# Interested  in new dragon designs for 5e (5.5e or 6e)?



## dave2008

So, in general, I really liked the Lockwood dragons when they first came out.  But after being stuck with them for 3 editions I think they are a bit long in the tooth.  In fact, I find most of the chromatic dragons that aren’t red a bit boring or annoying in some way or the other.

Now I realize WotC is not going to redesign the dragons midway into and edit on; however, with the rumors of dragonlance  coming down the pipe, I can but wonder if we could get new designs, just like DL did back in the day.

So is that something others would be interested in?  If so, what would you change, while keeping the iconic color schemes and breath weapons? What should stay and what should go?

EDIT:
OK, now for some examples of possibilities:
Red Dragons:














I really like the current red dragon, but I think it would cool to go back to the longwyrm roots of JRRT.  Shorter neck, larger head, long muscular body and really long tail (note the model obviously doesn't have that) A combination of the first image and the last two are what I am looking for (but with a longer tail).

Blue Dragons:









For the blue I am think something with oversized (relatively) wings.  I think making it more of a sky / storm dragon makes sense.  I would keep the distinctive nose horn too.
Green Dragons:









I think a more forest approach or possibly take the green in a neo-spinosaurs vibe.

Black Dragons:



Thank for @Ancalagon  for providing a link to this image.  This is close to what I would like to see a black dragon redesigned:  more serpentine, able to glide through swamps, blending in with the dark waters. However, I would keep the forward point horns and wings, though I think the wings would need a redesing.  Maybe they are held close to the body then spring out when needed - like the big dragon from How to Train Your Dragon.

White Dragons:






I would make the color more white, but the over brutish design I like.  Probably with a shorter neck, bigger head. and longer "furry" tail. Something between the above and this "arctic dragon:"


----------



## aco175

The red dragon always looked more iconic and 'right' to me as well.  The others were meh.  It is not at the toip of my list for them to redesign though.  I would not mind only one type of dragon and an evolution process where they gained power and abilities.  This way they all could be dangerous and might help you, but most people would not chance it.  I tend to think they have a different way of thinking and have their own plans which could include you, but you are mostly ants to them.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

IMO, the breaths and color categories should be the first thing to go.
I would love to have a bunch of dragon species for defined my habitat, like in How to Train your Dragon, than a color scheme.

But: all dragons, even young ones should be spellcasters and fearsome foes to even the more hardy adventurers. 

I'm a big fan of Dungeon World 16 HP dragon (A 16 HP Dragon | LaTorra.org): the dragon is a multi-part encounter in itself more than a bag of HP. You know of the Complex Traps from Xanathar are designed? With Active, Dynamic and Constant elements, with a list of possible counter-measures for the party to use beyond just wacking at it? I believe dragon encounters should be designed the same way instead of as a creature with a statblock.


----------



## dave2008

vincegetorix said:


> IMO, the breaths and color categories should be the first thing to go.
> I would love to have a bunch of dragon species for defined my habitat, like in How to Train your Dragon, than a color scheme.



 I think you could keep the breath and color standard and add more interesting environmentally influenced attributes without much difficulty.  I also adding a generalist dragon is a good idea, but I am specifically interested in the iconic D&D dragons for this discussion.



vincegetorix said:


> But: all dragons, even young ones should be spellcasters and fearsome foes to even the more hardy adventurers.



Interesting, I dont't think I typically add spellcasting to young dragons, but I could see that working.  However, I don't necessarily think young dragons need to be fearsome for a group of adventurers.



vincegetorix said:


> I'm a big fan of Dungeon World 16 HP dragon (A 16 HP Dragon | LaTorra.org): the dragon is a multi-part encounter in itself more than a bag of HP. You know of the Complex Traps from Xanathar are designed? With Active, Dynamic and Constant elements, with a list of possible counter-measures for the party to use beyond just wacking at it? I believe dragon encounters should be designed the same way instead of as a creature with a statblock.



  Well, I wasn't really wanting to discuss the mechanical design, just the artistic design.  That being said, i think they started to make moves that way with lair actions and regional effects.  I definitely like the idea, but I would necessarily want every dragon to be designed that way.


----------



## DWChancellor

Honestly couldn't disagree more.  I like the Lockwood dragons are head and shoulders better than nearly anything before or since.  I mean, come on, the nasty skull-like blacks, the wicked blues, the dumb brutal whites...

That said, there is some room to improve.  The green dragon stands out as, well, not standing out at all.  The metallics are beautiful but hard to remember past the gold and silver.

What grips me about Lockwood's design was the naturalism of it.  _They felt like real, dangerous predators_.  Not flying blobs with claws and wings glued on or nests of ridiculous horns and teeth.  The catlike grace and build, with a lightness that spoke more of a flying creature than the heavyset dragons so many other artists painted.

Mechanically I think there is a lot of room to expand the dragons' too, but I heard you wanted to discuss the art =)

Can you post an example of a dragon you like "better" than Lockwoods?  I just pulled my PF bestiary and opened it to find a heap of generic, undistinguished, utterly boring dragons.  No help there.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Artistically, I'd remove the wings from the black, blue and whites, making them ''land wyrms'' but with superior mobility features:
- The blues keep the awesome nose horn and gain a new pair of legs, a little like the behir, with an improved burrow and climb speed. Remove the storm breath and change it to something a little more ''desert'' themed, like a gas breath that transform the victims in glass statues.

- The whites are based on the arctic killer whales. They can breath for some time underwater, climb and walk easily on ice. They have some fur and overly large claws. They have a heat breath (fire damage overtime), used to shape their lairs.

-Blacks are amphibians: they can breath normally underwater. They dont have horns per se, but their bodies are covered in coral-like formations used like an armor and their heads are adorned by a lamp-like antenna use to lure prey while in dark waters . They have no forelegs but a bunch of little legs, like a centipede, are found at the rear of their bodies (a little like the 5e remorhaz)


----------



## dave2008

DWChancellor said:


> Honestly couldn't disagree more.  I like the Lockwood dragons are head and shoulders better than nearly anything before or since.  I mean, come on, the nasty skull-like blacks, the wicked blues, the dumb brutal whites...
> 
> That said, there is some room to improve.  The green dragon stands out as, well, not standing out at all.  The metallics are beautiful but hard to remember past the gold and silver.
> 
> What grips me about Lockwood's design was the naturalism of it.  _They felt like real, dangerous predators_.  Not flying blobs with claws and wings glued on or nests of ridiculous horns and teeth.  The catlike grace and build, with a lightness that spoke more of a flying creature than the heavyset dragons so many other artists painted.
> 
> Mechanically I think there is a lot of room to expand the dragons' too, but I heard you wanted to discuss the art =)
> 
> Can you post an example of a dragon you like "better" than Lockwoods?  I just pulled my PF bestiary and opened it to find a heap of generic, undistinguished, utterly boring dragons.  No help there.




I completely agree with you in the PF versions, not really improvements IMO.
I don’t have any preconceived idea about a redesign.  I did like the brute red dragon they showed during the Next play test though.
I’m personally tired of the skull like heads of the black, blue, and white dragons. 
I think the body types are too similar for the different roles and environments they occupy.


----------



## dave2008

vincegetorix said:


> Artistically, I'd remove the wings from the black, blue and whites, making them ''land wyrms'' but with superior mobility features:
> - The blues keep the awesome nose horn and gain a new pair of legs, a little like the behir, with an improved burrow and climb speed. Remove the storm breath and change it to something a little more ''desert'' themed, like a gas breath that transform the victims in glass statues.
> 
> - The whites are based on the arctic killer whales. They can breath for some time underwater, climb and walk easily on ice. They have some fur and overly large claws. They have a heat breath (fire damage overtime), used to shape their lairs.
> 
> -Blacks are amphibians: they can breath normally underwater. They dont have horns per se, but their bodies are covered in coral-like formations used like an armor and their heads are adorned by a lamp-like antenna use to lure prey while in dark waters . They have no forelegs but a bunch of little legs, like a centipede, are found at the rear of their bodies (a little like the 5e remorhaz) View attachment 114493



Interesting ideas, can’t really reply well on my phone.  I will follow up when I get back to a computer.


----------



## dave2008

vincegetorix said:


> Artistically, I'd remove the wings from the black, blue and whites, making them ''land wyrms'' but with superior mobility features:



Not for me, I would keep land wyrms as a distinct type of dragon and keep the 5 chromatic as flying beasts.



vincegetorix said:


> - The blues keep the awesome nose horn and gain a new pair of legs, a little like the behir, with an improved burrow and climb speed. Remove the storm breath and change it to something a little more ''desert'' themed, like a gas breath that transform the victims in glass statues.



Interesting, but I would go the other way. Make them really stormy.  Give them the biggest wings and make them the best flyers.  Sight build (comparatively) but agile.  Make them masters of the sky, not the desert.



vincegetorix said:


> - The whites are based on the arctic killer whales. They can breath for some time underwater, climb and walk easily on ice. They have some fur and overly large claws. They have a heat breath (fire damage overtime), used to shape their lairs.



I can get behind most of that.  I don't know that  I want hair on my dragon, but I'm not saying no until I see it.  I don't know about heat breath, but there is definitely some logic to it.  Maybe the can manipulate the temperature, hot or cold.



vincegetorix said:


> -Blacks are amphibians: they can breath normally underwater. They dont have horns per se, but their bodies are covered in coral-like formations used like an armor and their heads are adorned by a lamp-like antenna use to lure prey while in dark waters . They have no forelegs but a bunch of little legs, like a centipede, are found at the rear of their bodies (a little like the 5e remorhaz)



I don't like the centipede idea, but I can get behind them being more swampy.  I typically want them to have a more snake like build.  I have also thought of them a dragon versions of sauropods before.


----------



## dave2008

I am adding some pictures of ideas in the OP


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

dave2008 said:


> Not for me, I would keep land wyrms as a distinct type of dragon and keep the 5 chromatic as flying beasts.
> 
> 
> Interesting, but I would go the other way. Make them really stormy.  Give them the biggest wings and make them the best flyers.  Sight build (comparatively) but agile.  Make them masters of the sky, not the desert.
> 
> 
> I can get behind most of that.  I don't know that  I want hair on my dragon, but I'm not saying no until I see it.  I don't know about heat breath, but there is definitely some logic to it.  Maybe the can manipulate the temperature, hot or cold.
> 
> 
> I don't like the centipede idea, but I can get behind them being more swampy.  I typically want them to have a more snake like build.  I have also thought of them a dragon versions of sauropods before.



I think I need to google a little more with color symbology:

Whites could be clouds/smoke instead of ice. I once had them as Pearl Dragon, aka the sea ones.
Black I would love as spider-dragon (see in Kobold Press Creature Codex). Poison, webs etc or maybe as lovecraftian-old-ones dragon with a sea/slime theme.
Blues are my favorite but I just dont know what to do with'em. Maybe give them the sea theme?
Reds I love as the ''rose dragon'', nature based with a strong fey theme. Could also be rust themed, with an hint toward the destroyer of metallic dragons.
Greens could be plague related?
-


----------



## aco175

I thought I say in one of the D&D art books that Lockwood modeled dragons on cats to give them the look he wanted.  I also see this for How to Train Your Dragon.


----------



## DWChancellor

aco175 said:


> I thought I say in one of the D&D art books that Lockwood modeled dragons on cats to give them the look he wanted.  I also see this for How to Train Your Dragon.




He talks about it a little in Eye of the Beholder too.  Him and Sam (Wood?) went back and forth and built up their design from bones through musculature, etc...

I think the care they put into the design shows.  Lockwood dragons are distinct even when drawn by artists of wildly varying talents and interest.  The 3E Draconomicon has a lot of good "identify dragon by silhouette" stuff in it too that no other design set has surpassed.

I admit to appreciating a few of the more recent dragons in Magic the Gathering art (some of which are Lockwood's!) but overall I haven't seen a better solution to "OMG why are so many dragons D&D cannon and how do I make them look distinct and cool!?!?"

I like some of the ideas about wyrms, but let's be real here, WOTC isn't going to redefine the core concept of "dragons" anymore than they are going to redefine goblins.  A dragon in D&D has four legs, two wings, and is a hyper intelligent apex predator stuffed with magic.

A couple of asides:

* Looking back at the 5E dragon illustrations in MM... meh.  They're a bit disappointing for such a leading monster.

* Dungeon Crawl Classics has some really odd and off-beat dragons which are very imaginative.

* Warhammer dragons are all snakey and weird.  Meh.  Count that as my vote for all snakey dragon illustrations!

* Matt Colville's Strongholds & Followers has some interesting dragon additions with a lot of character though maybe too far from D&D's core aesthetic.


----------



## Vael

The Chromatic Dragons are, together with Tiamat, pretty core to DnD as a genre, to me. 4e played with their aesthetics a bit and it didn't really take, I remember the 4e Green Dragon got a lot of flack for its new, spikier appearance. And, admittedly, if you gave me a black and white image, or just a silhouette of a Chromatic dragon, I'd get the Black and Red ones pretty easily, and utterly whiff on the Blue, Green and White.

And, on the subject of Metallic Dragons, I couldn't tell you the differences between the Bronze, Brass and Copper Dragons without looking them up.

Now, I would like to see more Dragons that aren't Chromatic, Metallic (or Gem). I like the more serpentine Asian-style Dragons, I could even see a furry Luck Dragon. But I'd rather add more Dragons than retool the current set.


----------



## jayoungr

Reimagining dragons is fun, but I'm a bit puzzled about the "5.5 or 6E" part of the thread premise.  There are plenty of third-party supplements with alternative dragons.  (The wind dragon in the _Tome of Beasts_ gave my players fits! )  And any non-FR setting can have any kind of dragons the creator wants.  I don't see why this has to be for a future edition, except a desire for everybody to accept the redesigned dragons as the new default, which seems ... well, first, unnecessary, and second, unlikely as long as WotC sticks with the Realms as their main setting.


