Bigger Dragons please?


New Rules Suggestions

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to ever fight a dragon smaller than Huge.

Huge Dragons should be young adults, and they should just get bigger from there.

And please, I don't need rules for baby-killing. Wyrmling and young stats are just unnecessary, and a little gross.

Thanks.

Liberty's Edge

I disagree. Huge dragons have to come from somewhere, and as the Japanese saying goes, "Even a cub is still a wolf." Heck, to me dragons bigger than Huge strain credibility. I know they're supposed to be magical flying lizards, but I prefer my dragons more lizardy and less magical. YMMV

Jeremy Puckett


hida_jiremi wrote:
I disagree. Huge dragons have to come from somewhere, and as the Japanese saying goes, "Even a cub is still a wolf." Heck, to me dragons bigger than Huge strain credibility. I know they're supposed to be magical flying lizards, but I prefer my dragons more lizardy and less magical. YMMV

Large is the size of a horse or a bear. Huge is the size of an elephant, and thats pretty small compared to what we see in fantasy drawings. You could get one in a headlock and expect to win.

I've never even seen a dragon smaller than Huge in a fantasy drawing (pseudo-dragons not included), and most are as big as a house so that if you ride one it you don't look like an idiot.


Well, back-compatibility means SRD Dragons aren't going anywhere, but you could propose an alternate set of monsters called "Wyrms" tha tsuit your (totally understandable) needs.


K wrote:

And please, I don't need rules for baby-killing. Wyrmling and young stats are just unnecessary, and a little gross.

Thanks.

I see nothing wrong with fighting wyrmling dragons. They may be babies, but they're still intelligent and cunning hunters. Even a newborn white is more than a match for single 1st-level PC, and a challenge for a group at that level; given the chance, it would happily make a meal of such characters.


Heaven's Agent wrote:
K wrote:

And please, I don't need rules for baby-killing. Wyrmling and young stats are just unnecessary, and a little gross.

Thanks.

I see nothing wrong with fighting wyrmling dragons. They may be babies, but they're still intelligent and cunning hunters. Even a newborn white is more than a match for single 1st-level PC, and a challenge for a group at that level; given the chance, it would happily make a meal of such characters.

Its the size of a housecat. That's not adventuring....its vermin exterminating.

The fact that it has three HD and can kick a 1st level PCs butt is a choice some designer made. We don't have to feel good about it.

Dark Archive

I guess the fact that there are age categories for dragons and very small and weak specimen like wyrmlings exist because of the name of the game. It's called Dungeons & Dragons after all and so players can expect to face dragons from 1st lvl on. I don't like wyrmlings and small dragons myself and I prefer the huge and menacing beast as well, but I can understand the reason for this design. There are dungeons on 1st lvl so there have to be dragons as well.


The objection is not to the strength of the dragons - they are actually grossly overpowered for their CR and adventures like The Red Hand of Doom have quite scary fights against dragons. The objection is that these dragons that you actually fight are much smaller than the ones pictured in fantasy art. Even, neigh especially D&D art. When was the last time you saw a D&D artist's rendition of a dragon vs. dwarf fight where the Dragon was clearly smaller than the Dwarf against whom it was fighting? And yet, that's basically true unless the Dwarven warrior is like 8th level. The Dragons he is supposed to fight before that are smaller than he is.

It feels unheroic.

-Frank


I'm content with dragons being the size they are in D&D, but I gotta ask, what fantasy art are you citing when you mention "bigger" dragons? Cause classical artwork of dragons barely ever puts them larger than a horse, with a few exceptional ones approaching elephant size, like the french Tarrasque.


The Black Bard wrote:
. . .Cause classical artwork of dragons barely ever puts them larger than a horse, with a few exceptional ones approaching elephant size, like the french Tarrasque.

Very true.


The Black Bard wrote:
I'm content with dragons being the size they are in D&D, but I gotta ask, what fantasy art are you citing when you mention "bigger" dragons? Cause classical artwork of dragons barely ever puts them larger than a horse, with a few exceptional ones approaching elephant size, like the french Tarrasque.

Let's image search Google, shall we? We type in "Dragon" and take all the ones which have a human in there for scale.

