have. Likely related to their intrinsic tie to the Material Plane and magical nature. I would guess that you could put something between the gap, but I don't think that there would be a ton of uses for that. 


Guang said:


> Put me down for another one that was always confused with the brass/bronze/copper trio. I was trying to explain the metallics and chromatics to my son at lunch today, and I realized in the middle of the explanation that I had the three copperys all jumbled together in my mind.



Fully agreed. I honestly could not tell you what environment a Brass Dragon is supposed to live in, nor what their usual behavior is like. I believe that Bronze Dragons are pretty friendly, acting a bit like draconic, talking dolphins, while Copper Dragons are tricksters/pranksters (because D&D needed more prankster dragon types ).


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 19, 2021)

Floating gem dragon horns seem like the most obvious essential component a wizard would need to craft an Ioun stone.


----------



## Bolares (Oct 19, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Floating gem dragon horns seem like the most obvious essential component a wizard would need to craft an Ioun stone.



That's a great idea!


----------



## Bolares (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> (because D&D needed more prankster dragon types ).



I bet there's a story here? What horrible DM did something to you?


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Oct 19, 2021)

I think it is kinda funny seeing people arguing against the Bronze and Brass Dragons when, in 4E, WotC had replaced them in the MM with Adamantine and Iron Dragons. I swear, time is a flat circle.


----------



## RoughCoronet0 (Oct 19, 2021)

I never had a problem with the Copper/Bronze/Brass trio personally and think they are all pretty interesting.

Copper dragons - Smallest of the main 5 metallic dragons known to lair in canyons, caves, and other rocky places. They are amazing climbers, even having spider climb as a natural ability in earlier editions and love to hunt various large poisonous insects and arachnids. They are free spirited and jovial pranksters that love to have a good laugh, even if it is sometimes at the expense of others.

Brass Dragons - Known to lair in the desert and other arid places of the world and love to bask in the Sun or bury themselves in sand. They are great conversationalist and love to share stories and match their clever wits against other creatures like Genies or Sphinxes and often summon such creatures for companionship. Sometimes though they like the sound of their voice too much and will bury those that try to avoid talking to them in sand up to their necks until their thirst for conversation is satiated. 

Bronze Dragons - Known to make their lairs along coastlines, these dragons are the Paladins of dragonkind. They are known to polymorph a lot to observe humanoids they come across and determine if they are of good heart or not. They will save drowning sailors, but they also hunt pirates and other sentient sea creatures with a vengeance. They are justice bringers, but can sometimes be a bit lawful stupid in their approach.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Oct 19, 2021)

Bronze dragons are a big deal in the Dragonriders of Pern books which would have been floating around the popular zeitgeist when the game was being written. Might've been a factor there.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 19, 2021)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> I think it is kinda funny seeing people arguing against the Bronze and Brass Dragons when, in 4E, WotC had replaced them in the MM with Adamantine and Iron Dragons. I swear, time is a flat circle.



Not _every_ change for 4e was bad. Especially not the setting and lore ones. But there was such a push for traditionalism in designing 5e that everything got thrown out, and honestly I bounced off the mechanics hard enough I never got to see what the hook for Adamantine and Iron dragons was supposed to be. Maybe they were cool? I honestly don't know.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 19, 2021)

The actual book itself seems overall fine. It's a dragon book; it does what it's supposed to do. Some of the contents are things which make me unsure how I feel about what appears to be the vision for D&D 5E's future. 

Dragonborn: I think it makes sense to codify dragonborn into metallic and chromatic for Dragonlance. Until now, I had that dragonborn (as a species) weren't necessarily tied to the same divisions as dragons. Not a big deal; I had simply thought that the lore had implied they weren't up to this point.

- I'm intrigued by the damage change to Dragonborn breath weapons. Is the change an indication that parts of the game are being tweaked to fit a different set of underlying numbers?

As I said in a previous post, it appears that the vision for D&D going forward leans toward being much more about high-magic and world-hopping. The more I think about that, the more I'm unsure how I feel. 4E went that direction, and there are/were things I liked about 4E design. At the same time, one of my criticisms of 4E is that the PCs often seemed above/divorced from the game world rather than part of it.