----------



## dave2008

jayoungr said:


> Reimagining dragons is fun, but I'm a bit puzzled about the "5.5 or 6E" part of the thread premise.  There are plenty of third-party supplements with alternative dragons.  (The wind dragon in the _Tome of Beasts_ gave my players fits! )  And any non-FR setting can have any kind of dragons the creator wants.  I don't see why this has to be for a future edition, except a desire for everybody to accept the redesigned dragons as the new default, which seems ... well, first, unnecessary, and second, unlikely as long as WotC sticks with the Realms as their main setting.



No need to get hung up on that.  I was just suggesting WotC isn’t likely to make any changes unless there is a change / new edition.  
I’m not talking about what can be done in home games or 3PP settings.  Everyone knows we can do whatever we want with those. I’m asking what would you want to see changed with “official” chromatic and metallic dragons.  Because of that restraint, I would expect a more reserved set of possibilities.


----------



## jayoungr

PS, I just realized you missed a golden opportunity by not titling this thread "Imagining Dragons."


----------



## Ancalagon

Enjoy!









						OSR: Chromatic Dragons
					

This post is mostly an excuse to use the art of halycon450 . There are hundreds of "dragonomicons" out there. This one is mine. You might fi...




					coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com
				












						OSR: Metallic Dragons
					

The eight Chromatic Dragons  were split from one ur-dragon by a giant prism (or something similar) in the dim prehistory of Creation.   The ...




					coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com
				












						OSR: Dragon Banks
					

Yellow dragons  are Creation's greatest bankers. Silver dragons  often try, and copper dragons often set up banks that deliberately fail, bu...




					coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com


----------



## dave2008

Ancalagon said:


> Enjoy!



Thank you for sharing!  Some interesting designs in there.  Probably not what I would go with, but a good starting point.


----------



## dave2008

I have added a black dragon redesign image to the OP


----------



## dave2008

I have added some potential redesign references for the white dragon


----------



## Yaarel

Dragons are awesome.

Essentially, and archetypally, the dragon is a kind of snake.

I feel if a dragon design loses its recognizability as a snake, then it is no longer a dragon.

That said, the dragon is a monstrous snake and can blend features from other animals.

Essentially, the dragon is a conflation embodying all of the dangerous aspects of nature. Thus the dragon differs from region to region, depending on what natural dangers are in that locality.



One of my favorite dragons is the Norse dreki. It is a snake whose snake head has lionlike features (or sometimes wolflike), goatlike horns, and eaglelike (or hawklike, or eellike) features, such as talons.

What I like about it is its phases of aging.

• A newborn dreki (wyrmling) looks exactly like a normal snake (european viper with goldish-silverish and black patterns), except if you notice, the head has two horns sweeping back.

• The large adolescent dreki (young) emerges from its shed skin with two eaglelike legs that seem morelike arms, each with talon-like hands. (Compare the D&D linnorm.) It glides snakelike with the front upright at human height with prehensile arms manipulating objects with its hands. Alternatively its hands can pull the ground while gliding at high speed.

• The gargantuan ancient dragon adds eaglelike wings.



The snake venom can alternatively be a poison spray, icy like numbing arctic water, or a flaming fire.

The Norse dragon is actually a jotunn giant (or dvergr dwarf) who has shapeshifted into a snake, in this case a monstrous snake. If the jotunn is a risi, then the original human shape is beautiful. But in snake form, it takes on the beastly mind of a snake, and sometimes never returns to human shape. Families of dragon-shape jotunn can become as if a species of dragon. Some dragons retain their original high intelligence and magic.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Dragons are awesome.
> 
> Essentially, and archetypally, the dragon is a kind of snake.
> 
> I feel if a dragon design loses its recognizability as a snake, then it is no longer a dragon.
> 
> That said, the dragon is a monstrous snake and can blend features from other animals.
> 
> Essentially, the dragon is a conflation embodying all of the dangerous aspects of nature. Thus the dragon differs from region to region, depending on what natural dangers are in that locality.



I might debate the recognizably a snake part, but in general I agree with you to some extent - for RL dragon myths.  However, that is not the point of this thread.  I am discussing D&D dragons and they already have history to consider.  In D&D they are not myths be real threats.

That being said, as my examples show, i do want to make the black dragon a lot more serpent like and add some back to the red as well.  I feel the green and white should have less "snakey" elements and I am not sure about the blue.



Yaarel said:


> What I like about it is its phases of aging.



  That is a cool idea, and it is shared by other cultures as well.  I have actually used the concept before: In one of my campaigns, Dragonborn were just young dragons.

I think I could behind a similar idea of D&D dragons, but I don't really every use young ones so maybe I'm not the best barometer on this subject.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> I am discussing D&D dragons and they already have history to consider.



D&D has conflictive traditions about dragons, sometimes the same dragon looks more snake, sometimes they look more lion.



dave2008 said:


> In D&D they are not myths be real threats.



Think about the environment that each dragon is in.

If they are aquatic, they might have fish or eel features.

If they are mountainous, they might have goat and eagle features.

Pretty much all dragons have snake-lion features, but then again, sometimes it is snake-wolf, or other animal.





dave2008 said:


> That is a cool idea, and it is shared by other cultures as well.



I am unaware of the other cultures that have their dragon grow in stages.



dave2008 said:


> I have actually used the concept before: In one of my campaigns, Dragonborn were just young dragons.
> 
> I think I could behind a similar idea of D&D dragons, but I don't really every use young ones so maybe I'm not the best barometer on this subject.



I agree, for dragons that grow in stages, the Young stage makes excellent player character races.

Also, for Norse traditions, because of the aspect of shapeshifting, the dragon can grow magically. In other words, increase size and stage while leveling.

My difficulty with the Dragonborn is, they lack a serpentine tail. I am unable to interpret their appearances as any kind of ‘dragon’. I think of them more as resembling the Egyptian god Sobek, a human with a crocodile head.

Ideally, the Dragonborn would lack legs, and instead slither as a large snake, while the upright body has arms, and the tail can be prehensile.

If it was truly serpentine, I could feel the dragon flavor of the Dragonborn.

D&D 4e gave the tail to the Tiefling and not to the Dragonborn. I always felt they got that choice wrong.



An adult-stage dragon, would be a snake with limbs. If choosing to Medium size, this would resemble a Dragonborn with a tail.


----------



## Yaarel

Here are some D&D dragons that look somewhat serpentine.







Actually, the D&D logo makes an awesome Norse dragon in the newborn (wyrmling) stage.






One of my favorite dragons of D&D. It resembles the official dragon logo. Albeit, it gets used for an illustration for a giant snake. Notice its horns and the lion-like features of the head. Perfect.



























A mythologically accurate gold dragon. (Actually there are many different kinds of Chinese dragons, but something like this is one of them.)

















These seem like D&D ‘salamander’, but the look as a snake with arms resembles the dragon in its adolescent (young) stage.















The next one is from Pathfinder but gives some sense of what an adolescent dragon looks like when walking on its hands. Actually the torso-tail needs to be much longer as a counterweight to support it being upright to use the hands to wield objects.


----------



## Yaarel

Key features that make the design more serpentine, thus more draconic.

• Length, the overall length from head to tail should convey a snake. In D&D this means an extended neck and an extremely long tail.

• Transition, from head to torso and from torso to tail, must be continuous, rather than ‘broken’ like a horse neck. In other words, there should be no way to tell where the torso ends and the neck begins. Likewise, no way to tell where the torso ends and the tail begins.

• Slimness, the torso needs to be slim, proportionate to the neck and tail. However, it is ok if the shoulder area of the arms are muscular and appear ‘built’.

• Snakelike head, preferably the head retains some recognizably serpentine features, albeit the head is where the most diversity in design is possible. A snake tongue always helps.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> D&D has conflictive traditions about dragons, sometimes the same dragon looks more snake, sometimes they look more lion.



 Don't you mean feline    That is what Lockwood said he was going for, though think some of his D&D dragons appear more equine.




Yaarel said:


> Think about the environment that each dragon is in.
> 
> If they are aquatic, they might have fish or eel features.
> 
> If they are mountainous, they might have goat and eagle features.
> 
> Pretty much all dragons have snake-lion features, but then again, sometimes it is snake-wolf, or other animal.



 Yep, environment would be key, I touched on that in the pictures I added to the OP.



Yaarel said:


> I am unaware of the other cultures that have their dragon grow in stages.



 Definitely asian dragons (some if not all start as carps).  And I seem to recall some similar mesoamerican traditions as well that are similar.  Shapeshifting is also a common theme in Asiatic dragons.



Yaarel said:


> I agree, for dragons that grow in stages, the Young stage makes excellent player character races.
> 
> Also, for Norse traditions, because of the aspect of shapeshifting, the dragon can grow magically. In other words, increase size and stage while leveling.
> 
> My difficulty with the Dragonborn is, they lack a serpentine tail. I am unable to interpret their appearances as any kind of ‘dragon’. I think of them more as resembling the Egyptian god Sobek, a human with a crocodile head.
> 
> Ideally, the Dragonborn would lack legs, and instead slither as a large snake, while the upright body has arms, and the tail can be prehensile.
> 
> If it was truly serpentine, I could feel the dragon flavor of the Dragonborn.
> 
> D&D 4e gave the tail to the Tiefling and not to the Dragonborn. I always felt they got that choice wrong.



 I give dragon born tails in my games and they eventually grow wings.  Not really interested in legless dragonborn for my campaign, but that could work for yours.


----------



## Yaarel

For an example of stages of development.

Here is a runestone depicting a Swedish dragon, during the Viking Era. (Actually, it is the Christian vikings who use a dragon to represent a christian family, for reasons that are less than clear. Christian vikings love the dragon.)

If you look carefully, you can see the mother dragon coiling around the edge of the runestone. She is protecting her young. This trope of a dragon mother fiercely protecting her young is a salient Norse archetype.






The coloring is modern, but historically plausible.

The artwork is highly stylized, but many of the features are clear.

The mother in red is still in the young phase (which is the normal depiction for a Norse dragon). At the bottom center, notice her arms, which are actually eagle legs, but functioning as arms. Her head has horns and fangs, and large perceptive eyes. Her tail ends in a forked tail (a Swedish thing).

Within her protective coil, she has a young daughter, also in red and also with arms and split tail. Where torso transitions into tail, she has an egg sack, for a future generation of the dragon family.

Finally, in white, all of the dragon children are in their ‘wyrmling’ stage, and look like normal snakes. One of them shows the new horns beginning grow.

I know of one runestone that depicts an ancient dragon with wings and arms. The wings are eaglelike (rather than batlike). The Poetic Edda mentions a gargantuan ancient dragon with wings.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> Definitely asian dragons (some if not all start as carps).



Are you sure that is a mythologically accurate Chinese tradition − as opposed to a D&D disinformation?




dave2008 said:


> I give dragon born tails in my games and they eventually grow wings.  Not really interested in legless dragonborn for my campaign, but that could work for yours. An adult-stage dragon, would be a snake with arms and legs. If choosing to Medium size, this would resemble a Dragonborn with a tail.



Yeah the serpentine tail is the most important thing to make a Dragonborn draconic.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> • Length, the overall length from head to tail should convey a snake. In D&D this means an extended neck and an extremely long tail.
> 
> • Transition, from head to torso and from torso to tail, must be continuous, rather than ‘broken’ like a horse neck. In other words, there should be no way to tell where the torso ends and the neck begins. Likewise, no way to tell where the torso ends and the tail begins.
> 
> • Slimness, the torso needs to be slim, proportionate to the neck and tail. However, it is ok if the shoulder area of the arms are muscular and appear ‘built’.
> 
> • Snakelike head, preferably the head retains some recognizably serpentine features, albeit the head is where the most diversity in design is possible. A snake tongue always helps.



Those are all good suggestions for making a serpentine dragon, however...



Yaarel said:


> Key features that make the design more serpentine, thus more draconic.



...I don't agree that more serpentine = more draconic in all cases.  I think we need to allow for a wider variety of forms.

Regardless, thank you for all the good ideas!


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Are you sure that is a mythologically accurate Chinese tradition − as opposed to a D&D disinformation?




I've never heard it being a D&D thing, but that is what my Chinese boss told when I worked at Chinese restaurant for 8 years.  However, that doesn't mean it is mythology accurate, though I thought I read it somewhere too.


----------



## Yaarel

This can be a cool D&D encounter, where messing


dave2008 said:


> I've never heard it being a D&D thing, but that is what my Chinese boss told when I worked at Chinese restaurant for 8 years.  However, that doesn't mean it is mythology accurate, though I thought I read it somewhere too.




Ok, a carp-like newborn is probably a Chinese thing.


A snake-like newborn can make an interesting dragon encounter, where the party messes around with a ‘normal snake’ only to enrage the nearby ancient mother or grandmother.

Also works with fishlike or eellike newborns.


----------



## dave2008

I added some more concept images of a red dragon redesign.  More serpent like.  A combination of the provide images is what I would like to see (but with a longer tail).  I think @Yaarel would approve.


----------



## Yaarel

I was going back over the archeology. It seems to me, all of the Norse dragons were horned snakes, often with arms, and occasionally with wings. None of them have legs, during the Viking Period, 800-1100.

The earliest image that I could find of a ‘modern’ dragon, with arms, legs, and wings, is in an illuminated manuscript, a bestiary written in England, around year 1250, and in The British Library. (Harley manuscript 3244.)





There are many different kinds of depictions of the dragon. Some have arms and wings, some have legs and wings − and then it happened. This artist in England combined the concepts and gave the snake both arms and legs, and a set of wings for each!


Generally speaking.

The Norse dragon is a snake with horns, with eagle arms, and sometimes eagle wings. The tail is prehensile and sometimes carries an object.

The English dragon is (often) a snake with ears, a more wolflike head, and bat wings. It also tends to associate more strongly with a river, and include fish or eel fins. It usually has legs (not arms), and tends to look more bird like when walking on its legs with its wings spread and its tail in the air.



