If anything, the Occult Dragon barely got any coverage, considering they had to cut flavor text to make it fit :(
Search Posts
Hopefully they clear this soon ^^;
From what I keep seeing, any ice-based dragon... In short, take an energy type/damage, give it to a dragon or 2 and you'll be good. I keep thinking that if Primal and Imperial Dragons represent the Elemental Planes, then there should be 6 of them each, plus 2 more for the Void and the Creation Forge.
Aren't Coualts Incan/Mayan dragons?I would unironically love a feathered dragon though. It would be so fluffy. Plus it could be a nod to the theory that some dragon myths originated with dinosaur bones, and that birds are related to dinosaurs.I'd love to see a whole feathered reptile *event* centered around the coatls that could introduce a handful of feathered snakes, dragons, drakes, and dinosaurs, and maybe finally gave us playable serpentfolk (with or without feathers). Throw in some kenku, shisk, strix, and dragonblooded options, maybe a feathered serpent medusa for kicks. You have a point, but to the uninitiated, any flying reptile is a dragon :p
The hurdles on this are pretty much insurmountable, and it's never going to happen as a result.I would unironically love a feathered dragon though. It would be so fluffy. Plus it could be a nod to the theory that some dragon myths originated with dinosaur bones, and that birds are related to dinosaurs.I'd love to see a whole feathered reptile *event* centered around the coatls that could introduce a handful of feathered snakes, dragons, drakes, and dinosaurs, and maybe finally gave us playable serpentfolk (with or without feathers). Throw in some kenku, shisk, strix, and dragonblooded options, maybe a feathered serpent medusa for kicks. Aren't Coualts Incan/Mayan dragons?
For instance, when you force dragons to be strictly beings with 4 legs and 2 wings you lose a lot of wonder and creativity. I kid you not, back in D&D 2E, the Steel Dragon wasn't considered Metallic, because it lacked a second breath weapon, while the Yellow Dragon wasn't Chromatic, because it lacked wings ^^;
[Emphasis mine] The lack of armor/carapace/exoskeletal options is incredibly weird. Like maybe from a mechanical point of view I could possibly understand it. But from the completely likely point of view that someone might want to make a crab, armadillo, pangolin, turtle, rhino and really lean into the armored fantasy I…can’t. Right now, your best option is to talk with your GM to houserule that your animal can pick the automaton's Reinformed Chassis feat.
Aren't Formians D&D though :O ? I can see ant-based aliens, but... yeah, that may be a problem :S
This may have already been said and if so I apologize, but honestly I would rather Paizo revisit older "ignored" ancestries before delving into new ones or reintroducing PF1 ancestries that are missing. Maybe a Friend Folio of the ancestries that were added before the remaster that need to be cleaned up and fleshed out a bit more. Adding some new feats and maybe, if there's room and time, a bit extra to give them new life. Almost every non-core ancestries could use extra feats and heritages. I'm still waiting for burrowing and armored awakened animals, as well as aquatic dewlling variants for... well, pretty much all of them :O A neanderthal-esque heritage for most of them would also be interesting :)
and a deity without followers is a dead one :O
Their best option is to have one dragon per plane. One such thing is to have one dragon per elemental plane, like "expanding the Primal and Imperial Dragons from 4 or 5 to 6" :)
Ancestry and heritage options to play a draconic character of your own, from expansions to the dragonblood and kobold to a brand-new dragonet ancestry! Don't want to sound awkward but... what says that the dragonet is the only ancestry presented :p ? I could see the Wyvaran being added, considering that if Paizo sticks to its own lore, they are still kobold experiments, and kobolds will get new options.
Dragonets as Tiny
I think we got them all. The Wyvarans could be a good opportunity to branch them "away from wyverns". Since those are kobold experiments, it would be possible to see a wyvarans based on drakes, hydras, linnorms and such, in addition of wyverns.
Tiamat's image as a 5-headed dragon is WotC's property. The real Tiamat is a Babylonian humanoid goddess who has been mistaken for a "mother of monsters" and a sea serpent. It's like how Bahamut is depicted as a dragon in D&D and Final Fantasy, when it's actually a giant fish :p Since we got Egyptian gods as "Ancient Orision deities", I could see the Babylonian pantheon also being "Ancient [insert region here]", Tiamat included, just like Chinese and Japanese deities, being actually in Tian Xia.