-I could see going in something of a He-Man direction with D&D: pew-pew lasers, flying around, and etc. That would probably be desirable in terms of toy lines and related products for a brand. Though, I also feel like that's potentially moving in the wrong direction for what a portion of the audience wants from fantasy in a culture that's now influenced by Game of Thrones, Witcher, and etc. To be fair though, a Marvel Avengers with a thin fantasy paint job probably works well.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> I think it is kinda funny seeing people arguing against the Bronze and Brass Dragons when, in 4E, WotC had replaced them in the MM with Adamantine and Iron Dragons. I swear, time is a flat circle.



The 4e Draconomicon 2, which detailed Metallic dragons, included Adamantine, Brass, Bronze, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Mercury, Mithril, Orium, Silver, and Steel dragons. 

I suspect that if 4e continued and we got a Draconomicon 3 that we would have gotten gem dragons detailed in that book too.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 19, 2021)

For chromatic, if they were created in 3.5 or 5 instead of as vestiges of earlier, would there be one for each energy type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic).  And so switching green to sonic could be a thing.

For metallic, is there a reason to have five instead of three, except for symmetry?

And it's missing the greatest dragon of all time, Quasar.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 19, 2021)

Cadence said:


> And it's missing the greatest dragon of all time, Quasar.  Void



Man I like Void dragons...from Kobold Press....a lot.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 19, 2021)

For those who have problems with brass and bronze dragons, consider that in most D&D world histories, dragons existed before the alloys. IMO, the dragon names came about not to fit some notion of categories, but were based on how they appeared. When men saw a brass dragon, they noted that its scales shone like brass, hence the name.

You could consider the reverse, that the dragon names came first, depending on the history in world. And then when gold was first dug out of the ground (or the bronze alloy was created), they named the metals after the dragons they resembled.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

SkidAce said:


> Man I like Void dragons...from Kobold Press....a lot.



I used them in my homebrew Spelljammer campaign, actually. The party needed a boost across the solar system, so it used its breath weapon to propel them at super fast speeds to get to their destination. The party loved it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Rabulias said:


> For those who have problems with brass and bronze dragons, consider that in most D&D world histories, dragons existed before the alloys. IMO, the dragon names came about not to fit some notion of categories, but were based on how they appeared. When men saw a brass dragon, they noted that its scales shone like brass, hence the name.
> 
> You could consider the reverse, that the dragon names came first, depending on the history in world. And then when gold was first dug out of the ground (or the bronze alloy was created), they named the metals after the dragons they resembled.



Thermian Argument. The real world creators of those dragon types are who we're blaming for them being boring, not the people in the fantasy worlds. Gary Gygax and Co. knew that Brass and Bronze were alloys when making the Dragon types.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Bolares said:


> I bet there's a story here? What horrible DM did something to you?



Oh, yes, there's a story. Let's just say, a particularly annoying encounter with Faerie Dragons that almost resulted in a TPK enraged my character so much that they started a company that's sole purpose was selling curtains, rugs, and armors made out of Faerie Dragon Hide.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Thermian Argument. The real world creators of those dragon types are who we're blaming for them being boring, not the people in the fantasy worlds. Gary Gygax and Co. knew that Brass and Bronze were alloys when making the Dragon types.



But it’s a strange thing to be mad about. So what? There is already too much needless, pointless, symmetry with dragons.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Thermian Argument. The real world creators of those dragon types are who we're blaming for them being boring, not the people in the fantasy worlds. Gary Gygax and Co. knew that Brass and Bronze were alloys when making the Dragon types.



I should clarify. My point is directed at those who have a problem with brass and bronze dragons _simply because of their name_. If you find the mechanics of the dragons boring/uninspiring/whatever, then my comments do not apply to you.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But it’s a strange thing to be mad about. So what? There is already too much needless, pointless, symmetry with dragons.