This English dragon in the manuscript reminds me of your Red Dragon.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> The earliest image that I could find of a ‘modern’ dragon, with arms, legs, and wings, is in an illuminated manuscript, a bestiary written in England, around year 1250, and in The British Library. (Harley manuscript 3244.)



Of course this is quite a bit older:


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> Of course this is quite a bit older:
> View attachment 115019



Heh, Im unsure how many Medieval Europeans have seen this image.

But yeah, spot on. A blend of snake-lion-eagle. Plus horns. This blend is remarkably psychologically compelling.


----------



## Yaarel

Its cool to know, dragons are reallife in the sense of dinosaurs, that were kinda reptilian and kinda birdlike. Some even had horns or wings.

In some cases, the concept of a dragon emerged because people found isolated dinosaur bones, and imagined what the rest of the creature originally looked like.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Heh, Im unsure how many Medieval Europeans have seen this image.
> 
> But yeah, spot on. A blend of snake-lion-eagle. Plus horns. This blend is remarkably psychologically compelling.



I don't know when it was first illustrated but the story of the white and red dragon battle was written in 828. Every illustration of those dragons I have seen is of the 4 legs & 2 wing variety and actually look very similar to the current red dragon.

This is of course the classic image of the Welsh Red, but I couldn't find a date of when this design first appeared.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Its cool to know, dragons are reallife in the sense of dinosaurs, that were kinda reptilian and kinda birdlike. Some even had horns or wings.
> 
> In some cases, the concept of a dragon emerged because people found isolated dinosaur bones, and imagined what the rest of the creature originally looked like.



They were definitely the origin of the Asian dragon.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> This English dragon in the manuscript reminds me of your Red Dragon.




Yes it does, thank you for sharing!


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> I don't know when it was first illustrated but the story of the white and red dragons dates to at least which was written in 828. Every illustration of those dragons I have seen is of the 4 legs & 2 wing variety and actually look very similar to the current red dragon.
> This is of course the classic image of the Welsh Red, but I couldn't find a date of when this design first appeared.
> View attachment 115021




Yeah.

In the older stories about a dragon, the earlier authorship often had a different image in mind for what the dragon looked like, than the one that the later audiences had.

For example, the story of Fafnir shapeshifting into a dragon (Dreki). A runestone from around 1000 depicts it as a massive horned snake, breathing out vapor of venom. But later, a wood carving from the 1200s depicts Fafnir as having eagle arms and eagle wings, and a more lionlike head.


----------



## Yaarel

Here is an image of the Welsh red and white dragons from a manuscript from the 1400s. (Historia Regum Britanniae, Lambeth Palace Library MS 6 folio 43 verso. )

This British dragon seems to me more like a snake-bat-WOLF blend, rather than a snake-eagle-lion blend. Here, the snake seems a common threat, but the darkness of night of the bat, and the predatory wolf, seem more salient primal fears.


----------



## Yaarel

Apparently, the instructions for the modern Welsh flag comes from the 1400s, introduced by King Henry 7.









Next is an earlier rendering of this Welsh dragon in the coat of arms of King Henry 7, with a red dragon and a greyhound, dating from 1504.

The body is more lionine, maybe with fish fin ears, bat wings (that here look more like fish fins), wolflike head, and snakelike tail that resembles the dog tail opposite it. Later versions of this coat of arms will make the dragon head, body, and tail look much more like the greyhound.









In comparison, the modern Welsh flag seems to return to the more snake-like body, with the transition of the neck and tail more consistent with the girth of the body.


----------



## Yaarel

Dating from the 500s BCE in Iraq, the Ishtar Gate of Babylon portrays a dragon.






This image shows the features more clearly, with helpful contrasts.

The Akkadian name Mush-Khushu (Sumerian Mush-Khus ‘snake of red’) refers to a snake. The ancient 'red' color includes the ‘fiery’ colors including orange. Its head has a forked tongue, and whitish horns above the eyes, here seen in profile.  An earlier Sumerian depiction clearly shows two straight horns above the eyes. The crest at the back of the head, is possibly feathery plumage, or possibly leathery, horn, or even fur akin to a lions mane. (The Sumerian version has the crest in front, before the horns.) Similar to the crest is the ridge down the back of its neck. It wears a collar, and serves as a sacred guardian. Its body is lionlike with snake scales. The forelegs are lion with fur, and the hindlegs are eagle. The tail is lionlike, but of snake scales, and undulates like a snake. Mush-Khushu remixes the snake-lion-eagle dragon blend.

Horned Viper


----------



## Yaarel

I was wondering where the legs of the snake ‘should’ be. The answer turns out to be pretty much anywhere because there are so many animals that evolved snake-like bodies independently. Some have long tails, some have short tails, some have forelimbs, some have hindlimbs, etcetera. This is also why the origins of how the snake lost its limbs remains surprisingly scientifically uncertain, with hot debates such as whether its origin descends from a terrestrial burrower or an aquatic swimmer. Yet snakes are successful in so many environments, perhaps an other adaptation explains the loss of limbs. The classifications of species within the ‘snake-like’ clade Ophidia, and their relationships to each other, remains somewhat arbitrary and disputed. Comparing to lizards, the snake relates most closely to the gecko.

Nevertheless, there is a fossil of a now extinct ‘four-leg-snake’ Tetra-pod-ophis, discovered recently in Brasil. It is approximately 30 centimeters. (Yet fossils of other species of snake can reach 15 meters, such as Titanoboa, discovered in Colombia.)

Taxonomy assigns the four leg snake to: the class Reptilia (‘reptiles’), order Squamata (‘scalies’, including lizards, snakes, and similar), an inserted clade Ophidia (‘snake-likes’), then the genus Tetrapodophis (‘four leg snake’).

At the very least, this is one example of a reallife snake that shows locations for where the limbs would go.



Tetrapodophis (reconstruction from fossil, assuming terrestrial habitat, and guessing its coloring)




Tetrapodophis (reconstruction from fossil, assuming aquatic habitat, and guessing its coloring)







Other reconstructions


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> I was wondering where the legs of the snake ‘should’ be. The answer turns out to be pretty much anywhere because there are so many animals that evolved snake-like bodies independently...
> ...Tetrapodophis (reconstruction from fossil, assuming aquatic, and guessing its coloring)



Ugh, that would make a terrible dragon 

Personally, I don't think we should try to mimic real life animals too much when we are talking about fantasy monsters.  Nice to use them for inspiration, but I'm not interested in copying or clear chimeras myself.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> I don't think we should try to mimic real life animals too much when we are talking about fantasy monsters.  Nice to use them for inspiration, but I'm not interested in copying or clear chimeras myself.




The intention is for inspiration. Referring to the location for the legs, if the legs are larger, then the body proportions of the Tetrapodophis approximate that of the East Asian dragon.











Note the stylization often dislocates the arms and legs. Yet the impression is suggestive of the Tetrapodophis.



(Also for the Norse dragon, the forelimbs of the Tetrapodophis seem a good location for functional large prehensile arms.)



The East Asian dragon is traditionally understood to blend nine different creatures together. But exactly which creatures can vary from tradition to tradition. For example:

The snake body has ...
• head of a (bactrian) camel
• paws of a tiger
• but these paws have talons of an eagle
• the fiery eyes of a devil
• ears of an ox
• horns of a deer
• neck of a snake (as opposed to the neck of a camel)
• scales of a carp fish
• soft belly of a frog
plus hair and beard (looks like mane of a lion?)
plus fish fin spine

The Asian Dragon lives underwater in a river, lake, or so on, but flies thru the air to make it rain, and so on.


----------



## Lucas Yew

Yaarel said:


> Are you sure that is a mythologically accurate Chinese tradition − as opposed to a D&D disinformation?




It's based on a RL Chinese legend-based idiom which states that if a carp manages to swim up a certain point in the upper Yellow River (specifically, somewhere near the Longmen Grottoes), it instantly grows into a full-fledged dragon. BTW, the idiom itself means "a major chance for one's social success."

On the other hand, most East Asian dragons are usually said to either mutate from serpents who achieved enough enlightenment, or like their non-Asian counterparts, reproducing true. It seems that the latter was the norm the further you go back in history, because since all other totemic creatures of ancient China were real animals, it is speculated that the original "Lōng" dragon was actually a real life yet now extinct aquatic reptile. In fact, artifacts from said ancient times depict them in more realistic proportions as an extant creature, not the mix and match serpent demigods they are as of now...


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> The East Asian dragon is traditionally understood to blend nine different creatures together. But exactly which creatures can vary from tradition to tradition. For example:



 In some East Asian traditions it is supposed to have features of all the other animals of the zodiac


----------



## Samloyal23

In ancient times there were dragons that were clearly part animal, some with multiple sets of legs, extra heads or tails, even multiple pairs of wings. I see no reason not to call something shaped like an ankylosaur that has eight legs and breathes acid by the term "dragon".


----------



## dave2008

Samloyal23 said:


> In ancient times there were dragons that were clearly part animal, some with multiple sets of legs, extra heads or tails, even multiple pairs of wings. I see no reason not to call something shaped like an ankylosaur that has eight legs and breathes acid by the term "dragon".



I agree completely.  However, I don't necessarily think that would pass as a D&D "Red" dragon.  Though it could definitely be another type of dragon.  Heck, the description is very similar to a dragon turtle.


----------



## Samloyal23

dave2008 said:


> I agree completely.  However, I don't necessarily think that would pass as a D&D "Red" dragon.  Though it could definitely be another type of dragon.  Heck, the description is very similar to a dragon turtle.



I see no reason a dragon can't look like any type of reptilian creature, from a feathered snake to a t-rex or brontosaurus. Godzilla is just a very large, bipedal dragon.


----------



## dave2008

Samloyal23 said:


> I see no reason a dragon can't look like any type of reptilian creature, from a feathered snake to a t-rex or brontosaurus. Godzilla is just a very large, bipedal dragon.



I agree, I do prefer my dragons to not be exact copies though.  Inspired by yes, copies or chimeras, not so much.

That being said, I feel there are some limits when we are talking about the iconic D&D dragons (Chromatic and Metallic 5).  I am interested in pushing those boundaries, but not completely throwing them out.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> That being said, I feel there are some limits when we are talking about the iconic D&D dragons (Chromatic and Metallic 5).  I am interested in pushing those boundaries, but not completely throwing them out.




I like that D&D 5e has Dragon as a creature type, that can include many different species of dragons.

It is possible to expand the definition of the D&D ‘true dragon’, while at the same time giving other kinds of related creatures the Dragon type descriptor.


----------



## Yaarel

By the way, with regard to the East Asian dragon, I wonder if the fins along the spine are specifically a repetition of the dorsal fin of the Yellow Cheek Carp. The other fins of this fish can be a brilliant yellow, and the dorsal fin can sometimes be yellowish or even yellow. Of course, the color yellow because of its association with fertile yellowish soil is highly significant to Chinese culture. In this way, the dragon would maintain its connection to the carp, and idealize its yellow coloring thus associating the rain fertilizing the yellow soil.






Note the yellowish dorsal fin from the spine above, being silver with a yellow edge for this individual fish.

Compare the repetition of this dorsal fin, across the spine of the dragon below.


----------



## Yaarel

Here is an other reconstruction of the Tetrapodophis, assuming a terrestrial habitat, and guessing its coloring.









 




I will update the post above too, to compare it with the aquatic opinion.

Again, these are plausible locations for limbs, but the dragon has much larger limbs.

Note, in the fossil, the limbs are well-formed meaning they are functional and useful (as opposed to vestigial).


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Here is an other reconstruction of the Tetrapodophis, assuming a terrestrial habitat, and guessing its coloring.
> 
> View attachment 115082
> 
> 
> 
> I will update the post above too, to compare it with the aquatic opinion.
> 
> Again, these are plausible locations for limbs, but the dragon has much larger limbs.
> 
> Note, in the fossil, the limbs are well-formed meaning they are functional and useful (as opposed to vestigial).



I prefer this terrestrial reconstruction for sure.  It reminds me a bit of this image of Fafnir:


----------



## Yaarel

Thinking about the British dragons. Like the East Asian dragons, the British dragons incorporate aspects of a fish. Examples. The Welsh dragon has the fish fins repeated down the spine of the neck. And that English dragon with the two sets of wings features fish fins on the tail.

In both cases, Asian and British, these dragons dwell in rivers and lakes. It appears both are water-breathers. Amphibious. Even the fire breathing dragons breath underwater.

Some dragons breath water − maybe even all of them. At the very least, those dragons that exhibit fish characteristics can be assumed to be water breathers.


----------



## dave2008

I have added some images of a possible blue dragon redesign.  That has been the hardest one I as I really couldn't find an image of quite what I wanted.


----------



## Tallifer

From my own campaign: (with pumpkin spice breath weapon)


----------



## Richards

Nice - what's his name?  Jack?  Gourdon?

Johnathan


----------



## Yaarel

Richards said:


> Nice - what's his name?  Jack?  Gourdon?
> 
> Johnathan



Kin of the Pumps


----------



## Tallifer

And this is what I used for an Ice Dragon:


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Give some types of dragons pets that are culturally common to their type of dragon.  Perhaps the equivalent dragon to a person who likes cats (or a wizard who has a familiar) might have a tatzlewurm.  Give green, blue, gold, copper, and bronze dragons tatzlewurms.


----------



## Son of the Serpent




----------



## Son of the Serpent

Yaarel said:


> Heh, Im unsure how many Medieval Europeans have seen this image.
> 
> But yeah, spot on. A blend of snake-lion-eagle. Plus horns. This blend is remarkably psychologically compelling.



Those arent horns.  They are the forward pointing ears of a linx with exagerated pointiness and possibly tufts.  Not horns at all.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Yaarel said:


> Yeah.
> 
> In the older stories about a dragon, the earlier authorship often had a different image in mind for what the dragon looked like, than the one that the later audiences had.
> 
> For example, the story of Fafnir shapeshifting into a dragon (Dreki). A runestone from around 1000 depicts it as a massive horned snake, breathing out vapor of venom. But later, a wood carving from the 1200s depicts Fafnir as having eagle arms and eagle wings, and a more lionlike head.