Dragonet could also be smaller dragons in contrast to traditional ones, meaning they could be medium "humanoide" dragons. That would be the Wyvarans from P1E. The Dragonblood heritage can be for any ancestry, regardless of size :)
Anyway, let's hope the Draconic Codex brings what we're hoping for in P2E :)
Statistics for over 20 types of dragons, including expansions on the dragons found in Monster Core and Monster Core 2! Here's hoping that those expansions are IN ADDITION of the "20 types of dragons".
Why should one random work of fantasy's definitions be forcefully applied to every other work of fantasy as some sort of standard? Not even Lord of the Rings was popular enough to establish orcs and goblins as being basically the same, and western fantasy is practically defined by how it treats the Tolkien inspired bits.(The wyvern/amphithere/dragon/linnorm thing you've got up there was literally made up by this one English fantasy author.That’s generally how it goes with fantasy-someone had to come up with the idea of a wyvern at some point, which is exactly why definitions matter. In real life, I can just show you a duck because we have a physical reference for what it looks like. But fantasy is different. We don’t have actual dragons to compare, so if we don’t protect those definitions, we end up with Smaug being redesigned and depicted as a wyvern-like creature instead of the dragon he originally was. Maybe you don’t see it as a big deal, and I get why no one likes feeling like their freedom is being limited. Still, there’s a reason definitions exist and why they need to be respected. If fantasy terms aren’t protected, they eventually lose all meaning. Sometimes, it's because it breaks the mold in creative ways... For instance, before Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days later and Quarantine, zombies were sluggish and slow, with little to no threat. Now, most zombies games, movies and other works of fiction, including Left 4 Dead and The Walking Dead, zombies are now ravenous predators with blinding speed. Superheroes also got the same treatment, when most movies were light-hearted and silly, until they got dark and serious, all of the sudden.
That's because Adamantine is from Mythology. It can't be trademarked. as "an archaic form of diamond" :O I just learned that right now. Apparently, that's what Perseus's sword was crafted of when he decapitated the Medusa.
I assume that "Mythril" got trademarked by WotC, while "Mithril" is for Tolkien. "Adamantine" didn't get changed though, despite also being used by WotC... and "Adamantium" got trademarked by Marvel.
Just call the four limb and two winged ones True dragons, like they do in science. What does that mean scientifically? NOTHING.Dragons are a reference to Greek serpents, and then the word and concept evolved and got leggier and wingier, possibly partly due to fossil finds etc. The "Asian dragons" aka the loong likely have a similar origin but developed separately, so are only dragons by convergent cultural evolution. "A bug is a type of insect, and an arachnid is an insect." A "True dragon" is a dragon, but a wyvern is a "type of dragon".
We're using heraldry as pseudo-academic sources now? Let be real, wyverns are drakes, lungs don't exist, linnorms have hands and they're all dragons. Yeah, Paizo kinda screwed that one a bit ^^; Their "drakes" look more like sting-less wyverns :p HOWEVER, their "riding drake" fits the actual description :O
Dragons are a reference to Greek serpents, and then the word and concept evolved and got leggier and wingier, possibly partly due to fossil finds etc. The "Asian dragons" aka the loong likely have a similar origin but developed separately, so are only dragons by convergent cultural evolution. Oh boy :p - Dragon -> 4 limbs, 2 wings- Wyvern -> 2 hind limbs, 2 wings, 1 stinger - Drake -> 4 limbs, no wing - Lung -> 4 limbs, no wing, can fly - Wyrm / Serpent -> no limb, no wing - Amphithere -> no limb, 2 wings - Linnorm -> 2 fore limbs, 2 wings
I would love to see at least one of those big belly dragon designs that were popular in cartoons before dragons became more feline in design. Mix things up a bit. Dragons date WAAAAY back, be in European and Asian mythologies before Tolkien got a crack at it. BTW, you guys are concerned about the "lack of an ice-based dragon". How about that for the meantime, I give you damage types for each tradition?