Huge
Huge
Colossal
Huge
Gargantuan

OK, that's three pages of Dragon pics off of Google, and of the ones with a human in for scale all of them were Huge sized or larger. Even the one that happened to be a D&D miniature.

Now let's crack open the Draconomicon ad find pictures there where we can see a human for scale:

P.5 - Colossal
P.6 - Colossal
P.56 - Gargantuan
P. 64 - Colossal
P. 67 - Colossal
P. 72 - Large (note: shown fighting a Halfling)
P. 91 - Colossal
P. 98 - Gargantuan
P.101 - Gargantuan
P.127 - Colossal
P.130 - Gargantuan (note: pictured with Gnome)
P.141 - Small (character is playing with a wyrmling)
P.142 - Large (note: creature is supposed to be a wyrmling gold, and thus medium, but the author drew it larger than horse sized anyway).

Right. So what have we learned? We have learned that in the iconic fantasy art, Dragons are really big. Like all the time. In the iconic D&D Official Art, Dragons are really big just about all the time. No one wants to kick around dragons that are the size of large dogs. It's embarrassing whether you win or lose.

-Frank

Dark Archive

The Black Bard wrote:
I'm content with dragons being the size they are in D&D, but I gotta ask, what fantasy art are you citing when you mention "bigger" dragons? Cause classical artwork of dragons barely ever puts them larger than a horse, with a few exceptional ones approaching elephant size, like the french Tarrasque.

Well said.

Moreover, dragons just don't pop out from their eggs and grow to large or bigger sizes in a matter of days. They take years, even decades.

And as a DM I could tell you of a half a dozen of dead characters that would argue with enthusiasm about being unheroic in defeating a small or medium sized dragon...


golem101 wrote:
And as a DM I could tell you of a half a dozen of dead characters that would argue with enthusiasm about being unheroic in defeating a small or medium sized dragon...

Again, the issue is not with the deadliness of dragons, just the size.

To put it another way, what would be the down side of increasing all dragons by one size category (and keeping everything else the same)?

[I doubt this'll be done for compatibility reasons, but it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, IMO.]

The Exchange

The art in Red Hand of Doom drops the ball quite badly in terms of getting the dragon sizes right, with one exception - the art is generally very nice, but the dragons themselves (with the exception of the black) are depicted much larger than their stats would suggest.

Personally, I don't mind seeing little dragons - there are plenty of very dangerous things much smaller than a housecat in the world today (spiders, scorpions, snakes) before you add in a fantasy breath weapon. And imps and quasits are not exactly enormous but are kind of deadly.

Yeah, I agree it doesn't feel so mighty smacking down a little dragon, but everyone has to start somewhere (even if you can only make a nifty hat out of the remains). I personally think the problem is really that the artists like drawing great big dragons (dragon envy?) and legends never really seemed to worry too much about where the dragons came from, where were their parents, and so on, which also leaves a bit of a gap in the fantasy ecology.

Dark Archive

hogarth wrote:
golem101 wrote:
And as a DM I could tell you of a half a dozen of dead characters that would argue with enthusiasm about being unheroic in defeating a small or medium sized dragon...

Again, the issue is not with the deadliness of dragons, just the size.

To put it another way, what would be the down side of increasing all dragons by one size category (and keeping everything else the same)?

That I could object with the same motivation that defeating a large sized dragon with weak stats would be equally unheroic. And sometimes downright funny.

Oh yeah, it's larger that a warhorse, but it has a real glass jaw, you know...

Liberty's Edge

I picked up a kitten once. It had come into my backyard, and I had to save it from my dogs.
This kitten shredded my hand like gyro meat. I learned a valuable lesson that day: no good deed shall go unpunished.

Liberty's Edge

I tend to agree though; when it's time for dragonfighting, I'd like the thing to be Texas-sized.

The Exchange

Did you put it to the sword?

Dark Archive

Once again, a forum bug seems to plague my replies...


No, I’m going to have to side with K on this one. There’s nothing heroic about fighting baby dragons. I remember seeing a piece of art in some 2nd edition book that involved a bunch of adventurers posing with the hanging corpse of a 5’ long dragon they’d presumably defeated. I laughed myself silly when I saw that.