Also "lionlike" is the commonality of asiatic dragons.  European dragons are far more varied in head shape and although there are feline features they are rarely distinctively lion like feline features and instead broadly felines in general.  Som lion like features ones exist.  Those are actually rare.  Mostly its a wide variety of animalistic head features and when feline usually not lion in particular.


----------



## Yaarel

Son of the Serpent said:


> Also "lionlike" is the commonality of asiatic dragons.  European dragons are far more varied in head shape and although there are feline features they are rarely distinctively lion like feline features and instead broadly felines in general.  Som lion like features ones exist.  Those are actually rare.  Mostly its a wide variety of animalistic head features and when feline usually not lion in particular.




Yeah.

The reason for the variable head shapes of the medieval European dragon is because this dragon archetype specifically emerges, historically, in the context of a specific kind of military banner, called a Draco. This military banner is for a Roman cavalry unit.

The cavalry banner is essentially a tubular wind-sock, that waves like a serpent in the wind and while galloping on the horse. Different cavalry units placed different heads on the sock tubes, to identify each unit respectively to coordinate military tactical maneuvers. Some sock-tube banners would have snake heads, some lion heads, some wolf heads, some boar heads, and so on. The colors of wind-socks also differed. A distinctive banner for each cavalry unity.























The Romans called this serpent-like military banner a ‘Draco’ in Latin.

The Latin word Draco specifically is the Latin name for the African rock python. Greek references to this species of snake, is the original meaning that all of the European bestiaries are describing, under the entry name ‘Draco’. But since few Europeans have ever actually seen an African rock python, the term tended to mean any ‘serpent’ generally, especially a large snake that strangled its prey by wrapping around it before swallowing it.

So, the Latin name for the cavalry wind-sock banner was something like the ‘serpent banner’, the Draco. This serpent featured numerous different kinds of heads, and different sock-tube bodies with different colors or patterns.

Because the Draco is a real animal, mentioned in the bestiaries, Europeans guessed at what this kind of deadly snake that can kill an elephant might look like. The medieval European ‘popculture’ assumed that the Latin Draco military banners were intended to represent what the real python snake looked like, including the ability of this snake to possibly feature different kinds of heads.

So, the bestiaries − which were intended to be serious scholarly encyclopedias of known animals − began to depict the ‘Draco’ entry as various kinds of large monstrous snakes with diversely shaped heads. Likewise, the bestiary entry often conflated other ‘popculture’ understandings about deadly serpents, including a New Testament reference of a vision of a ‘serpent’ ‘in the heavens’, thus the snake gained wings to fly in the air, or sometimes a barbed tail to pull down stars or angels, a barbed tongue (as opposed to a forked tongue) to hook, ‘deceive’ and ‘seduce’, targets by means of speech, and so on, mixing-and-matching various traditions about monstrous serpents. Including, of course, deadly venomous serpents.



Note. The Welsh tradition describes ‘two dragons’, a white one and a red one, fighting each other. This prophetic vision is literally two armies fighting each other. The cavalry of each army has a different color wind-sock for its cavalry unit. One wind-sock is white, and one wind-sock is red. The Welsh army has the red Draco banner. The symbolic dreamlike vision depicted these banners as living serpents fighting each other to represent the respective armies in combat on the battlefield.

Note. The Norse word for ‘dragon’ is Dreki. Its etymology is Non-Norse, being borrowed directly from the Latin word Draco, ‘python’ or ‘serpent’. The Norse encountered this Latin word, via trade routes with the Germanic tribes who served as mercenaries in the Roman military, including the Roman cavalries. For example, the Saxon and Frankish militaries continued to use Draco as a military standard. Rarely, but in significant contexts, the Norse sometimes used the Latin-borrowed word Dreki, for its own indigenous traditions about specific monstrous snakes. Such as, the monstrous snake that the Dvergar Fafnir shapeshifted into, and the monstrous snake Níðhǫggr that has wings, being a shapeshifted Jǫtunn. The Norse also used the word Dreki for its Viking ‘dragonship’, a kind of luxury war boat for chieftains and other officers, whose prow would feature various removable ornaments, including various animal heads as military standards. The Nordic Post-Viking Period 1100-1400, under Pan-European literary influence, came to increasingly depict its own Norse ‘Dreki’ with non-snake heads, such as a lion-like head or a wolf-like head.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Yaarel said:


> Yeah.
> 
> The reason for the variable head shapes of the medieval European dragon is because this dragon archetype specifically emerges, historically, in the context of a specific kind of military banner, called a Draco. This military banner is for a Roman cavalry unit.
> 
> The cavalry banner is essentially a tubular wind-sock, that waves like a serpent in the wind and while galloping on the horse. Different cavalry units placed different heads on the sock tubes, to identify each unit respectively to coordinate military tactical maneuvers. Some sock-tube banners would have snake heads, some lion heads, some wolf heads, some boar heads, and so on. The colors of wind-socks also differed. A distinctive banner for each cavalry unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Romans called this serpent-like military banner a ‘Draco’ in Latin.
> 
> The Latin word Draco specifically is the Latin name for the African rock python. Greek references to this species of snake, is the original meaning that all of the European bestiaries are describing, under the entry name ‘Draco’. But since few Europeans have ever actually seen an African rock python, the term tended to mean any ‘serpent’ generally, especially a large snake that strangled its prey by wrapping around it before swallowing it.
> 
> So, the Latin name for the cavalry wind-sock banner was something like the ‘serpent banner’, the Draco. This serpent featured numerous different kinds of heads, and different sock-tube bodies with different colors or patterns.
> 
> Because the Draco is a real animal, mentioned in the bestiaries, Europeans guessed at what this kind of deadly snake that can kill an elephant might look like. The medieval European ‘popculture’ assumed that the Latin Draco military banners were intended to represent what the real python snake looked like, including the ability of this snake to possibly feature different kinds of heads.
> 
> So, the bestiaries − which were intended to be serious scholarly encyclopedias of known animals − began to depict the ‘Draco’ entry as various kinds of large monstrous snakes with diversely shaped heads. Likewise, the bestiary entry often conflated other ‘popculture’ understandings about deadly serpents, including a New Testament reference of a vision of a ‘serpent’ ‘in the heavens’, thus the snake gained wings to fly in the air, or sometimes a barbed tail to pull down stars or angels, a barbed tongue (as opposed to a forked tongue) to hook, ‘deceive’ and ‘seduce’, targets by means of speech, and so on, mixing-and-matching various traditions about monstrous serpents. Including, of course, deadly venomous serpents.
> 
> 
> 
> Note. The Welsh tradition describes ‘two dragons’, a white one and a red one, fighting each other. This prophetic vision is literally two armies fighting each other. The cavalry of each army has a different color wind-sock for its cavalry unit. One wind-sock is white, and one wind-sock is red. The Welsh army has the red Draco banner. The symbolic dreamlike vision depicted these banners as living serpents fighting each other to represent the respective armies in combat on the battlefield.
> 
> Note. The Norse word for ‘dragon’ is Dreki. Its etymology is Non-Norse, being borrowed directly from the Latin word Draco, ‘python’ or ‘serpent’. The Norse encountered this Latin word, via trade routes with the Germanic tribes who served as mercenaries in the Roman military, including the Roman cavalries. Rarely, but in significant contexts, the Norse sometimes used the Latin-borrowed word Dreki, for its own indigenous traditions about specific monstrous snakes. Such as, the monstrous snake that the Dvergar Fafnir shapeshifted into, and the monstrous snake Níðhǫggr that has wings, being a shapeshifted Jǫtunn. The Norse also used the word Dreki for its Viking ‘dragonship’, a kind of luxury war boat for chieftains and other officers, whose prow would feature various removable ornaments, including various animal heads as military standards. The Nordic Post-Viking Period 1100-1400, under Pan-European literary influence, came to increasingly depict its own Norse ‘Dreki’ with non-snake heads, such as a lion-like head or a wolf-like head.



No.  The variable head features go all the way back to primitive indo eauropean religious myth in the last stages is animism.  Serpents with weird heads can be found in cave paintings from in areas around the cacausus and in india from around the time the indo europeans were moving through there.  Obviously the resolution, so to speak, of said figures is low but the heads already feature things like horns and ears.  Details that dont require precision.  Its also able to be reconstructed for alternative verification from early germanic and early hindu legends.  They bith spwak of very similar beasts and they both got this influence from said indo european myths.


----------



## Yaarel

One of the difficulties is a weird D&D 5e-ism. Where a creature can only be one single creature type.

For example, 5e says in Xanathars, an Eladrin can either be a ‘humanoid’ or a ‘fey’, but cannot be both. A 5e Eladrin who is a ‘fey humanoid’, both, is impossible.

Likewise, the Cuatl can ONLY be either ‘celestial’ or ‘dragon’, but not both at the same time.



Personally, I find this false-dicotomy design unhelpful.



For example, the Fairy Dragon should be both a ‘fey dragon’, not just a dragon.

Using multiple descriptors when they apply narratively would be helpful and make it easier to represent the various kinds of dragons.


----------



## Yaarel

Son of the Serpent said:


> No.  The variable head features go all the way back to primitive indo eauropean religious myth in the last stages is animism.  Serpents with weird heads can be found in cave paintings from in areas around the cacausus and in india from around the time the indo europeans were moving through there.  Obviously the resolution, so to speak, of said figures is low but the heads already feature things like horns and ears.  Details that dont require precision.  Its also able to be reconstructed for alternative verification from early germanic and early hindu legends.  They bith spwak of very similar beasts and they both got this influence from said indo european myths.



Nevertheless, there is a historical context for the specifically medieval European concept of a dragon, from which the modern fantasy dragon derives.

Most cultures have some kind of a concept of a mythic ‘snake’, speaking generally.

The European ‘dragon’ (Latin Draco) is something that has a specific evolution in a specific historical context, space and time. It derives under the influence of the Roman military traditions in conjunction with the Latin bestiaries that cite Greek traditions about the python.

The European dragon is extremely aggressive BECAUSE this snake archetype conflates Roman warfare and Christian devil.


----------



## Yaarel

Compare the ‘evolution’ of the Draco dragon extent in various medieval bestiaries in the Latin language.







A reallife image of an African rock python killing a baby impala.



A python killed an elephant! This is the ancient (Greek) version of a modern ‘animal attack’ video. Somebody somewhere witnessed a python kill a (baby?) elephant. A rare and amazing incident and reported it. The idea became an ancient ‘urban legend’ and a virulent ‘meme’. A kind of snake that can even kill elephants!








Some bestiaries mention the python will fall down from a tree on top of an elephant. Most medieval Europeans have never seen a python. Or an elephant. Hopping down from a treetop also encouraged the assumption that this kind of snake might be birdlike, with wings, flying among tree branches, and eaglelike landing to catch its prey.

Above, the birdlike wings are grabbing under the foreleg of the elephant. But the original concept of a snake is clear.

Other bestiaries simply mention the python ‘on the path’ of the elephant, and tangles its feet, to take it down. Other bestiaries mention the python going after a newborn elephant, while the parents defend it.

In the manuscript above, note the wolflike head with ears. By the Medieval Period, the Roman military Draco banner is already firmly implanted in the popular imagination of what a ‘Draco’ looks like. So various kinds of heads are already possible.



These Pan-European bestiary manuscripts were part of the Roman then Holy Roman Empire. The earlier ones are text-only in Latin. But later, the medieval illuminated manuscripts tried to illustrate them with a picture of each animal, ... as best as the artist was able.

The texts of most of these bestiaries interpreted these animals allegorically and religiously. The description for the Draco python entry added an allegory that compared it to the Christian devil. The elephant then is a careless Christian who is unaware of the machinations of the devil. The devil entraps the elephant Christian in sin. Meanwhile, the ‘Draco’ from the Vulgate Latin Bible, is a ‘snake’, a ‘serpent’, apparently flying in the heavens like angels do, a ‘fowl’ of the air, a ‘roaming lion’, a ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’, and so on, conflating various possibilities for what the African python looks like.








Note the Draco python above has a lionlike head. Or at least more catlike. The artist has seen a reallife cat. A lion is said to be something like it. The winged body is interpreted as if more birdlike.

Regarding the elephant. Since few have ever seen a reallife elephant, the bestiary manuscript traditions tend to portray the tusks of the elephant growing upward from the lower jaw. This is a guess about which teeth the ‘oliphant horns’ come from. At least this artist has a reasonably accurate understanding of the large ears.








This snake has a wolfhead, like the Roman cavalry banner sometimes does.








Note, the above medieval European artist has never actually seen a reallife African elephant nor a reallife African rock python, nor even ever seen a decent bestiary that depicted either of these.

Even so, the head of the snake seems an attempt at lionlike, somewhat like a domestic cat.

Either the elephant is pretty small, or the python is pretty big.








This Draco ‘serpent’ has venom. The venom is painful, burns, and causes redness and inflamation ... like fire.








Note the humanlike (?) head. With eyebrows. But the elephants also have eyebrows. Future bestiaries with a human-headed Draco python, have precedents.








The ‘Draco’ python above has a lionlike (?) head. The artist might be splitting the difference between seeing bestiaries with a lionlike head and bestiaries with a wolflike one. So compromised.

Similarly, the artist might have seen an image with a naturalistic python snake, or thought about how snakes dont normally have legs, yet saw a bestiary where the Draco was more birdlike with wings. So compromised. No legs but birdlike.

A respectably accurate elephant − this artist has connections!








This artist has never seen an elephant. But at least everybody knows, this is what a python looks like.


----------



## Yaarel

More Draco (plural Dracones) from the Roman cavalry banners.

These two Draco come from Trajans Column from the century 100s.

One Draco has a lionlike head, the other a wolflike head.










Next is a funerary stele in Britain dating to roughly 200, in Chester, England. A cavalry standard bearer carries a military Draco.







During the 200s, this coin depicts the Roman emperor Trajan Decius, probably carrying a Draco.









