Dragons That Rock!

The thing is that "generic blue dragons" didn't exist as a class of things in a canonical sense, so much as "specific dragons who happened to be blue and have personalities specific to the individual." Since theoretical dragons that never appeared on screen in a campaign really aren't things we need a whole census of. It's frankly better if the people in the diagesis do not have a full taxonomy of dragons and what they're like readily available.

Like Choral is still going to be an arrogant, aggressive, fire-breathing dragon who happens to be red. There's just not a whole class of things that happen to be like Choral but less powerful or noteworthy. If you, as a GM, want to add one, you can stat out that dragon as an individual without having to comment on that dragon's entire family tree. Dragons, particularly the less nice dragons, are probably not interested in talking your ear off about the essential nature of dragonhood if you're not seen as a peer.

They could probably do something special, a bit like Lich, that has a basic statblock, with a bunch of "extra" abilities that GMs can use to make custom ones, thus merging all the old chromatic/metallic dragons into one entry. xD
They could be a type of Arcane dragon... maybe renamed "Elemental" dragons or something similar. There's a lot of way to remaster them... Which will take time to explore the possibilities to find the most satisfying one.

But yeah, Erik Mona said that if they do remaster them, it will be in the future cause they couldn't think of a quick and easy way to do it.

And in the meantime it's just "Oh, yeah. They're still totally out there in Golarion somewhere, doing stuff. The ones we're written in previously still exist. It's just that we aren't writing anything about them at the moment.

I mean, I don't feel like PF2 was ever all that dragon-heavy, and it's not like Golarion is short on stories to tell.

I mean, I don't feel like PF2 was ever all that dragon-heavy, and it's not like Golarion is short on stories to tell.

Yeah, I appreciate that Paizo has not made things on Golarion revolve around dragons outside of like two places. A GM could reasonably argue that the total number of dragons on the planet is "like a thousand" or a thousand times more than that, and relatively little else would change.

In short there are exactly as many dragons as a GM needs there to be, no more and no less.

It's kind of a stretch to say that Dragons aren't important and central to PF2... they're as the most important art on the front of the old CRB, the new PC1, the GMC, the MC, they're featured as front cover of SoM and a Dragon sits at the central theme of Treasure Vault.

There are dragon-themed options for the Barb, Sorcerer, Summoner, Monk, Druid, the entire nation of Tian-Xia which is ruled by Dragons (which is the next big setting book we're getting), and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Distancing the flavor of PF2 Dragons from how they're represented in the OGL and HASBRO is the right move and all but I trying to say that they haven't made things on Goalrion revolve around them is just plain incorrect, they are, if anything one of the most overrepresented groups of creatures in the whole setting when it comes to PC, equipment, monster, AP, and theme support.

Also, whilst the Metallics and Chromaticsv aren't ac thing in the Monster Core (as sure, "Blue dragon" can't be copyrighted, "evil blue dragon which breathes a line of electricity, lives in the desert, has a smug personality, and it's a set of a specific five types of evil color based dragons" is a fair bit more specific), they're not getting ret con'd out the setting, it's just that it'll take more time to work out what to do with them.

This. After all, Blizzard Entertainment's WarCraft Universe has Dragons of various colors (as well as some not labeled with a color name), but they aren't the same as D&D Dragons (although their Blue Dragons do have a lightning attack). Although I don't think Hasbro would want to go after them now that they are coming under the Microsoft umbrella . . . .

Nice, now give us the Monster Hunter IP Setting book!

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

Also, whilst the Metallics and Chromaticsv aren't ac thing in the Monster Core (as sure, "Blue dragon" can't be copyrighted, "evil blue dragon which breathes a line of electricity, lives in the desert, has a smug personality, and it's a set of a specific five types of evil color based dragons" is a fair bit more specific), they're not getting ret con'd out the setting, it's just that it'll take more time to work out what to do with them.

This. After all, Blizzard Entertainment's WarCraft Universe has Dragons of various colors (as well as some not labeled with a color name), but they aren't the same as D&D Dragons (although their Blue Dragons do have a lightning attack). Although I don't think Hasbro would want to go after them now that they are coming under the Microsoft umbrella . . . .

Blue are frost and arcane.

The Greens are nature so they use poison and lightning (under the Nature tag in WoW for damage types)

Just don't call it Monster Hunter International, or Owen Zavasta Pitt will defenestrate you.

We need the IP Hunter book and archetype right now.

The old dragons don't need to be remastered. Paizo could figure out how to do it, but it isn't a good use of their time because the old dragons are all still just as usable to the general public as ever. They don't even need good changed to holy like angels and demons need. They are less likely to show up in adventures, but that just means the new ones get a chance to shine. They don't even need to change any lore.