I like the symmetry. I like symmetry in general, and I like it in game/world design. And I'm not "mad", just . . . I'm not sure what a good word to describe it would be. "Annoyed", maybe? Probably "uninspired". Dragons are supposed to be inspiring. All of the Chromatic Dragons are inspiring to me. Most of the Gem Dragons, too. But Brass/Copper/Bronze dragons being 3 of the core Metallic Dragons, and being Copper or an alloy of Copper? That's not inspiring, that's just redundant and a wasted opportunity to do something cooler. 

Weren't you in the "Is Takhisis actually Tiamat" getting annoyed at the fact that they are, in fact, the same entity? How is that not on the same level as this?


----------



## Faolyn (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Fully agreed. I also never liked how two of the different types of Metallic Dragons were alloys (Bronze, Brass). I think a grouping of 5 Metallic Dragons would be way more fitting if it was "Copper, Silver, Gold, Mithral, and Adamantine", instead of "Copper, Copper-Alloy, Copper-Alloy, Gold, Silver". Hell, I'd even go for Iron and Mercury (or perhaps Tin) over the Brass and Bronze.



I'd've liked to have a lead dragon. You want a metallic dragon with a poisonous breath? Here ya go!


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> The 4e Draconomicon 2, which detailed Metallic dragons, included Adamantine, Brass, Bronze, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Mercury, Mithril, Orium, Silver, and Steel dragons.
> 
> I suspect that if 4e continued and we got a Draconomicon 3 that we would have gotten gem dragons detailed in that book too.




I'm bummed that we never got the Catastrophic Dragons.


----------



## Faolyn (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I mean, I was kinda intending that. I would have Pearl Dragons be the "Aquatic Gemstone Dragon". There's an aquatic Chromatic (Black/Green) and aquatic Metallic Dragon (Bronze/and kinda Gold).



Historically, pearl dragons were part of a trio of weird "neutral" dragons (along with jacinth and jade) that were somehow different than other gemstone dragons. They were all smaller and rarer than other dragons.

I would have liked an "organic gemstone" category: pearl, amber, jet, coral, and maybe nacre, which is _also _a type of pearl but visually different enough that I think it could count.


----------



## bedir than (Oct 19, 2021)

Frankly, I wish there were more tiny and small dragons. I run a dragon heavy campaign, but characters in Tier 1&2 can't face the traditional dragons constantly.

Tome of Beasts is getting heavy use (Ale, Ash, Jaculus, Lantern, Book).

One thing i'm leaning more heavily into and that will borrow from Fizban's is that the various dragons are defined by what they hoard.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I like the symmetry. I like symmetry in general, and I like it in game/world design. And I'm not "mad", just . . . I'm not sure what a good word to describe it would be. "Annoyed", maybe? Probably "uninspired". Dragons are supposed to be inspiring. All of the Chromatic Dragons are inspiring to me. Most of the Gem Dragons, too. But Brass/Copper/Bronze dragons being 3 of the core Metallic Dragons, and being Copper or an alloy of Copper? That's not inspiring, that's just redundant and a wasted opportunity to do something cooler.
> 
> Weren't you in the "Is Takhisis actually Tiamat" getting annoyed at the fact that they are, in fact, the same entity? How is that not on the same level as this?



I don't think that the fact that they are alloys necessarily is the issue, for me at least, so much as the fact they are three dragon types clustered around Copper (Alloys). 

I probably would have gone with Adamantine (Bahamut), Mithral, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Steel.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Oct 19, 2021)

Faolyn said:


> I'd've liked to have a lead dragon. You want a metallic dragon with a poisonous breath? Here ya go!



In Dragonlance, the Black Dragons were originally Lead Dragons before they were turned evil by Takhisis (Tiamat). In the current setting, a redeemed Black Dragon has reverted to being a Lead Dragon.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I like the symmetry. I like symmetry in general, and I like it in game/world design. And I'm not "mad", just . . . I'm not sure what a good word to describe it would be. "Annoyed", maybe? Probably "uninspired". Dragons are supposed to be inspiring. All of the Chromatic Dragons are inspiring to me. Most of the Gem Dragons, too. But Brass/Copper/Bronze dragons being 3 of the core Metallic Dragons, and being Copper or an alloy of Copper? That's not inspiring, that's just redundant and a wasted opportunity to do something cooler.