A famous Draco head was discovered in Germany, in Niederbieder, dating to the 200s. The head is made out of copper. This dragon snake head looks more like an earless snake with scales. But it has some kind of crest. Also it has teeth and lacks fangs.







Below are Draco from the Arch of Galerius, during the 300s. The heads are unclear, but there are at least four Draco banners waving serpentinely during a military formation..







During Post-Classical Period (corresponding to the Byzantine Period, the Migration Period, and so on), such Roman military Draco, are the kind of ‘Draco’ that Europeans have in mind.

When these and later Europeans see the word ‘Draco’ mentioned in ancient texts, such as bestiaries or the Bible, this banner is how they imagine this specific kind of snake to look like.

Texts mention the Draco banner still in use during the 500s, and seems to stop functioning for the Roman and Byzantine militaries during the 600s. Nevertheless, the use of the Draco as a military standard persists elsewhere.



The famous Bayeux Tapestry depicts the Battle of Hastings in year 1066. It is thought to be embroidered in England during the 1000s, and informed by the eyewitness survivors of that battle. (Probably, it was commissioned by Bishop Odo, a half-brother of William the Conquerer.)

Remarkably, the tapestry depicts the ‘Dragon of Wessex’. It is a red Draco wind-sock banner, carried by a military standard bearer.






Notice, during the 1000s, this military Draco in Britain portrays this red snake as having forelegs. The animal head is ambiguous: it might be lion-like or wolf-like.

This is the kind of ‘Draco’ that illustrates many bestiaries concerning the python, called a Draco in Latin.



The Draco military banner remained in use. It defined what medieval Europeans knew about what the reallife Draco looked like − namely the python.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Yaarel said:


> One of the difficulties is a weird D&D 5e-ism. Where a creature can only be one single creature type.
> 
> For example, 5e says in Xanathars, an Eladrin can either be a ‘humanoid’ or a ‘fey’, but cannot be both. A 5e Eladrin who is a ‘fey humanoid’, both, is impossible.
> 
> Likewise, the Cuatl can ONLY be either ‘celestial’ or ‘dragon’, but not both at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I find this false-dicotomy design unhelpful.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the Fairy Dragon should be both a ‘fey dragon’, not just a dragon.
> 
> Using multiple descriptors when they apply narratively would be helpful and make it easier to represent the various kinds of dragons.



Wow.  Didnt know about that rule.  Thats a HORRIBLE oversight.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> Wow.  Didnt know about that rule.  Thats a HORRIBLE oversight.



You of course can change that for your own games.  It doesn’t affect much really.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Son of the Serpent said:


> Wow.  Didnt know about that rule.  Thats a HORRIBLE oversight.



I should point out that "elf" is a subtype and subtypes can apply to different types, so you can be a fey elf, just not a fey humanoid.  There are fey elves in MToF's and celestial elves (and dwarves) are mentioned in the DMG.  Maybe someone can explain why "fey humanoid" is better than "fey elf", because I don't see it, especially since you can technically be fey "any race."  

There is a dearth of subtypes primarily related to dragons and celestials, but you could easily make some.  So if you made a dragonkin subtype, then Couatl could be celestial dragonkin.  Or you could decide the subtype lamasu covers any winged beast-like celestial, and then Couatl could be dragon lamasu.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

@MechaTarrasque 
elf is not a subtype in the game.  its a race.  with diluted fey ancestry.  you could basically say they are comparable to aasimar but fey background not celestial.

now, if you mean mythologically, it could be said elf is a lot of things.  subtype and race would both be valid examples, and several others.  but unless i completely lost my memory or unless 5e has made this a deviation from earliers e's without me noticing, no.  not a subtype in the game rules.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> @MechaTarrasque
> elf is not a subtype in the game.  its a race.  with diluted fey ancestry.  you could basically say they are comparable to aasimar but fey background not celestial.
> 
> now, if you mean mythologically, it could be said elf is a lot of things.  subtype and race would both be valid examples, and several others.  but unless i completely lost my memory or unless 5e has made this a deviation from earliers e's without me noticing, no.  not a subtype in the game rules.



Actually, it looks like @MechaTarrasque is correct.  See the eladrin from MToF:




vs. the drow in the MM:




And of course these are actually tags (from the MM):


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> Actually, it looks like @MechaTarrasque is correct.  See the eladrin from MToF:
> View attachment 115298
> 
> vs. the drow in the MM:
> View attachment 115300
> 
> And of course these are actually tags (from the MM):
> View attachment 115301



I think its just the way they annotate the "race" of the "humanoid"


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> I think its just the way they annotate the "race" of the "humanoid"



That is basically what he said, of course the MM clearly indicates these are “tags” and that a monster can have one or more tags, so it is not just race.  Off the top of my head there are the following tags:
Elf, human, devil, demon, orc.
I would assume all the “races” would be tags. Any others?


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I believe dwarf, dragonborn, gith, gnoll, gnome, goblinoid, grimlock, halfling, half-elf, half orc, kobold, kua-toa, lizardfolk, merfolk, quaggoth, sahuagin, shapechanger, titan, tortle, and yugoloth are subtypes,   Some of them only show up in the NPC stat blocks for the AP's.  I assume the Eberron book will add a few more.

Sadly angels, myconids, and modrons don't rate subtypes.

Conjure animals creates critters that count as beasts and fey, which basically means divine word can banish them (charisma save and most beasts aren't rolling in charisma).

5e isn't like previous editions where getting a type meant getting goodies.  Getting a type in 5e mostly means you are vulnerable to spells that other types aren't (although there are some magic items that only attune to members of certain races).


----------



## Yaarel

It seems to me, there is no such thing as a ‘subtype’ in D&D 5e. This parenthetical categorization is called a ‘tag’.

The tag can be anything that helps to categorize the relationship of a creature to other creatures.

The official examples of tags so far, such as Elf, even Half-Elf, Dwarf, and so on, imply a ‘tag’ is identical to the term ‘race’, except the term ‘race’ can only be used for a ‘player character race’.

The tag implies, ‘goblinoid’ too is equivalent to a race, and Goblin, Hobgoblin, and Bugbear are subraces of the Goblinoid race.

In other words, the player character race ‘Elf’, can include subraces that are very different mechanically from the Elf that is found in the Players Handbook.

For example, it was possible to make the Eladrin as different from the Elf as the Bugbear is to the Goblin, and still give the Eladrin the ‘elf’ tag.

In the future, there can be an ‘elf’ that is really different mechanically, such as completely lacking an ability score improvement to Dexterity. For example, the Sun Elf might improve Charisma +2, and Intelligence +2, and still receive the ‘elf’ tag.



Oddly, the respective tags imply ‘demon’ and ‘devil’ are equivalent to two separate races of fiends.



Notice. Both ‘dragon’ and ‘giant’ are each both a type and a race. In contrast to the types ‘dragon’ and ‘giant’, the races per se are called ‘True Dragon’ and ‘True Giant’.

Hypothetically, it could be possible to tag a ‘True Dragon’ that existed in an other plane.


----------



## dave2008

MechaTarrasque said:


> Sadly angels, myconids, and modrons don't rate subtypes.



 Those are odd omissions.  With devil and demons being a tag, you would assume angels would be too.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, there is no such thing as a ‘subtype’ in D&D 5e. This parenthetical categorization is called a ‘tag’.
> 
> The tag can be anything that helps to categorize the relationship of a creature to other creatures.
> 
> The official examples of tags so far, such as Elf, even Half-Elf, Dwarf, and so on, imply a ‘tag’ is identical to the term ‘race’, except the term ‘race’ can only be used for a ‘player character race’.



The tags are not identical to the PC term "race."  As you already noted, devil and demon are tags, but not races.  The list of tags also includes yugoloth and titan.  I guess you could argue that devils, demons, and yugoloths are a "race," but I certainly do not think they are.   However, there is no reasonable way to describe 'titans' as a race since it includes such diverse things as:  empyrean, kraken, and the tarrasque.

Clearly the tag (or subtype if you want) is not just race, though it appears to include them.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> I think its just the way they annotate the "race" of the "humanoid"



All races seem to be tags, but all tags are not races.  The best example is the 'titan' tag, which is clearly not a race.


----------



## Yaarel

I view devil, demon, and yugolth as separate ‘races’. (Interestingly, the 5e Succubus is a fiend but not a demon.)

I suspect, angel lacks a tag (as somewhat of an oversight) because there are no other celestial races in contrast to it. Unlike the evil counterparts that divided into separate races by alignment, the good angels remain unified as a single race of any good alignment. But analogous to the subraces Drow and Eladrin being ‘humanoid (elf)’, the subrace Deva should probably be statted as ‘celestial (angel)’. It isnt a big deal, but a future printing could errata this.

I agree the situation with ‘titan’ is surprising. Nevertheless, I view titan as a race too. However, this is a race of primordial cosmic beings. They have nothing to do with natural evolution. Each primordial took whatever shape that it had affinity with. At least according to the Greek myths, beautiful titans could give birth to monstrous ones.



The tag ‘shapeshifter’ is notable. It isnt a ‘race’ per se, but signifies the defiance of a racial category. For example, a changeling is a race, except when one is not, and is temporarily being a different race.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> Clearly the tag (or subtype if you want)




There is no ‘subtype’ in 5e because a ‘tag’ isnt a subdivision of a type.

For example, the ‘elf’ tag can be ‘celestial (elf)’ or ‘humanoid (elf)’ or whatever other type. Elf isnt a subdivision of anything. It is a racial tag that can become various types.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaTarrasque said:


> Conjure animals creates critters that count as beasts and fey, which basically means divine word can banish them (charisma save and most beasts aren't rolling in charisma).



Wow. That seems like a mistake. It should be impossible for the creatures of the Conjure Animals spell to be both a ‘beast’ type and a ‘fey’ type. But that duality is what the spell description seems to say: ‘Each beast is also considered fey’.

It probably wont be errataed because ‘specific trumps general’. So, in the context of this specific spell, the magic allows the creatures to count as both.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> There is no ‘subtype’ in 5e because a ‘tag’ isnt a subdivision of a type.
> 
> For example, the ‘elf’ tag can be ‘celestial (elf)’ or ‘humanoid (elf)’ or whatever other type. Elf isnt a subdivision of anything. It is a racial tag that can become various types.



I was simply pointing out that @MechaTarrasque  was using the term ‘subtype’ instead of the term ‘tag.’  Those,to me, are more similar than you calling the D&D terms titans, demons, devils, and yugoloths ‘races’ which they clearly are not IMO.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Wow. That seems like a mistake. It should be impossible for the creatures of the Conjure Animals spell to be both a ‘beast’ type and a ‘fey’ type.



Why should that be impossible? I think you are being to strict in your application if that is your opinion.


----------



## Yaarel

These plane types refer to the planar origin of a creature:
• Aberrations (Far Realm)
• Celestials
• Elementals
• Fiends (Infernal)
• Fey (Feywild)
• Undead (Shadowfell)

The Construct type is awkward, but relates to being made artificially out of the ‘stuff’ of the planar origin:
• Constructs

These form types refer to the form of a creature:
• Beasts
• Dragons
• Giants
• Humanoids
• Monstrosities
• Oozes
• Plants



So there are plane types and form types.

The list of plane types remains incomplete.

The Astral Plane is missing from the list of plane types. Also, the Neutral Planes (LE, N, CN) that are neither Celestial (Good) nor Infernal (Evil), are absent from the list.

I view the Great Wheel as parts of the Astral Plane whose nature is an alignment. The rest of the Astral Plane is unaligned. The Celestial Planes are aligned with Good, and the Infernal planes are aligned with Evil, but perhaps what really makes them distinct from the rest of the Astral Plane is their connection to the Positive Plane or the Negative Plane, respectively.

So, ‘Astrals’ is missing from the list of plane types, and it can also cover the Neutral Planes.

‘Ethereals’ is missing from the list.  I view Feywild and Shadowfell as aspects of the Ethereal plane. What makes them distinct from the rest of the Ethereal is their connection to the Positive Plane or the Negative Plane, respectively.



The list of the form types seems to represent the Material Plane. Inferably, if a Material creature became entirely otherworldly, thus no longer persisted as an aspect of the Material Plane, then the Material form would cease to be a ‘fundamental nature’ of the creature.

This potential loss of a form type relates to why the Eladrin is either Humanoid or Fey, but not both. If Eladrin are Fey, then they are utterly otherworldly and unable to relate to humans. In other words, Eladrin who are Fey have no soul. Those Eladrin who are Humanoid have somehow gained a human-like soul.

Likewise, celestials and fiends lack souls. The souls of the dead who enter the celestial or infernal, probably need to remain ‘humanoid’, rather than becoming a celestial or a fiend.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> That is basically what he said, of course the MM clearly indicates these are “tags” and that a monster can have one or more tags, so it is not just race.  Off the top of my head there are the following tags:
> Elf, human, devil, demon, orc.
> I would assume all the “races” would be tags. Any others?



But would that make it a subtype or just an independant tag that is classified differently than a subtype per se?


----------



## Son of the Serpent

I did more reading and i get it now.  Nevermind.

Some races just happen to be considered an entire subtype.  Which is odd.  Because subtype implies a level of broadness i would generally not associate with a race.  But whatever i guess.  It is what it is.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> All races seem to be tags, but all tags are not races.  The best example is the 'titan' tag, which is clearly not a race.



To be fair though there is an enture race called titans though that are part of that category.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> To be fair though there is an enture race called titans though that are part of that category.



Not in 5e.  5e Titans: empyrean (classic D&D titan), krakens, and tarrasqe. I’m sure there may be others as well. I think that atropal from TOA is also listed as a titan. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Laurefindel

dave2008 said:


> So, in general, I really liked the Lockwood dragons when they first came out.  But after being stuck with them for 3 editions I think they are a bit long in the tooth.  In fact, I find most of the chromatic dragons that aren’t red a bit boring or annoying in some way or the other.
> 
> Now I realize WotC is not going to redesign the dragons midway into and edit on; however, with the rumors of dragonlance  coming down the pipe, I can but wonder if we could get new designs, just like DL did back in the day.
> 
> So is that something others would be interested in?  If so, what would you change, while keeping the iconic color schemes and breath weapons? What should stay and what should go?