- PRIMAL: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Fire, Poison, Electricity, Cold, Acid - DIVINE: Fire, Spirit, Sonic, Cold, Electricity, Force, Mental - OCCULT: Poison, Sonic, Mental, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing
Oddly enough, none of you commented on the lack of a line-shaped breath weapon XD
I get what you're asking a lot better now, but they have to actually make and publish new dragons, not just slap an extra coat of paint on. That's why the horned dragon is meaningfully different from the green dragon, and why the empyreal dragon is meaningfully different from the gold dragon. I understand, which is why they should keep the "remastered OGL dragons" at a minimum in the Codex, like I said.
I just think that "remastering OGL dragons" should take at most 25% of the Codex. Like, how many times do we need to be reminded that Red dragons breathe fire, are evil to the core, eat elven and human females and live in mountains? We get it by now. At best, give me TWENTY pages (2 per dragon) with the updated stats for all 10 dragons (Adult stage only; the rest can be done on our own) and "be on your way". Seriously, 20 dragons and 50% being the same species rehashed for the 35th time is getting annoying. Paizo even moved AWAY from those, introducing 8 new dragons. However, it would be a decent closure to "quickly remaster them" and NOT give them the lion's share of the Codex.
Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now? Essentially, a Remaster Errata for Bestiary 1 and 2, replacing every single "OGL stuff" with "Pathfinder Remaster stuff" At this point, just offer a Remastered digital version of those books, so Paizo won't have to clog Draconic Codex with dragons that could have been updated elsewhere.
Secrets of Magic got errata around the rules changes. There aren't any rules changes impacting the OGL dragons. I don't know what you want them to "solve". If an old book says "red dragon", you can just use a red dragon; you don't need to use a cinder dragon.I believe the Red Dragon becoming Cinder Dragon was mentioned sometime in one of the Paizo streams, regarding the Shining Kingdoms release. Also, we (probably) know the name of post-OGL Black Dragons; in a Reddit AMA done by Ossian Studios for the Dragon's Demand crpg, they mentioned that to be remastered compliant they've renamed the Black Dragon into the Bog Dragon. Unsure if this is canon, as someone commented that they're surprised Ossian was allowed to reveal this, and Mark Moreland replied something to the effect of "yes that is interesting" with an upside down smiley. Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?
Aren't what "archdragons" supposed to be???If I recall, it's the non-OGL replacement for the term "great wyrm" - basically, the term referring to the oldest and most powerful of dragons. My reasoning is how not all Archdevils are deities like Asmodeus, just like not all Demon Lords are deities like Lamashtu. In both cases, they grant spells and domains nonetheless. For me, those "archdragons" feel like VERY ancient dragons, powerful enough to grant divine favors.
Aren't what "archdragons" supposed to be???
I believe the Red Dragon becoming Cinder Dragon was mentioned sometime in one of the Paizo streams, regarding the Shining Kingdoms release. Also, we (probably) know the name of post-OGL Black Dragons; in a Reddit AMA done by Ossian Studios for the Dragon's Demand crpg, they mentioned that to be remastered compliant they've renamed the Black Dragon into the Bog Dragon. Unsure if this is canon, as someone commented that they're surprised Ossian was allowed to reveal this, and Mark Moreland replied something to the effect of "yes that is interesting" with an upside down smiley. My point still stands that they still didn't officially remaster the OGL dragons in books. We got an errata for Secrets of Magic, making it 99% usable in the Remaster, but nothing on Bestiary 1 and 2? Pretty sure a Paizo Blog post could solve everything.
See? That's my problem... "presumably""rumored" "mentioned" and not "officially renamed, as seen in the Errata for Bestiaries 1 and 2, now using Remastered rules" What's so complicated about renaming and reflavoring the OGL dragons again? BTW, you guys want ice-using dragons, but both White and Silver are locked behind "copyright issues".
Those could be reserved for Starfinder though. Seeing that Strafinder will be compatible with Pathfinder, that could be an alternative, just like Dragonkins being a "Starfinder playable alien ancestry" that can be used in Pathfinder.
Well, leaks happened... including a Draconic Codex... which will apparently contain a new ancestry: the Dragonet. You know the small dragons people wish to play for a while, it's coming :)
Well, remastered errata'ed notes could be a few pages for any and all dragons. Chromatics, Metallics, Primals and Imperials could be updates in a few pages without the whole stat blocks.
How many are brand new ones, remastered ones or converted ones though? For the record...
- Primal and Imperial Dragons need remastering as well, being from Bestiary 2 and 3, respectively. - Outer, Esoteric and Planar Dragons need full convertions, never appearing in P2E since Bestiary 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Planar Dragons in particular will need something to match the new and improved Planes.