I definitely don’t think arbitrary symmetry to make them iron and adamantine or whatever would be cooler.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Weren't you in the "Is Takhisis actually Tiamat" getting annoyed at the fact that they are, in fact, the same entity? How is that not on the same level as this?



How is it even similar? 

The entire first world, all one “multiverse”, Planescape is the default setting we just don’t say it, thing with 5e, IMO, is limiting and bad for settings like Dragonlance and Eberron. it’s a huge deal for them to be separate or not. Also they are not canonically the same entity, the whole echo lore is pretty clear IMO that it is multiple entities. Still garbage, however. 

edit: okay, no, I’m crapping on your fun. I apologize.  

I’d love to see what iron and adamantine and mithral dragons look like, and what personalities and such they’d have. My games don’t even have the whole “5 true/primary dragons of each broad type” dynamic, so more types of dragons is a plus.


----------



## Bolares (Oct 19, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> How is it even similar?



It's nerds being annoyed  by stuff that don't really matter   

that describes all of us


----------



## Scribe (Oct 19, 2021)

Bolares said:


> It's nerds being annoyed  by stuff that don't really matter
> 
> that describes all of us



Personal attacks are unwarranted...

(You are correct.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 19, 2021)

Bolares said:


> It's nerds being annoyed  by stuff that don't really matter
> 
> that describes all of us



I mean, everyone with hobbies gets worked up about their hobbies, to be fair. Ever met baseball fans?


----------



## Bolares (Oct 19, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, everyone with hobbies gets worked up about their hobbies, to be fair. Ever met baseball fans?



Luckly I only have contact with the healthy football fandom here in Brazil


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 19, 2021)

doctorhook said:


> Why not? They don’t match the dragons you’ve seen in real life?



yes.


CasvalRemDeikun said:


> I think it is kinda funny seeing people arguing against the Bronze and Brass Dragons when, in 4E, WotC had replaced them in the MM with Adamantine and Iron Dragons. I swear, time is a flat circle.



I would go with an iron and mercury dragon go, full alchemist,


Aldarc said:


> I don't think that the fact that they are alloys necessarily is the issue, for me at least, so much as the fact they are three dragon types clustered around Copper (Alloys).
> 
> I probably would have gone with Adamantine (Bahamut), Mithral, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Steel.



steel is still an alloy maybe lead or mercury?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 19, 2021)

Bolares said:


> It's nerds being annoyed  by stuff that don't really matter
> 
> that describes all of us



"You just insulted my entire culture of people . . . but _yes_."


----------



## Faolyn (Oct 19, 2021)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> In Dragonlance, the Black Dragons were originally Lead Dragons before they were turned evil by Takhisis (Tiamat). In the current setting, a redeemed Black Dragon has reverted to being a Lead Dragon.



Really? That's kinda neat.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Oct 19, 2021)

We will need a second Draconomicon. There are still lots of dragons from previous editions what are screaming for an updated version.

But the "no-core" dragons not only need space in the future sourcebooks, but as ultimate alpha predators also enough hunt territory, and here the classic settings are "a too small city for both of us".

Cominsoon we will can see a new animated show "Dragons: the nine realms". If after the dinosaurs from "Jurassic World" the dragons become the new wave among the children, you can bet Hasbro will try to take adventage about it, and this would mean to recover old creatures from previous editions because these are original creations and can't be imitated by other toys companies.

 I am still thinking, and I like the idea of lord dragons creating their own demiplanes like a potential spin-off of "Councyl of Wyrms". Maybe a domain is a refugee for dragons escaping from a world where they are hunted by giants and Lovecraftian kaijus rided by a mind-controll parasites.

And we shouldn't forget the potential of the "dragontouched" PC races from 3.5 "Dragon Magic" and the spellcales (Races of Dragons). Or to sell some supernatural romance about dragon shifters. (Oh my God! Here the song dragons are too perfect for this role!).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 19, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> You laugh at the goiter in the Crystal Dragon's throat, but look that bulge in its throat, it either didn't eat enough salt (ironic for a crystal dragon) or it ate some orc adventurers whose bones and Armour got stuck in it leave throat and it's been trying to cough them up for days, which has put it in a pissy mood, hence why it picked the fight with the red dragon wo was just minding his own business looking for the best sulfur to spice his fried Aasimar with (clearly a Dragon with refined, dare I say divine, culinary taste), when all of a sudden he finds himself in a fight with a angry crystal Dragon who talking funny.