I'd be all in favour of a dragon redesign.

But as I was re-reading my reply before posting, I realised that very few changes I'd like to see would have no mechanical consequences. In other words, I see most cosmetic changes as a form of specialisation (beyond the type of breathe weapon) that would be nice to represent mechanically as well (black dragon horns, blue dragon spiked tail etc)

The only major cosmetic change I would like without mechanical consequences is 4-limbs dragons, but that too is going against the iconic identity of D&D dragons.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> Not in 5e.  5e Titans: empyrean (classic D&D titan), krakens, and tarrasqe. I’m sure there may be others as well. I think that atropal from TOA is also listed as a titan. But I could be wrong.



Ah.  Thankyou.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> Ah.  Thankyou.



 There is a description of Titans in the DMG as well. They are listed along with quasi-deities demigods and lesser and greater guards As a group of cosmic beings. I believe there Are creatures that have some bit of the divine spark By the  creation of this gods or some other means


----------



## dave2008

Laurefindel said:


> I'd be all in favour of a dragon redesign.
> 
> But as I was re-reading my reply before posting, I realised that very few changes I'd like to see would have no mechanical consequences. In other words, I see most cosmetic changes as a form of specialisation (beyond the type of breathe weapon) that would be nice to represent mechanically as well (black dragon horns, blue dragon spiked tail etc)
> 
> The only major cosmetic change I would like without mechanical consequences is 4-limbs dragons, but that too is going against the iconic identity of D&D dragons.



 I do want to clarify that I’m not saying there can’t be mechanical changes to the dragons. I’m just saying that’s not what I wanted to discuss in this thread. I would assume any redesign would also include mechanical revisions to accommodate those re-designs. But that is another discussion.


----------



## Yaarel

It is surprising that even the Half-Dragon has nothing in its stat block to indicate that it is dragon. This creature can be humanoid, beast, monstrosity, and giant. But not dragon. Again, the 5e-ism, there can only be one type possible. And even in a case of two parents, only one of them can apply.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> It is surprising that even the Half-Dragon has nothing in its stat block to indicate that it is dragon. This creature can be humanoid, beast, monstrosity, and giant. But not dragon. Again, the 5e-ism, there can only be one type possible. And even in a case of two parents, only one of them can apply.



That is a weird one:  type humanoid w/ the (human) tag!


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> Ah.  Thankyou.



FYI, here is there description in the DMG:


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Huh

They did away with intermediate deities


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> Huh
> 
> They did away with intermediate deities



Yes (though I still use them).  To be fair, they only existed in 2e and 3e.  Neither 1e nor 4e had intermediate deities.  So a majority of editions don't have intermediate deities by RAW, but I like them so I still use them.


----------



## Yaarel

@dave2008

I appreciate the posting of the relevant description of Divine Rank.

Heh, I hate when 5e bakes the polytheistic setting flavor into the core rules. I wish the designers would organize this stuff as an opt-in setting option. No doubt, the descriptions of types and tags would be clearer if they did organize it as a separate system.

In any case, the ‘titan’ tag clearly refers to Divine Rank.

It still remains unclear to me whether a ‘greater deity’ can be considered a ‘race’, thus other ranks of divinities be defacto functioning as different ‘races’.

Assuming the designers are applying these rules attentively and consistently, the stat block for Lolth seems instructive. She is listed as a ‘fiend (demon lord)’.

Pertinently, she lost her ‘celestial’ type by becoming evil, and gaining the ‘fiend’ type instead.

Moreover, she lost her ‘elf’ race (if she ever had it) and perhaps became the ‘demon’ race instead.

She has zero connection to the Fey type.

Presumably, her status as a ‘lord’ is equivalent to a ‘lesser deity’, but nothing in the stat block actually says this. It is only because she grants spells to her Clerics, that she must be at least a lesser deity according to the description in Divine Rank.

It could be that deities have their own special kinds of rules of existence, and count as a separate race (being something like a special kind of shapeshifter). Or perhaps more accurately, the Divine status transcends the possibility of being any race.

It could be that a ‘demon lord’ as a specific kind of ‘lesser deity’ is no longer is part of the ‘demon’ race.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Assuming the designers are applying these rules attentively and consistently, the stat block for Lolth seems instructive. She is listed as a ‘fiend (demon lord)’.



 There is no official stat block for Lolth in 5e that I am aware of.  The only deity with stats so far is Tiamat and here type is 'fiend'


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> It could be that a ‘demon lord’ as a specific kind of ‘lesser deity’ is no longer is part of the ‘demon’ race.



 By RAW it doesn't matter (types and tags have no associated mechanics); however I don't consider demons a "race."


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Heh, I hate when 5e bakes the polytheistic setting flavor into the core rules. I wish the designers would organize this stuff as an opt-in setting option. No doubt, the descriptions of types and tags would be clearer if they did organize it as a separate system.



It's a side bar, with no mechanical effects.  I don't consider that baked in myself.  The same section in the DMG has multi-paragraph sections on Monotheism, Dualism, and Animism among others in the general text.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> In any case, the ‘titan’ tag clearly refers to Divine Rank.



 However, the divine rank would be "Quasi-deity" with titans being a type of quasi-deity.  And since might be manufactured, birthed by gods, or spring from their blood or other divine will or substance,  I think it is really hard to think of them as a 'race.'  I don't think the 5e tags want or need to be so tied-down and strictly defined.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> There is no official stat block for Lolth in 5e that I am aware of.  The only deity with stats so far is Tiamat and here type is 'fiend'



I got the Lolth stats online from a wiki, but it looks like it was a homebrew conversion from 4e.

I assume the Tiamat stats come from the adventure book?

It seems to be an oversight, that the stat block would fail to mention that Tiamat is a deity of some kind.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> It's a side bar, with no mechanical effects.  I don't consider that baked in myself.  The same section in the DMG has multi-paragraph sections on Monotheism, Dualism, and Animism among others in the general text.



Monotheism are theisms, so the baked-in rules flavor works enough of the time.

I am unhappy with the way D&D 5e handles the possibility of a strictly Animistic setting.

Or even any kind of nontheistic settings.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> However, the divine rank would be "Quasi-deity" with titans being a type of quasi-deity.  And since might be manufactured, birthed by gods, or spring from their blood or other divine will or substance,  I think it is really hard to think of them as a 'race.'  I don't think the 5e tags want or need to be so tied-down and strictly defined.




Actually, their multiple methods of coming into existence is exactly why I think of the ‘titan’ as a race. This kind of race simply doesnt reproduce in the same way that other races do.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> I don't think the 5e tags want or need to be so tied-down and strictly defined.



I feel the 5e rule that only one type is possible, and that a secondary type cannot count as a tag, creates an unnecessarily awkward situation where the tag must mean something specific. At least a tag cannot be a type.

Weirdly, it seems that deity is also not a type. And if anything should be a type, deity probably should be. At least for the sake of rules clarity.

Since deity isnt a type, but can be a tag, it makes it seems as if deity is a kind of race. Just like Eladrin can be fey (elf) or humanoid (elf), a quasideity can be celestial (titan), or presumably a lesser deity could be a fiend (archdevil).

I wish 5e removed all of this stuff from the core rules. Put it in a specific setting, where it can be thought thru more carefully.


----------



## Yaarel

I was hoping to be able to sort thru exactly what a type and tag are, so we could get back to the issue of which statblock descriptors to use for different kinds of dragons.

But it seems the rules for type and tag are either confused or confusing.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Honestly i dont think the writers REALLY REALLY know what monotheism and animism are anyway.  At least MOST of them.  But thats because most people dont.  When i dm 3rd i make a habit of ignoring what they say about auch systems of fait's classification along those lines.

Case in point, abrahamic faiths including christianity are less a form of monotheism and more or less kynotheism.

True and pure monotheism is actually kinda rare.

And most people dont have a clue about animism.  Thats because it was almost all the way died out by the time complex writing was a thing and long died out before complex and info dense historical records were being taken down and preserved.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> I got the Lolth stats online from a wiki, but it looks like it was a homebrew conversion from 4e.
> 
> I assume the Tiamat stats come from the adventure book?
> 
> It seems to be an oversight, that the stat block would fail to mention that Tiamat is a deity of some kind.



Yes from the Rise of Tiamat.  I believe they are also in the new Baldur's Gate:  Descent into Avernus adventure

I don't think it is an oversight (it has been printed this way in 3 different books I think).  I think in 5e deities are not a "type."


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Monotheism are theisms, so the baked-in rules flavor works enough of the time.
> 
> I am unhappy with the way D&D 5e handles the possibility of a strictly Animistic setting.
> 
> Or even any kind of nontheistic settings.



Not sure what you are saying, the post you quoted noted Dualism and Animism are in the DMG more prominently than the divine ranks side bar.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Actually, their multiple methods of coming into existence is exactly why I think of the ‘titan’ as a race. This kind of race simply doesnt reproduce in the same way that other races do.



 A kraken is a titan and I assume they reproduce (there are stats for a juvenile kraken in GoSM).  In fact, I think krakens are a race, but their tag is 'titan.'  I think your logic on this is flawed based on the evidence.  But again, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> I wish 5e removed all of this stuff from the core rules. Put it in a specific setting, where it can be thought thru more carefully.



 That would make things more clear and provide room for interpretation for other settings.  However,  don't mind a generic standard.  Like everything in D&D I am happy to use fluff or not.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> That would make things more clear and provide room for interpretation for other settings.  However,  don't mind a generic standard.  Like everything in D&D I am happy to use fluff or not.



My gaming style treats fluff as rules − especially with regard to narrative adjudication. So for me, it is an endless nightmare to deal with 5e rules that constantly inject unwanted narrative rules (≈fluff) even within the mechanics themselves.





dave2008 said:


> I don't think it is an oversight (it has been printed this way in 3 different books I think).  I think in 5e deities are not a "type."



If a lesser deity isnt even listed as a tag, such as the case for Timat, then it seems conflictive when the rules list the quasideity titan as a tag. For the sake of consistency and clarity, it seems better to either remove the ‘titan’ tag from all statblocks, or alternatively change ‘titan’ into a special type, like Dragon and Giant. Alternatively, add various kinds of tags for other divine ranks, but actually, I would rather remove all references to polytheism from the core rules anyway.

In the meantime, I am happy enough to treat ‘titan’ as a race. The ‘titan’ race can reproduce by means of a ‘union’ or by means of being ‘manufactured’. For this reason, the race can become many different forms. So if the Kraken can reproduce by means of a ‘union’, I dont see a problem.

Note, according to the polytheistic setting, the origin of elves is from the blood of a deity: the race of elves themselves are analogous to the titan race, and the elves also became many different forms. Likewise, the origins of the dwarves were ‘manufactured’ by a deity. Accordingly, titans are merely a very powerful race.

I assume an Archfey counts as a ‘lesser deity’?

Anyways the rules for types and tags seem inconsistent at best.



In the end, I feel the best solution is to allow a type to also function as a tag when applicable. For example:
• a ‘Half-Dragon’ Half-Human is ‘humanoid (dragon, human)’
• a ‘Dragonborn’ is ‘humanoid (dragon)’
• an Eladrin is ‘humanoid (fey elf)’
• a ‘Tiefling’ is ‘humanoid (human, fiend)’
• a Faerie Dragon is ‘dragon (fey)’
• a Cuatl is ‘dragon (celestial)’

This approach allows the tags to truly be looser, and for the designer to mention whatever tag helps to clarify the relationship between one creature and an other.


----------



## Yaarel

Son of the Serpent said:


> Honestly i dont think the writers REALLY REALLY know what monotheism and animism are anyway.  At least MOST of them.  But thats because most people dont.  When i dm 3rd i make a habit of ignoring what they say about auch systems of fait's classification along those lines.
> 
> Case in point, abrahamic faiths including christianity are less a form of monotheism and more or less kynotheism.
> 
> True and pure monotheism is actually kinda rare.
> 
> And most people dont have a clue about animism.  Thats because it was almost all the way died out by the time complex writing was a thing and long died out before complex and info dense historical records were being taken down and preserved.




Henotheism? Some Abrahamic traditions seem henotheistic, especially in ancient times. But modern ones are mostly strictly monotheistic. Heh, at least Judaism and Islam are strictly monotheistic, but both of these have doubts about Christianity worshiping a human.



True about animism. Animism still exists today, but even some of these cultures are influenced by Christians and Muslims telling them that their nature spirits are ‘gods’.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I am sure if there is a book with a bunch of weapons that specifically effect gods, "god" will become a tag, and Tiamat's stat block will be reprinted with the new tag (there is already precedent [demon lords] for changing an NPC's stat block from one book to another in 5e, and they have explained that the stat block in a book represents what they want from that creature for that book).  Since there were no god-effecting magguffins in either book Tiamat has appeared in, there was no need for the tag.  

I would be greatly surprised if there will be any new types, but new tags come fairly often.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Yaarel said:


> Henotheism? Some Abrahamic traditions seem henotheistic, especially in ancient times. But modern ones are mostly strictly monotheistic. Heh, at least Judaism and Islam are strictly monotheistic, but both of these have doubts about Christianity worshiping a human.
> 
> 
> 
> True about animism. Animism still exists today, but even some if these cultures are influenced by Christians and Muslims telling them that their nature spirits are ‘gods’.



Heh.  That was one heck of a weird spellcheck-caused typo.  Yes.  Henotheism.  Kyno?  Dunno where that came from.