My bet is that if we see chromatics or metallics again, it will be an adventure as a stand alone creature. If a writer's vision just HAS to involve your classic black dragon, they can publish a unique but familiar looking stat block and call it a swamp dragon.

The old dragons don't need to be remastered. Paizo could figure out how to do it, but it isn't a good use of their time because the old dragons are all still just as usable to the general public as ever. They don't even need good changed to holy like angels and demons need. They are less likely to show up in adventures, but that just means the new ones get a chance to shine. They don't even need to change any lore.

My bet is that if we see chromatics or metallics again, it will be an adventure as a stand alone creature. If a writer's vision just HAS to involve your classic black dragon, they can publish a unique but familiar looking stat block and call it a swamp dragon.

I mean, they don't have to remaster anything then. Everything you said could also be said about like kobolds or the monk. The chromatic and metallic dragons are iconic, which tends to lead to sales. I feel like remastering them would be enough to sell an entire book for many people. Plus, they can take this opportunity to make them even better and more interesting

Captain Morgan wrote:

The old dragons don't need to be remastered. Paizo could figure out how to do it, but it isn't a good use of their time because the old dragons are all still just as usable to the general public as ever. They don't even need good changed to holy like angels and demons need. They are less likely to show up in adventures, but that just means the new ones get a chance to shine. They don't even need to change any lore.

My bet is that if we see chromatics or metallics again, it will be an adventure as a stand alone creature. If a writer's vision just HAS to involve your classic black dragon, they can publish a unique but familiar looking stat block and call it a swamp dragon.

I mean, they don't have to remaster anything then. Everything you said could also be said about like kobolds or the monk. The chromatic and metallic dragons are iconic, which tends to lead to sales. I feel like remastering them would be enough to sell an entire book for many people. Plus, they can take this opportunity to make them even better and more interesting

Unlike with the colorful dragons, people still want to use kobolds going forward and they can't be straight replaced with much more interesting kobolds.

Unlike with the colorful dragons, people still want to use kobolds going forward and they can't be straight replaced with much more interesting kobolds.

They... pretty much can, though? I mean, the fact that kobolds were totally draconic is the kind of thing that's sunk deep enough into them that it would be difficult to carve out, but we don't need to do that. Even the fact that they were associated with specific kinds of dragons is still more or less in there, or at least can be. The bit where we're pivoting on which kinds of specific dragons it is? That's something that can be retconned and/or ignored with essentially no damage. As far as I can tell, there weren't ever any major plot points around the specific kinds of dragon that individual kobolds could be associated with

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Unlike with the colorful dragons, people still want to use kobolds going forward and they can't be straight replaced with much more interesting kobolds.

They... pretty much can, though? I mean, the fact that kobolds were totally draconic is the kind of thing that's sunk deep enough into them that it would be difficult to carve out, but we don't need to do that. Even the fact that they were associated with specific kinds of dragons is still more or less in there, or at least can be. The bit where we're pivoting on which kinds of specific dragons it is? That's something that can be retconned and/or ignored with essentially no damage. As far as I can tell, there weren't ever any major plot points around the specific kinds of dragon that individual kobolds could be associated with

IIRC Remastered Kobolds will be aligned with Traditions rather than directly with Dragon types.

Pronate11 wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

The old dragons don't need to be remastered. Paizo could figure out how to do it, but it isn't a good use of their time because the old dragons are all still just as usable to the general public as ever. They don't even need good changed to holy like angels and demons need. They are less likely to show up in adventures, but that just means the new ones get a chance to shine. They don't even need to change any lore.

My bet is that if we see chromatics or metallics again, it will be an adventure as a stand alone creature. If a writer's vision just HAS to involve your classic black dragon, they can publish a unique but familiar looking stat block and call it a swamp dragon.

I mean, they don't have to remaster anything then. Everything you said could also be said about like kobolds or the monk. The chromatic and metallic dragons are iconic, which tends to lead to sales. I feel like remastering them would be enough to sell an entire book for many people. Plus, they can take this opportunity to make them even better and more interesting

Unlike with the colorful dragons, people still want to use kobolds going forward and they can't be straight replaced with much more interesting kobolds.

A, people still want to use the old dragons, seemingly including Paizo as they have said they are likely going to port them over, just not right now, and B, you can literally replace anything with a more interesting version. You can straight replace kobolds with a more interesting version, they did that in the transition from PF1 to PF2, and they can do it again if they have even cooler ideas.