I mean it looks like a lizard neck, to me.


Bolares said:


> Luckly I only have contact with the healthy football fandom here in Brazil



Yeah definitely never heard of any Brazilians getting out of order over football. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> "You just insulted my entire culture of people . . . but _yes_."


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> *steel is still an alloy* maybe lead or mercury?



Fun fact: steel is metallic.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Fun fact: steel is metallic.



the point is to go with a theme beyond metals hence an alchemy theme


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> the point is to go with a theme beyond metals hence an alchemy theme



Their theme is _Metallic_ dragons. They are not periodic table metal dragons nor are they alchemical dragons.


----------



## RoughCoronet0 (Oct 19, 2021)

I mean you all can just take my approach and have 12 types of dragons for each category (Chromatic, Gem, and Metallic) just for the heck of it.

Can’t have too many dragons after all.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 19, 2021)

I like where we are.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Their theme is _Metallic_ dragons. They are not periodic table metal dragons nor are they alchemical dragons.



then why not have brass and bronze then?
why have breath weapons other than fire?


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 19, 2021)

Lord_Blacksteel said:


> Bronze dragons are a big deal in the Dragonriders of Pern books which would have been floating around the popular zeitgeist when the game was being written. Might've been a factor there.



Good point there!
Odd then that brown dragons never became one of the main types of D&D dragons though, and only remained a minor subtype...


----------



## NotAYakk (Oct 19, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Is this official lore or your head canon? I like it either way.






(image credit: The problem with headcanon )


----------



## HammerMan (Oct 19, 2021)

I don't mind the alloy metals dragons, I just would love if Mithril and Adamantine where added in again


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 19, 2021)

As others have said, bronze dragons have a pretty unique and memorable niche, and bronze as an important metal/alloy historically does give them a bit of prestige. I have no issues with bronze being a dragon type for these reasons.

Brass, on the other hand, is a fairly _unprestigious _alloy, and one that is too close to bronze to make it memorable and unique as a dragon type; in fact it it just muddies the distinction between both types. They really should have chosen something besides brass for the fifth metallic type...


----------



## HammerMan (Oct 19, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> As others have said, bronze dragons have a pretty unique and memorable niche, and bronze as an important metal/alloy historically does give them a bit of prestige. I have no issues with bronze being a dragon type for these reasons.
> 
> Brass, on the other hand, is a fairly _unprestigious _alloy, and one that is too close to bronze to make it memorable and unique as a dragon type; in fact it it just muddies the distinction between both types. They really should have chosen something besides brass for the fifth metallic type...




Does anyone know the out of game origin of the metallic Dragons?  Why these 5 metals where chosen?


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 19, 2021)

Demetrios1453 said:


> As others have said, bronze dragons have a pretty unique and memorable niche, and bronze as an important metal/alloy historically does give them a bit of prestige. I have no issues with bronze being a dragon type for these reasons.
> 
> Brass, on the other hand, is a fairly _unprestigious _alloy, and one that is too close to bronze to make it memorable and unique as a dragon type; in fact it it just muddies the distinction between both types. *They really should have chosen something besides brass for the fifth metallic type...*



An interesting foil could have been an aluminum dragon.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 19, 2021)

Some other dragons that appeared before from a previous thread (but not really an answer to the thread name):








						D&D General - why brass and bronze dragons?
					

why do the metallic dragons have alloys amongst them is seems super odd as you think dragons would only be from pure metals?  am I just be odd or what?  also, what's with the lack of the other colours for chromatics?  and do not get me started on how odd the gem dragons are.




					www.enworld.org
				





Thinking about it, someone must have a faux history of what happened to the tin and zinc dragons that hybridized with the copper ones...


----------



## Faolyn (Oct 19, 2021)

HammerMan said:


> Does anyone know the out of game origin of the metallic Dragons?  Why these 5 metals where chosen?