True, dragons shouldn’t just hatch large-sized out of their eggs, but I don’t think that means adventurers should be encountering hatchlings just walking around on their own. If I walked into a cave with a baby dragon in it, I’d start getting very nervous about when Momma was going to show up. If you allow dragons to be raised to adulthood by their parents, you’re very unlikely to encounter anything smaller than Large on its own.

So yeah, you could certainly keep the stats for wyrmlings and adolescent dragons for the sake of backward compatibility, but in practice I’d never want to see them alone.

The Exchange

In a sense, you could argue that adventurers would spend a lot of time killing wymlings - better to get them when they weigh seven pounds instead of waiting until they weigh seven tons. Whether that would be be heroic is debatable - certainly dangerous for your average pest exterminator.

Liberty's Edge

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Did you put it to the sword?

Naah. I'm too kindly natured.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
In a sense, you could argue that adventurers would spend a lot of time killing wymlings - better to get them when they weigh seven pounds instead of waiting until they weigh seven tons.

Similarly, why would you fight orcs when you could fight frost giant toddlers? :)

The Exchange

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
In a sense, you could argue that adventurers would spend a lot of time killing wymlings - better to get them when they weigh seven pounds instead of waiting until they weigh seven tons.
hogarth wrote:
Similarly, why would you fight orcs when you could fight frost giant toddlers? :)

I never said it was moral. :-) On the other hand, it has horrid logic....

Liberty's Edge

Now we need an orphanage for baby dragons orphaned by the depredations of adventurers.


Frank Trollman wrote:

Let's image search Google, shall we? We type in "Dragon" and take all the ones which have a human in there for scale.

Huge
Huge
Colossal
Huge
Gargantuan

OK, that's three pages of Dragon pics off of Google, and of the ones with a human in for scale all of them were Huge sized or larger. Even the one that happened to be a D&D miniature.

In order, I see those as follows:

Large
Large
Colossal
Huge (Barely)
Huge

Keep in mind that each size category is a range. A horse is on the lower end of the Large category, with some Large creatures being noticeably greater in size. In addition, all of these are modern examples of dragon art. And by looking only for examples with humans included for reference, of course you'll find a scarcity of small dragons; even in modern fantasy art, young dragons associate most frequently with other dragons, not humans, elves, dwarves, etc.

Dark Archive

Fletch wrote:

No, I’m going to have to side with K on this one. There’s nothing heroic about fighting baby dragons. I remember seeing a piece of art in some 2nd edition book that involved a bunch of adventurers posing with the hanging corpse of a 5’ long dragon they’d presumably defeated. I laughed myself silly when I saw that.

True, dragons shouldn’t just hatch large-sized out of their eggs, but I don’t think that means adventurers should be encountering hatchlings just walking around on their own. If I walked into a cave with a baby dragon in it, I’d start getting very nervous about when Momma was going to show up. If you allow dragons to be raised to adulthood by their parents, you’re very unlikely to encounter anything smaller than Large on its own.

So yeah, you could certainly keep the stats for wyrmlings and adolescent dragons for the sake of backward compatibility, but in practice I’d never want to see them alone.

This is something I can agree with. It's more a matter of adventure design, as in "use baby dragons sparingly and only in a meaningful scene where they're not the main danger".


Fletch wrote:
True, dragons shouldn’t just hatch large-sized out of their eggs, but I don’t think that means adventurers should be encountering hatchlings just walking around on their own. If I walked into a cave with a baby dragon in it, I’d start getting very nervous about when Momma was going to show up. If you allow dragons to be raised to adulthood by their parents, you’re very unlikely to encounter anything smaller than Large on its own.

Keep in mind, however, that younger and evil dragons have a tendency to not raise their young; the majority of such wyrmlings are left to fend for themselves.


Fletch wrote:
I remember seeing a piece of art in some 2nd edition book that involved a bunch of adventurers posing with the hanging corpse of a 5’ long dragon they’d presumably defeated. I laughed myself silly when I saw that.

Heh...As soon as I read this my eyes went about a foot to the left of my monitor and looked at their peice of art on my cubicle wall. :)

Tiny and small dragons arent very heroic. But they do serve a good purpose.
For higher level characters its cool to take on wyrmlings or very young when you need to clean out a nest (like the movie Dragonslayer).