Barnes and Noble must really hate dragon themed suprises. That's a pretty interesting list of features for the Lost Oments book. That or jokes aside, they may think it would boost their sales. I mean, that's like leaking dinosaur-themed stuff in the 90s :p
Huh... apparently, Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was leaked by a Barnes & Nobles page...
Huh... apparently, Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was leaked by a Barnes & Nobles page...
I think that we're too accustomed with Paizo giving us 5 dragons per Monster Core/Bestiary... Still, having more dragons leads to more bloodlines, draconic examplars and other related materials. The Dragon Spit feat would need to be remastered as well.
This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.I could agree to that, but I think generally speaking d10 and d12 weapons wouldn't be on that list, do recognize that there are a few that currently have d10 as an option (Talwar). My point is that there would need to be restrictions on what was allowed to work. If the Khakkara is legal as a Monk weapon, I don't see a problem with others, like the Talwar :)
This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.
Gotcha. They opted for "more than the minimum" and come up with a more interesting and unique approach to dragons so that we'd have more categories of better-differentiated dragons that are recognizably "Pathfinder". They probably could have done what you described, but it wouldn't really generate additional interest. Folks already have those ten available. Then again, nothing prevents them from creating their own dragons to further distance themselves from the OGL.
"Reprinting" and "re-imagining" are mutually exclusive things, so I'm a little confused by what you're asking. I initially thought Paizo would... 1) rename all 10 dragons.2) alter their environment and behaviors. 3) remove their alignments. 4) update the rules. 5) ??? 6) Profit :p
It does beg the question why they haven't reprinted them post-remaster though... Is it really that big of a mine field to reimagine the OGL dragons?
Well, here are my hopes: 1) The heart, or core, should level like the brain, or computer, because that would save a LOT of Mech Points when designing the form. 2) I just realized that no vehicle has a "duration", even in SF1E. Maybe in Starfinder, they discovered an ever-refilling technology for fuel. 3) Apparently, if you cannot use your own abilities while piloting a mech, the colossiborn shouldn't be able to either. I personally think it's weird that most class abilities cannot be utilized in a mech. There isn't any extra module/upgrade to use them either, such as "Spellcaster Core" or "Solarian Crystal Node".
Please let it look good, nothing against designers being creative but red has always been by favorite so I want at least this one to look really good. The designs are Paizo's own, but the names are OGL. For instance, D&D's Green Dragon has a crocodile head, whicle PF's version is wedge-shaped and nose-horned.
Sure, but the non-OGL legacy content is still usable in PFS (And in home games, you can continue to use whatever dragon you like). The dragon-themed classes even have guidelines for using Imperial Dragons and the original primal dragons as your draconic exemplar (Although they are missing alternate bloodline spells). But if a player in PFS wants a cold-based dragon as their exemplar for a new barbarian, sorcerer, or dragonblooded, they just don't have that option right now. Hence my highlighting their conspicuous absence since its something some I play with has complained of.As far as dragons I'd like to see... Cold-based dragons are conspicuously absent and a noteable point of pain for a local player's barbarian concept. From what I've heard, Chromatic Reds are renamed Cinder Dragons and Chromatic Blacks are renamed Bog Dragons. So... pick White or Silver and you're good :)
As far as dragons I'd like to see... Cold-based dragons are conspicuously absent and a noteable point of pain for a local player's barbarian concept. It's not just that... In the Remaster, they ONLY focused on the 8 new dragons, leaving both Primal and Imperial Dragons out of the loop. Dude, even Outer and Esoteric Dragons from P1E haven't still showed up.
This is an absolutely incredible list of dragons right here. Thank you ^_^ In short, I took all 6 Elemental Planes and paired them with a good and an evil dragon, again based on their descriptions. Crystal Dragons are friendly, while Magma Dragons can lash without warning ^^; This is similar to how in Rage of the Elements, each Plane has a good-natured and an evil-natured deity... except Metal, which has deities that can both Heal and Harm, and Wood, which both presented Deities can heal. I am aware that Forest Dragons are native, or at least have established themselves on the Plane of Wood, but those are Imperial Dragons. Sky and Sea Dragons could next in the Plane of Air or Water, respectively. |