IIRC, the original dragons were the chromatic ones (who were all either neutral or chaotic) plus the gold dragon (who was lawful). I think when 1e rolled around and they decided that all chromatic dragons were evil and the lawful gold dragon was good, that they felt there needed to be more good dragons to even them out. Copper and silver were obvious choices, because of coinage. I'm guessing they picked brass and bronze because they're colorful, unlike nearly every other metal which are somewhere between white and silver (or maybe they picked bronze because of Olympic medals?). I would've gone with electrum as metallic green and iron as metallic black or gray, myself.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 19, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> then why not have brass and bronze then?
> why have breath weapons other than fire?



Both Brass and Bronze are metallic even if not proper metals. Also on breath weapons other then Fire ask the Chromatic dragons that, they used different types first.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 20, 2021)

Bolares said:


> Luckly I only have contact with the healthy football fandom here in Brazil



Do they like the Cowboys?


----------



## Mecheon (Oct 22, 2021)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> In Dragonlance, the Black Dragons were originally Lead Dragons before they were turned evil by Takhisis (Tiamat). In the current setting, a redeemed Black Dragon has reverted to being a Lead Dragon.



I'd love a source on that one, as obsessively getting ideas for new D&D dragons to throw into NWN for fun is a hobby, and heck knows I'd love to throw another canon source into things after I fished the original Orange dragon out of a random issue of Dragon


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Oct 22, 2021)

Mecheon said:


> I'd love a source on that one, as obsessively getting ideas for new D&D dragons to throw into NWN for fun is a hobby, and heck knows I'd love to throw another canon source into things after I fished the original Orange dragon out of a random issue of Dragon



It comes from two 3.5E Dragonlance Sourcebooks. The events occur in the Spectre of Sorrow adventure module and the history of Dragons is in the Dragons of Krynn sourcebook. These are officially licensed products available on Drive Thru RPG.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 23, 2021)

Bronze and brass are also seen as "worth" something, whereas lead and iron are necessary for construction but you don't consider either one as a treasure. And if you are selecting metals to denote a creature whose raison d'etre is having a massive hoard of treasure... you'd probably go with the ones that were treasurable in themselves.

No idea if that was the case... but I myself would not consider a tin dragon or aluminum dragon or iron dragon to have exactly the grandeur that you would probably want.


----------



## RavinRay (Oct 23, 2021)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> In Dragonlance, the Black Dragons were originally Lead Dragons before they were turned evil by Takhisis (Tiamat). In the current setting, a redeemed Black Dragon has reverted to being a Lead Dragon.



I remember that too, and it's neat how each base metal dragon becomes a specific chromatic dragon based on its color when it is corrupted, ie. iron dragons rusted so they turned into red dragons.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 23, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Bronze and brass are also seen as "worth" something. Whereas lead and iron are necessary for construction, but you don't consider either one as a treasure. And if you are selecting metals to denote a creature whose raison d'etre is having a massive hoard of treasure... you'd probanly go with the ones that were treasurable in themselves.
> 
> No idea if that's the case... but I myself would not consider a tin dragon or aluminum dragon or iron dragon to have exactly the grandeur that you would probably want.



A lead dragon would be some massive flightless almost beetle thing and an iron dragon just sounds badass.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 23, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> A lead dragon would be some massive flightless almost beetle thing and an iron dragon just sounds badass.



I have no doubt a designer could make both types work... but I'm also not surprised they weren't first choices for one of the five Good metallic dragons when the originals were being created.

Honestly, I'm actually more surprised that Electrum wasn't one of the original five, since the other four coinage metals were represented in three of the main group plus the Good dragon deity.


----------



## see (Oct 24, 2021)

twincast said:


> And since we're on the topic of D&D dragons, two to three things have always bothered me about them:
> 
> Metallic dragons getting fire breath twice and no poison breath.



That was an accident of game evolution.

In the beginning, there were six colors of dragon, one being golden, rather than a chromatic/metallic split. And when that was the case, the golden dragon, rather than have a single breath weapon of its own, had the breath weapons of both the red and green dragons.