That said, no.  They are indeed henotheistic.  They are of the type of henotheism where there are multiple gods but one in particuoar that there is a contract with.  They are also of the type where one god has sovereignty over the others.  These religions essentially have many gods.  They just happen to have an overdeity.  But hes not exclusively the only god.  Therefore henotheism is actually the correct classification.  The exclusivity is not sifficiently total for a label of monotheism.  That goes for islam too.  The confusion comes in where entities may qualify as a "god" for all relevamt purposes to the definitions for classification of the faith but cultural preference simply dictates not using that word to apply to them.

"GOD" the title does not purge the presence of "gods" the taxonomically qualified being.

The christians the jews and the muslims are just intellectually incorrect about their own classifications do to cultural verbiage confusion them to the point of accidentilly applying it to academic classifications of their own religion.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Actually, their multiple methods of coming into existence is exactly why I think of the ‘titan’ as a race. This kind of race simply doesnt reproduce in the same way that other races do.



I disagree, but to each his or her own.  I


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I don't think many people realize the great benefit of Tiamat being a fiend:  she can be a patron of warlocks.  Warlock, a class that uses charisma, and what has good charisma scores?  Dragons (some of whom have superhuman [over 20] charisma scores).  Bring on the hellfire wyrms  .  You can probably add a lot of levels of warlock to an adult dragon without changing its CR.


----------



## dave2008

MechaTarrasque said:


> I am sure if there is a book with a bunch of weapons that specifically effect gods, "god" will become a tag, and Tiamat's stat block will be reprinted with the new tag (there is already precedent [demon lords] for changing an NPC's stat block from one book to another in 5e, and they have explained that the stat block in a book represents what they want from that creature for that book).  Since there were no god-effecting magguffins in either book Tiamat has appeared in, there was no need for the tag.
> 
> I would be greatly surprised if there will be any new types, but new tags come fairly often.



Where was demon lord used as a tag?  I checked MToF and all the demon lords there are still tags as "demons"


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> But it seems the rules for type and tag are either confused or confusing.



 Or they are fluid and up to the interpretation of the DM (which some of us like)


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> My gaming style treats fluff as rules − especially with regard to narrative adjudication. So for me, it is an endless nightmare to deal with 5e rules that constantly inject unwanted narrative rules (≈fluff) even within the mechanics themselves.



 That my friend is a problem of your own creation.  I can't help you with that one.


Yaarel said:


> If a lesser deity isnt even listed as a tag, such as the case for Timat, then it seems conflictive when the *rules *list the quasideity titan as a tag. For the sake of consistency and clarity, it seems better to either remove the ‘titan’ tag from all statblocks, or alternatively change ‘titan’ into a special type, like Dragon and Giant. Alternatively, add various kinds of tags for other divine ranks, but actually, I would rather remove all references to polytheism from the core rules anyway.



That is your issue.  These are not rules, but guidelines at best.  It take everything to much to heart - its not a healthy idea for a game like D&D and especially not with 5e.  It is not a game of rules, but a game of guidelines.  

However, i disagree with the idea that titan (as defined by 5e) should be a type.   I think you logic is flawed on that issue.  But we have gotten way of topic.


----------



## dave2008

Back on topic: 
I think when I get some time and a bit of money I am going to commission an artist better than myself to update the chromatic dragons based my ideas in the OP.  Then I will provided some updated stats too!

Any other suggestions for ideas regarding updated chromatic dragons?


----------



## generic

dave2008 said:


> Back on topic:
> I think when I get some time and a bit of money I am going to commission an artist better than myself to update the chromatic dragons based my ideas in the OP.  Then I will provided some updated stats too!
> 
> Any other suggestions for ideas regarding updated chromatic dragons?



I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but you could ask that the artist incorporate more 'elemental' motifs into the dragons.

Maybe Red Dragons have fire-like markings, or scales that look like flickering flames.

Alternatively, you could model dragons more exclusively on serpents than on feline animals, including lions.  Why not feature a canine influence in dragons?

You could make dragons appear more canine/serpentine instead of feline/serpentine, or combine the features of a humanoid body with the dragon.


----------



## dave2008

Aebir-Toril said:


> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but you could ask that the artist incorporate more 'elemental' motifs into the dragons.
> 
> Maybe Red Dragons have fire-like markings, or scales that look like flickering flames.



 I thought along those lines at one point, but that is not where my mind is now.



Aebir-Toril said:


> Alternatively, you could model dragons more exclusively on serpents than on feline animals, including lions.  Why not feature a canine influence in dragons?
> 
> You could make dragons appear more canine/serpentine instead of feline/serpentine, or combine the features of a humanoid body with the dragon.



 I think I am going to go for different influences for different dragons


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> Back on topic:
> I think when I get some time and a bit of money I am going to commission an artist better than myself to update the chromatic dragons based my ideas in the OP.  Then I will provided some updated stats too!
> 
> Any other suggestions for ideas regarding updated chromatic dragons?



Ummm...i has an idea but i think it might be a distraction here.  Its about very pure norse influenced dragons.  Specifically the big'uns...ill message u about it.  Ive messed around quite a bit with creatures and how they intersect with cosmology in my 3/3.5 games.  Thought i might wanna ask for a bit of a critique from a fellow fan of dragons.

But i do have a relevant question about chromatic dragons.  You wanna stick to the basic 5.  What say you about the crossbreeding of them?  Should the clutches be mixes or breed true to one or the other?  Should individual wyrmlings take after individual parents.  Should they be able to breed at all?  What do you think of dragons like fafnir in this regard?  Do you think such a dragon should produce half dragon offspring or pure?


----------



## Son of the Serpent

@dave2008  sorry i made an edit you may wanna look again.


----------



## generic

Son of the Serpent said:


> @dave2sorry i made an edit you may wanna look again.



It's dave2008


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Aebir-Toril said:


> It's dave2008



Typo.  Fixed it.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> But i do have a relevant question about chromatic dragons.  You wanna stick to the basic 5.



Yes, for now.


Son of the Serpent said:


> What say you about the crossbreeding of them?



I haven't really thought about it.  The original intent was just to redesign the iconic D&D dragons


Son of the Serpent said:


> Should the clutches be mixes or breed true to one or the other?



Good question.  I guess I think of them as different species, so they wouldn't be able to breed.  However, I did make Shen (the Dragon of Doom) a black dragon / blue dragon hybrid so I guess I think offspring of mixed parentage would be a mixture of the parents.


Son of the Serpent said:


> Should individual wyrmlings take after individual parents. Should they be able to breed at all?



 See my answer above.  I could go either way to be honest, but I am thinking they can interbreed, and the result is a mix of the two that is between the two parents in strength.


Son of the Serpent said:


> What do you think of dragons like fafnir in this regard?



  What do you mean?  Fafnir is not a chromatic dragon, it is better described by the 2e Linnorms.  I would give them the 'dragon' type in 5e, but I don't think of them as the result of cross breeding of the chromatic dragons.  FYI, when I was much younger I had a nile monitor named Fafnir.


Son of the Serpent said:


> Do you think such a dragon should produce half dragon offspring or pure?



 I think I answered that above, but IMO a linnorm would breed true with other linnorms, but not with chromatic dragons.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> Yes, for now.
> 
> I haven't really thought about it.  The original intent was just to redesign the iconic D&D dragons
> 
> Good question.  I guess I think of them as different species, so they wouldn't be able to breed.  However, I did make Shen (the Dragon of Doom) a black dragon / blue dragon hybrid so I guess I think offspring of mixed parentage would be a mixture of the parents.
> See my answer above.  I could go either way to be honest, but I am thinking they can interbreed, and the result is a mix of the two that is between the two parents in strength.
> What do you mean?  Fafnir is not a chromatic dragon, it is better described by the 2e Linnorms.  I would give them the 'dragon' type in 5e, but I don't think of them as the result of cross breeding of the chromatic dragons.  FYI, when I was much younger I had a nile monitor named Fafnir.
> I think I answered that above, but IMO a linnorm would breed true with other linnorms, but not with chromatic dragons.



Fair point.  But he is actually a fairy (akin to a gnome or dwarf in dnd but little folk basically fey in legend) in dragon (dreki?  Linnorm basically) form and not naturally a dragon.  So i suppose what im wondering is would the true (fey) nature of fafnir affect his young?


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> Fair point.  But he is actually a fairy (akin to a gnome or dwarf in dnd but little folk basically fey in legend) in dragon (dreki?  Linnorm basically) form and not naturally a dragon.  So i suppose what im wondering is would the true (fey) nature of fafnir affect his young?



I thought greed transformed Fafnir into a dragon or something similar (it has been a long time since i read that story and I could easily be getting it mixed up).  If it is simple a voluntary shape change that would change my thought.  If Fafnir is not truly a dragon then I would say it can't breed with one, but that is just me.  I'm not really found of all the cross-breeding in D&D (half-elf, half-dragon, etc.) or myth in general. 

So I would say if Fafnir had children they would be fey, probably in its original from, unless the transformation was true and Fafnir is no longer fey, but a dragon instead.  Depends how you look at it.  Fey is such a broad term in myth (like dragon), but here I am using the D&D version of the terms.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> I thought greed transformed Fafnir into a dragon or something similar (it has been a long time since i read that story and I could easily be getting it mixed up).  If it is simple a voluntary shape change that would change my thought.  If Fafnir is not truly a dragon then I would say it can't breed with one, but that is just me.  I'm not really found of all the cross-breeding in D&D (half-elf, half-dragon, etc.) or myth in general.
> 
> So I would say if Fafnir had children they would be fey, probably in its original from, unless the transformation was true and Fafnir is no longer fey, but a dragon instead.  Depends how you look at it.  Fey is such a broad term in myth (like dragon), but here I am using the D&D version of the terms.



If i remember correctly fafnir was actually always able to change shape (he was a sorceror already in the first place) and that it was greedily protecting his treasure and not wanting to be recognized by his brother after killing his father that motivated (not forced) him to turn into a dragon and live as one for as long as he did.  There are a few different versions of the story but i think his already being capable of changing shape is a consistant detail if i remember correctly.  Translated into d&d he would either be a high level sorceror or high level wizard.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> I thought greed transformed Fafnir into a dragon or something similar (it has been a long time since i read that story and I could easily be getting it mixed up).  If it is simple a voluntary shape change that would change my thought.  If Fafnir is not truly a dragon then I would say it can't breed with one, but that is just me.  I'm not really found of all the cross-breeding in D&D (half-elf, half-dragon, etc.) or myth in general.
> 
> So I would say if Fafnir had children they would be fey, probably in its original from, unless the transformation was true and Fafnir is no longer fey, but a dragon instead.  Depends how you look at it.  Fey is such a broad term in myth (like dragon), but here I am using the D&D version of the terms.



also thankyou for the answer.


----------



## Yaarel

I created an image of a Norse Dragon, called a ‘Drekar’.

For Norse names, I lean toward using the Norse plural form, and then treating it in English as if both singular and plural. So for example: one Drekar, many Drekar, one Æsir, many Æsir, one Vanir, many Vanir. And so on. (Heh. I think it unreasonable for English speakers to need to understand Norse grammar rules. Heh, and looking at a Norse -R being dropped, or an English -S being added, is just painful.)

The image is still a work in progress but it is a proof of concept. The Norse Dragon is specifically an adder snake. The color patterns tend to be black and silver-gold. It has a V-shaped ‘horns’ pattern on the back of its head. For the Dragon these horns are actual horns. And there is a black lightning bolt pattern across the spine. The shade of colors can vary significantly, from almost entirely black, to almost entirely silver, to almost entirely gold. And the females tend to be a slightly orangish-and-brownish shade of bronze.

Wyrmling Drekar have no limbs. But Young Drekar emerge with arms after shedding their skin. The hands of the arms are prehensile eaglelike talons, that can manipulate objects like human hands can. Adult and Ancient Drekar might or might not also have eaglelike wings.

Oh, and the eyes of the serpent are super cool. Even in reallife, the eyes look like various patterns of volcanic lava, with catlike slit pupils.



*DREKAR*


----------



## Son of the Serpent

D'awwww

Its a cutey


----------



## dave2008

I added a new white dragon inspiration image


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My opinion is the next edition will be like World of Darkness 20 anniversary, more a compendium than an update. 

We will see a 5.5 Ed, but no, I mean it will not D&D mark but other name, maybe d20 Modern 2.0, Universal d20 or d20 Modular, created to play and crossovers with differents genres as sci-fi. Some sacred cows could be changed, for example Courage and Acuity (perception + astuteness to discover little details as clues, or to give an fast answer) added as new abilities scores. 

But before this we could see as previous step some settings with littles things from d20 M as Spelljammer and Ravenloft. Maybe even Red Steel/Savage Coast, a Mystara spin-off of fantasy swashbuckling.


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> I added a new white dragon inspiration image




For the White Dragon, and the buff lion look. Say which aspects of which image you like best? For example, one White Dragon has long fur, is the a feature you prefer for your ideal white dragon? Which head is your favorite? Which wings? And so on.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> For the White Dragon, and the buff lion look. Say which aspects of which image you like best? For example, one White Dragon has long fur, is the a feature you prefer for your ideal white dragon? Which head is your favorite? Which wings? And so on.



Because of the environment I see the it as being a compact, bulky brute of dragon.  Probably shorter neck and tail than most.  I think I would like some combination of the first 2 images + some iconic white dragon features.  In the 2nd image i like the idea of the shard-like growths at the joints, but tufts or fur / proto-feathers instead


----------



## Laurefindel

dave2008 said:


> I do want to clarify that I’m not saying there can’t be mechanical changes to the dragons. I’m just saying that’s not what I wanted to discuss in this thread. I would assume any redesign would also include mechanical revisions to accommodate those re-designs. But that is another discussion.




I redesigned dragons for two different settings. Each had a very different approach, but in each case the first question I asked myself was whether I wanted a more biologically-consistent design, or whether I didn't care about that.

In the first world dragons were different species of the same genus, meaning that they mostly shared the same physical characteristics with environmental/specialised variations (i.e. lion vs tiger). They had physical differences, but those were designed after the new abilities I gave them  rather than the other way around. (I wanted to vary the options of Actions for dragons without making stat blocks too heavy, so one or two different ability for each colour was more manageable).