For low level characters its cool for them to learn just how powerful dragons are and not to take them for granted. I had a Red wyrmling fight a party of 3rd level characters. Wehn they saw it was as big as a human they laughed......After the fight was over they werent laughing anymore. Now they are terrified af facing a dragon that has grown.


Heaven's Agent wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:

Let's image search Google, shall we? We type in "Dragon" and take all the ones which have a human in there for scale.

Huge
Huge
Colossal
Huge
Gargantuan

OK, that's three pages of Dragon pics off of Google, and of the ones with a human in for scale all of them were Huge sized or larger. Even the one that happened to be a D&D miniature.

In order, I see those as follows:

Large
Large
Colossal
Huge (Barely)
Huge

Keep in mind that each size category is a range. A horse is on the lower end of the Large category, with some Large creatures being noticeably greater in size. In addition, all of these are modern examples of dragon art. And by looking only for examples with humans included for reference, of course you'll find a scarcity of small dragons; even in modern fantasy art, young dragons associate most frequently with other dragons, not humans, elves, dwarves, etc.

You have to go back to remedial size adjudication school. Let's take the first one. He's riding on its shoulders. Assuming that this powerful knight is only 5'6" tall, the dragon is still over 20' long. Even wrapping its tail around itself and rearing its head as shown it extends beyond a 10' square. A huge creature is only elephant sized, as is that dragon.

So if your basic claim is that it's OK for dragons to be Medium and Large because in your personal fantasy world Large creatures have space for five adult humans on their backs - then yeah, whatever. You are totally off base and I no longer value what you have to say on this matter.

-Frank

The Exchange

<sigh>

And there we were having a fun conversation....


golem101 wrote:
Fletch wrote:


This is something I can agree with. It's more a matter of adventure design, as in "use baby dragons sparingly and only in a meaningful scene where they're not the main danger".

I agree with this completely. I wouldn't say there's no place for them, but their use should be rare.

Besides, nobody gathers round the gaming table to talk about how the smacked down the baby red...


Frank Trollman wrote:
You have to go back to remedial size adjudication school. Let's take the first one. He's riding on its shoulders. Assuming that this powerful knight is only 5'6" tall, the dragon is still over 20' long. Even wrapping its tail around itself and rearing its head as shown it extends beyond a 10' square. A huge creature is only elephant sized, as is that dragon.

Huh? I agree with you on the other dragons you mentioned, but the dragon in that first picture is no bigger than a Clydesdale (excluding neck, wings and tail which fall under "reach", not "size").

Think of it this way -- could a 15' frost giant ride that dragon? No. It's just about perfect for a human rider, though.

EDIT: It's worth noting that D&D is inconsistent on what size means, though. For instance, a Huge viper is probably measured from tip to tip, but it's clear from the description that a Huge dragon's size doesn't include the tail (since a Huge dragon's tail attack has a 30' reach).


Farthing wrote:
Besides, nobody gathers round the gaming table to talk about how the smacked down the baby red...

Sure they do. Its in my post above. :)

Sovereign Court

You could, I dunno, maybe ignore the rules since they don't affect you at all.


Jason Grubiak wrote:


Sure they do. Its in my post above. :)

I stand corrected! :)


hogarth wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:
You have to go back to remedial size adjudication school. Let's take the first one. He's riding on its shoulders. Assuming that this powerful knight is only 5'6" tall, the dragon is still over 20' long. Even wrapping its tail around itself and rearing its head as shown it extends beyond a 10' square. A huge creature is only elephant sized, as is that dragon.
Huh? I agree with you on the other dragons you mentioned, but the dragon in that first picture is no bigger than a Clydesdale (excluding neck, wings and tail which fall under "reach", not "size").

I agree, it's at the upper range of Large. There are a couple of other pics I'm not sure about. Aren't those children in the second picture? If they are small kids the 'appreciate-a-dragon' dragon could be another large Large.

And I can't quite make out the perspective in the final picture - are those dragons in the foreground or is the farthest Blue at the same distance as the human? They're pretty big, regardless.