Captain Morgan wrote:

The old dragons don't need to be remastered. Paizo could figure out how to do it, but it isn't a good use of their time because the old dragons are all still just as usable to the general public as ever. They don't even need good changed to holy like angels and demons need. They are less likely to show up in adventures, but that just means the new ones get a chance to shine. They don't even need to change any lore.

My bet is that if we see chromatics or metallics again, it will be an adventure as a stand alone creature. If a writer's vision just HAS to involve your classic black dragon, they can publish a unique but familiar looking stat block and call it a swamp dragon.

I mean, they don't have to remaster anything then. Everything you said could also be said about like kobolds or the monk. The chromatic and metallic dragons are iconic, which tends to lead to sales. I feel like remastering them would be enough to sell an entire book for many people. Plus, they can take this opportunity to make them even better and more interesting

Do you really think that leaving out chromatic dragons is equivalent to leaving out a core class? The Core books are meant to be enough to have a "complete" game. I really don't think they can ignore monk and still make that claim. Leaving out a few bestiary entries doesn't feel comparable. Particularly when the classes are getting errata passes in general, and monks at least have alignment damage to change to spirit damage and such.

Kobolds are less important but are also the ancestry in biggest need of a remaster to match the new dragons.

Maybe you're right and the iconicness of the chromatic dragons is enough to sell a bunch of books. But that's a double edged sword. If those sales are demonstrably being driven by D&D IP, it makes them a more tempting target for Hasbro. There's a super fine line to walk there.

I just discovered the Draxie heritage (Sprite ancestry, descended from Faerie Dragons) and now I desperately want to see them integrated more into Dragon content.

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

Also, whilst the Metallics and Chromaticsv aren't ac thing in the Monster Core (as sure, "Blue dragon" can't be copyrighted, "evil blue dragon which breathes a line of electricity, lives in the desert, has a smug personality, and it's a set of a specific five types of evil color based dragons" is a fair bit more specific), they're not getting ret con'd out the setting, it's just that it'll take more time to work out what to do with them.

This. After all, Blizzard Entertainment's WarCraft Universe has Dragons of various colors (as well as some not labeled with a color name), but they aren't the same as D&D Dragons (although their Blue Dragons do have a lightning attack). Although I don't think Hasbro would want to go after them now that they are coming under the Microsoft umbrella . . . .

Obviously we need to riff off Tactics Ogre dragon color + element system. Yellow dragons breath air, green dragons breath stone, white dragons breath holy, black dragons breath unholy, etc.

It's the perfect con, since Square Enix doesn't care about Tactics Ogre anyway, you would never get caught :P

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Unlike with the colorful dragons, people still want to use kobolds going forward and they can't be straight replaced with much more interesting kobolds.

They... pretty much can, though? I mean, the fact that kobolds were totally draconic is the kind of thing that's sunk deep enough into them that it would be difficult to carve out, but we don't need to do that. Even the fact that they were associated with specific kinds of dragons is still more or less in there, or at least can be. The bit where we're pivoting on which kinds of specific dragons it is? That's something that can be retconned and/or ignored with essentially no damage. As far as I can tell, there weren't ever any major plot points around the specific kinds of dragon that individual kobolds could be associated with

Fair, I guess more to the point, dragons can be anything, but kobolds must still be identifiably kobolds. Captain Morgan already pointed out, the OGL dragon statblocks still exist, and if a dragon is needed in a future adventure, they can always be made to suit the purpose. On the other hand, kobolds are a beloved player ancestry and common low-level enemy, while monks are a core class. It seems bizarre to me to suggest that the OGL dragons are nearly as relevant to the remaster's priorities as either one of these.

I disagree that recycling old D&D colour-dragon tropes is a priority on the same order as kobolds or monks because there are dozens of new, non-OGL dragons to be explored, and Pathfinder is not eminently a game about fighting dragons. When I say kobolds can't just be replaced, I mean I feel the remaster toning down their ties to dragons and broadening to ties with any magical boss monster (including the new dragon types) was a brilliant move that preserves their fundamental identity as scrappy minions with innate powers.

A swamp dragon that's green and breathes poison with be meaninglessly different to me from a OGL Green Dragon, but if kobolds stopped appearing in adventures and player options in favour of coblyns, a small burrowing humanoid that cobbles together their magic from scraps left by their magically inclined patrons, that would be a neat idea but they still wouldn't be kobolds. I suppose for me the difference is that 'dragon' is a creature type, so some dragons being replaced by different dragons just isn't a problem for me, but kobolds are a creature themselves. Replacing them would still mean feeling their absence.