Then came the very first-ever D&D supplement, and four new dragons were added, named after metals, and the golden dragon was retconned into the gold. Following the pattern of the now-designated gold, all the metallics had two breath weapons, though one was a non-damaging effect; the weakest (Brass) having both sleep and fear gasses rather than a damaging breath weapon. In 1st edition AD&D, this pattern remained; the gold had both poison gas and fire, while the brass had sleep and fear gasses.

Then came AD&D 2nd edition, and in the general upgrade of dragons in the new edition, it was noticed fear gas was rather duplicative with the fear aura that had been added to dragons in AD&D 1st and enhanced in the new edition. So the desert-dwelling brass dragon got a damaging breath weapon of "blistering desert heat". Gold dragons remained with their since-the-beginning fire and poison (chlorine) combination.

Then in D&D 3rd edition, damage types were standardized and poison wasn't one of them, so now green dragons had an acid breath weapon (doubling the black, and sensible enough since chlorine is as much corrosive as it was poisonous), and the gold lost poison gas in favor of weakening gas (now matching the other metallics with a non-damaging "secondary" breath weapon). At the same time, the brass dragon breath was changed from "heat" to the standardized 3rd edition "fire" damage type (doubling the gold).

Come 5th edition, poison was adopted as a standard damage type, so the green dragon's breath was retyped as poison breath (avoiding duplication with the black), the brass kept the 5th edition standardized damage type of fire (consistent with 3rd edition and in obvious continuity with AD&D 2nd's heat), but the gold dragon kept a non-damaging secondary breath weapon (matching all the other metallics) rather than reverting to poison gas.

If, of course, the design had all been done together at the beginning, the obvious move would have been to give the brass poison as a damaging weapon (matching the chromatic and metallic damaging breath weapons five-for-five), while giving the gold a non-damaging secondary breath weapon (matching all the other metallics).

Alternatively, if one feels particularly retro for 5th edition dragons, one could reach back to the OD&D/1st edition AD&D "fear" breath weapon and given the brass's breath weapon the _psychic_ damage type, and give the gold its pre-3rd poison breath as its alternate breath weapon.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 24, 2021)

Gold's and Brass differ however. In that Gold's is a cone while Brass is a line.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 25, 2021)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Gold's and Brass differ however. In that Gold's is a cone while Brass is a line.



but it would be better if they were not both fire breathers.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 25, 2021)

E


Mind of tempest said:


> but it would be better if they were not both fire breathers.



Ehh it does not bother me cause of the different shapes.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Oct 25, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Is now Laurana redhaired? I remember her totally blonde. I am afraid this is a sign of a reboot of Dragonlance. (And now Kitiara is darker skin).



She's called "The Golden General" due to her blonde hair, so yes her hair being red makes no sense


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Oct 26, 2021)

I don't reject the new red haired but I suposse it is a warning by WotC about the future Dragonlance will be a reboot and a lot of details are going to be changed or retconnected.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 26, 2021)

see said:


> That was an accident of game evolution.
> 
> In the beginning, there were six colors of dragon, one being golden, rather than a chromatic/metallic split. And when that was the case, the golden dragon, rather than have a single breath weapon of its own, had the breath weapons of both the red and green dragons.
> 
> ...



So, changing the brass dragon to radiant damage might be a way to reproduce the original "heat ray" intent.


----------



## Nathaniel Lee (Oct 26, 2021)

I was super excited for the arrival of the liondrake in 5e — the dragonne is my all-time favorite D&D monster — but I'm really not loving the artwork. It looks super goofy. The long neck and emphasis on a furry lion's body rather than a dragon's body is really throwing me. To be fair, one early edition rendition of the dragonne also seemed to sport a more leonine body, but compare to these renditions of dragonnes based on earlier versions of the creature:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...XgKsiwqctaMZvocVouRegjX3Dejm3MAp6oMI&usqp=CAU
imgur.com
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoqcoW-WwAEONr5.jpg
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/f...ragonne.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110701032138
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/f...est/scale-to-width-down/221?cb=20210126083142
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/f...ondrake.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20210127031702
Those look ferocious and scary. The thing in the stat block art looks like a giraffe and a lion mated and their offspring magically sprouted wings.


----------