Spoiler: Off-topic dragon characteristics



Dragons They were all reptiles, all had scales, all had the same number of limbs, all had roughly the same skeleton etc. The chromatic categorisation was the base for each specie but even the colour differences were toned down. Most were green or brown with specific colour variations (reds had a distinctive red underbelly, blues had a blue-ish ridge and spines on the back, blacks had distinctively dark scales on its back, greens had stripes and paterns, whites were actually brown in colour but with a recessive albino gene mutation, etc).

Dragons had only three types of "breath": fire, caustic bile (spitters), and venomous bite (which greens developed the ability to "breathe out" by exhaling violently. They were resistant to their own energy type but not immune to it; young red dragons would use their fire breath in territorial/mating disputes for example.



In the second world, dragons was a catch-all word for reptile/avian-ish monsters that had a breath weapon of some sort à la How to Train Your Dragon or the Dragon Hunter movie. Not all had the ability to fly, some had scales, feathers, fur, or a mix of the three. There the stat blocks were mostly left intact, sometimes with an ability/action copied from another monster tacked on. The general approach was far more whimsical and and magical where physical variations (even within the same colour entry in the MM) were mostly cosmetic, . For that world, the goal was to vary dragon encounters (which were central to the setting) to avoid the "yet another young blue dragon" syndrome. One could be a colossal boss fight against one of the "sons of the thunder storms", the other a skirmish against a dozen over-excited lizards discharging static electricity shocks at random, etc.

TL;DR: How far are you willing to take aesthetic variations, and do you care about biology?


----------



## dave2008

Laurefindel said:


> I redesigned dragons for two different settings. Each had a very different approach, but in each case the first question I asked myself was whether I wanted a more biologically-consistent design, or whether I didn't care about that.
> 
> In the first world dragons were different species of the same genus, meaning that they mostly shared the same physical characteristics with environmental/specialised variations (i.e. lion vs tiger). They had physical differences, but those were designed after the new abilities I gave them  rather than the other way around. (I wanted to vary the options of Actions for dragons without making stat blocks too heavy, so one or two different ability for each colour was more manageable).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Off-topic dragon characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> Dragons They were all reptiles, all had scales, all had the same number of limbs, all had roughly the same skeleton etc. The chromatic categorisation was the base for each specie but even the colour differences were toned down. Most were green or brown with specific colour variations (reds had a distinctive red underbelly, blues had a blue-ish ridge and spines on the back, blacks had distinctively dark scales on its back, greens had stripes and paterns, whites were actually brown in colour but with a recessive albino gene mutation, etc).
> 
> Dragons had only three types of "breath": fire, caustic bile (spitters), and venomous bite (which greens developed the ability to "breathe out" by exhaling violently. They were resistant to their own energy type but not immune to it; young red dragons would use their fire breath in territorial/mating disputes for example.
> 
> 
> 
> In the second world, dragons was a catch-all word for reptile/avian-ish monsters that had a breath weapon of some sort à la How to Train Your Dragon or the Dragon Hunter movie. Not all had the ability to fly, some had scales, feathers, fur, or a mix of the three. There the stat blocks were mostly left intact, sometimes with an ability/action copied from another monster tacked on. The general approach was far more whimsical and and magical where physical variations (even within the same colour entry in the MM) were mostly cosmetic, . For that world, the goal was to vary dragon encounters (which were central to the setting) to avoid the "yet another young blue dragon" syndrome. One could be a colossal boss fight against one of the "sons of the thunder storms", the other a skirmish against a dozen over-excited lizards discharging static electricity shocks at random, etc.



I like both of those approaches.  For the basic thought process in this thread it would be more similar to the first concept for the chromatics, but I am fine with the dragon 'type' being shared with a wide variety of creatures similar to HtTYD



Laurefindel said:


> TL;DR: How far are you willing to take aesthetic variations, and do you care about biology?



  Are you asking about between species (differences between white dragons and blues) or within the same species (one white dragon to another)?  I generally thing the 5 chromatics should have similar morphology (head, neck, body, 4 limbs + 2 wings, a tail).  However, I am not opposed to changing this up (I was thinking of given the black 4 wings), and I think there can be a lot of variation within those general parameters.

I care about biology, but I understand biology and physics well enough to know dragon biology is generally impossible (a creature that big just can't fly).  I also know just because a dragon looks like it could fly (big wings) doesn't mean it actually could (there not big enough!).   However, I to adhere to some type of fantasy biology.  The dragon looks reasonable at least.  However, I am also willing to let their inherent magical nature overcome their biological limitations.  One of the things I have been think about doing away with is the super large and muscled wings.  The dragon has magic - it doesn't need muscles!


----------



## Son of the Serpent

LuisCarlos17f said:


> My opinion is the next edition will be like World of Darkness 20 anniversary, more a compendium than an update.
> 
> We will see a 5.5 Ed, but no, I mean it will not D&D mark but other name, maybe d20 Modern 2.0, Universal d20 or d20 Modular, created to play and crossovers with differents genres as sci-fi. Some sacred cows could be changed, for example Courage and Acuity (perception + astuteness to discover little details as clues, or to give an fast answer) added as new abilities scores.
> 
> But before this we could see as previous step some settings with littles things from d20 M as Spelljammer and Ravenloft. Maybe even Red Steel/Savage Coast, a Mystara spin-off of fantasy swashbuckling.



I think you meant to post this in a different thread


----------



## dave2008

Here are some pictures of a baby dragon I caught about 12 years ago.  You should see him now!
I thought @Yaarel might like this (FYI, no photo manipulation involved)


----------



## Son of the Serpent

My money is on the one in the left side of the bottom picture

Its cuteness will melt zilla's heart


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Godzooki, look at how you've grown!


----------



## Laurefindel

dave2008 said:


> I care about biology, but I understand biology and physics well enough to know dragon biology is generally impossible (a creature that big just can't fly).  I also know just because a dragon looks like it could fly (big wings) doesn't mean it actually could (there not big enough!).   However, I to adhere to some type of fantasy biology.  The dragon looks reasonable at least.  However, I am also willing to let their inherent magical nature overcome their biological limitations.  One of the things I have been think about doing away with is the super large and muscled wings.  The dragon has magic - it doesn't need muscles!




I hear you; this is fantasy, not hard sci-fi. But biology doesn't need to be "correct" to make some internal sense. So dragons share gross physical attributes. It may help to define those attributes and start from a narrower paradigm. (as in any creative process, this is a back-and forth exchange between design and execution).

The iconic colours don't have to be plain and solid to be distinctive, so aesthetically speaking, you could take some distance without betraying the source. Their respective environments are also iconic and should give clues to their appearance; mountains require strong grip to cling to cliffs, it's hard to manoeuvre a large body in a forest, so greens are probably sleek. Deserts and badlands give lots of space for flyers who can spot preys from afar; superior flyers probably have the choicest spots. Or perhaps blues are crappy flyers and that's why they ended up there? Cold is almost anathema to the classical fire-breathing dragon. Ice breath? really? Well it is, so what pushed that evolutionary branch? Swamps and bogs require good swimming skills etc.

Then there are the newer attributes: black's horns, blue's nasal tusk, red's frills and straight horns, green's head fin, white's thick skull. You can decide to include them for continuity's sake, or not.

...hum, where was I going with all this? Crap, I can't think of a sensible conclusion


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Laurefindel said:


> I hear you; this is fantasy, not hard sci-fi. But biology doesn't need to be "correct" to make some internal sense. So dragons share gross physical attributes. It may help to define those attributes and start from a narrower paradigm. (as in any creative process, this is a back-and forth exchange between design and execution).
> 
> The iconic colours don't have to be plain and solid to be distinctive, so aesthetically speaking, you could take some distance without betraying the source. Their respective environments are also iconic and should give clues to their appearance; mountains require strong grip to cling to cliffs, it's hard to manoeuvre a large body in a forest, so greens are probably sleek. Deserts and badlands give lots of space for flyers who can spot preys from afar; superior flyers probably have the choicest spots. Or perhaps blues are crappy flyers and that's why they ended up there? Cold is almost anathema to the classical fire-breathing dragon. Ice breath? really? Well it is, so what pushed that evolutionary branch? Swamps and bogs require good swimming skills etc.
> 
> Then there are the newer attributes: black's horns, blue's nasal tusk, red's frills and straight horns, green's head fin, white's thick skull. You can decide to include them for continuity's sake, or not.
> 
> ...hum, where was I going with all this? Crap, I can't think of a sensible conclusion



The protrusion on the blue is not a tusk.  Its a horn.  Tusks are made of tooth.  Sorry for the nit pick but it was bugging me.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> The protrusion on the blue is not a tusk.  Its a horn.  Tusks are made of tooth.  Sorry for the nit pick but it was bugging me.



Well technically we don't know what the blue's horn is made of, so it could be a tusk (like a narwhal's 'horn').


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> Well technically we don't know what the blue's horn is made of, so it could be a tusk (like a narwhal's 'horn').



No.  It cant be a tusk.  There are several possibilities but that isnt one.  Also a narwhal's "tusk" is made if tooth but its not a tusk.  Its actually a unique organ in the animal kingdom.  There is nothing else like it.  Tusk is a misnomer.

Various similar things and what they are made of, some of which are an option for what that thing on the blue is

Tusk - tooth

Horn - permanent bone fixture with keratin sheath

Antler - dead repetitively growing and shedding bone

Scute - in animals such as cocodilids a bone plate overlaid with skin (scales).  Tortoise shells are massive scutes forming carapace like sections which are fused into a single continuous ossium.  Much as bones in the skull are a single structure made of smaller ones with fissures where they fused.

A blue dragon's horn is almost certainly a true horn.  And most definitely not a tusk at the very least.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

all that said, if a blue dragon's horn and black dragon's horns had some of the biological capabilities of a narwhals tusk (which would be a major stretch) it woukd be so damn cool.  Look up some of the crazy naughty word thay thing can do.

Actually, in my game's im now house ruling that they have these capabilities.  Its a great idea.

They arent teeth though.

Imagine a blue dragon being able to tell the electromagnetic charge currently in its general area of the atmosphere with its horn.  Very neat.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> No.  It cant be a tusk.  There are several possibilities but that isnt one.  Also a narwhal's "tusk" is made if tooth but its not a tusk.  Its actually a unique organ in the animal kingdom.  There is nothing else like it.  Tusk is a misnomer.
> 
> Various similar things and what they are made of, some of which are an option for what that thing on the blue is
> 
> Tusk - tooth
> 
> Horn - permanent bone fixture with keratin sheath
> 
> Antler - dead repetitively growing and shedding bone
> 
> Scute - in animals such as cocodilids a bone plate overlaid with skin (scales).  Tortoise shells are massive scutes forming carapace like sections which are fused into a single continuous ossium.  Much as bones in the skull are a single structure made of smaller ones with fissures where they fused.
> 
> A blue dragon's horn is almost certainly a true horn.  And most definitely not a tusk at the very least.



If I remember correctly the Narwhal horn is actually a tooth so how is it different from a tusk?   Just to be clear, this is an earnest question. I’m really interested in the technical answer here.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> all that said, if a blue dragon's horn and black dragon's horns had some of the biological capabilities of a narwhals tusk (which would be a major stretch) it woukd be so damn cool.  Look up some of the crazy naughty word thay thing can do.
> 
> Actually, in my game's im now house ruling that they have these capabilities.  Its a great idea.
> 
> They arent teeth though.
> 
> Imagine a blue dragon being able to tell the electromagnetic charge currently in its general area of the atmosphere with its horn.  Very neat.



I guess I will half to look it up. Not something I’ve looked at in a long long long long time.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> If I remember correctly the Narwhal horn is actually a tooth so how is it different from a tusk?   Just to be clear, this is an earnest question. I’m really interested in the technical answer here.



Well its sort of like the reason we dont just refer to antlers as bones.  The narwhal tusk is a tooth.  In a literal sense.  But its an insanely complex tooth anatomically speaking.  And its range of function itls vastly greater than what we attribute to a tusk.  Further, its anatomical complexity (which allows fir the function) is also nowhere near the norm for tusks or even teeth in general.

They can sense the salinity level of water, pressure, depth, their bodily orientation, electrical current, temperature, and a whole host of other things.  A tusk is generally a basic but very large tooth.  This is why a narwhals horn is sometimes called a tusk (because its a signifficatly protruding tooth) but probably shouldnt be.  Because it has features and functions making it so abnormal that it really is its own type of tooth.  All alone and unique.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

fun fact.  There is a crew member on captain ahab's ship with a narwhal tusk for a peg leg.


----------



## Son of the Serpent

dave2008 said:


> I guess I will half to look it up. Not something I’ve looked at in a long long long long time.



I didnt see your question til id already posted again.  Sorry.  I believe i answered it later though.


----------



## dave2008

Son of the Serpent said:


> I didnt see your question til id already posted again.  Sorry.  I believe i answered it later though.



I didn’t mean to imply you were not answering the question. Just something I realized I really have to probably look up to get all the details. Not something I expect someone to post.

 FYI, a quick Google search didn’t turn up a whole bunch. The first hits only scratched the surface about the horn can do. I’ll have to dig deeper later.


----------



## Richards

Son of the Serpent said:


> They can sense the salinity level of water, pressure, depth, their bodily orientation, electrical current, temperature, and a whole host of other things.  A tusk is generally a basic but very large tooth.  This is why a narwhals horn is sometimes called a tusk (because its a signifficatly protruding tooth) but probably shouldnt be.  Because it has features and functions making it so abnormal that it really is its own type of tooth.  All alone and unique.




Narwhal horns: the sonic screwdrivers of the animal kingdom.

Johnathan


----------



## Son of the Serpent

Richards said:


> Narwhal horns: the sonic screwdrivers of the animal kingdom.
> 
> Johnathan



Its kinda true lol


----------



## dave2008

I added a classic drawing of Smaug by Tolkien that is a pretty good depiction of what I want in a red dragon (except for the color of course)


----------