Oh, and Black Bard's quite right - you only need to google "Saint George Dragon" to see many examples where the terrifying reptile is the size of a large dog. Alternatively, try this picture of Saint Margaret and the Dragon - one wonders how it managed to swallow her. That's not to say that there aren't examples of Huge dragons in medieval bestiaries, such as shown by this picture of a dragon hunting elephants. One gets the distinct impression that the artist had a limited experience of pachyderms.

Liberty's Edge

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

<sigh>

And there we were having a fun conversation....

Allright. Now you have my systolic up.


Speaking strictly on size of miniature use, anything over huge is a royal pain to use.

While massive dragons are visual cool, most of the most dangerous dragon beast were much smaller. Dragons, historically, were bear-sized. The dragonet, which a small dragon only a foot long, was feared becaouse it possessed the powers of larger dragons as well as being highly posionous. In packs, they could (and did) kill larger dragons.


Frank Trollman wrote:

You have to go back to remedial size adjudication school. Let's take the first one. He's riding on its shoulders. Assuming that this powerful knight is only 5'6" tall, the dragon is still over 20' long. Even wrapping its tail around itself and rearing its head as shown it extends beyond a 10' square. A huge creature is only elephant sized, as is that dragon.

So if your basic claim is that it's OK for dragons to be Medium and Large because in your personal fantasy world Large creatures have space for five adult humans on their backs - then yeah, whatever. You are totally off base and I no longer value what you have to say on this matter.

-Frank

No need to get nasty. I was judging my basis of size in regards to their height if standing with neck raised and forelimbs extended, as shown in the Player's Handbook, in addition to a comparison with the human(s) present. For example, in the first image the dragon would be roughly twice the height of the knight. I also took into account certain proportional lengths, such as distance from forelimbs to hind legs (approximately 6-10 feet in the first image, depending on how tall the knight is). As for riding on the dragon's shoulders, well where else could the knight safely perch? The neck's too thin to support the weight, and the wing membrane extends the full length of the dragon's back.

JRM wrote:
Aren't those children in the second picture? If they are small kids the 'appreciate-a-dragon' dragon could be another large Large.

Yup, those are children.


A dragon of normal fantasy imagination should be a reliable TPK before a party is "name" (10th) level . . . and the chromatic dragons in the SRD of sufficient CR to do that are all of Huge or larger size.

I mean, if you want wimpy dragons that fifth-level characters can kill, well, sure, they're small. But it's only appropriate that they're small enough that the characters would feel silly bragging about it in a tavern afterward. They're not yet powerful enough to be real dragonslayers; the dragons they kill should be small enough to make that point.


see wrote:

A dragon of normal fantasy imagination should be a reliable TPK before a party is "name" (10th) level . . . and the chromatic dragons in the SRD of sufficient CR to do that are all of Huge or larger size.

Here you run into issues about the underlying assumptions of the game, and how many high-level characters are in it. Yes, if there are lots of 10+ level NPCs in the world, then slaying *big* dragons should be the purview of similarly leveled characters.

However, D&D at levels 10+ is a crazy, crazy place. Very few fictional characters, even fictional heroes, resemble anything higher than level 10. The heroes of classical antiquity are probably in the 3-6 range. the existence of these 10+ levels makes us*assume* that "real heroes" must be high level, but most of our favorite heroes are much lower than that.

Not all groups like play above level 10;mMy group almost always restarts when a campaign gets that high. We'd like to beable to kill Huge dragons without having to go to the land of clone, planar binding, and scry-and-die


Frank Trollman wrote:

You are totally off base and I no longer value what you have to say on this matter.

-Frank

You have many good ideas frank, even if i don't agree with all of them, but there is no need to be condescending...

And in support of others, classical dragons aren't enormous generally speaking... the closer you get to modern times, the larger dragons seem to be portrayed. Of course I am just generalizing about dragons in western civilizations... Asian ideal of dragons differing greatly from thier western counterparts.

In support of my argument, try finding a statue or painting of St George slaying the dragon (arguably the most iconic dragonslayer in european history)prior to the 19th century. In most depictions, the dragon is outmassed by George's horse.

Lastly, dragons the size of a housecat being slain by an adventurer would not make as imposing an artwork as St George's Statue in East Berlin.

The Exchange

see wrote:

A dragon of normal fantasy imagination should be a reliable TPK before a party is "name" (10th) level . . . and the chromatic dragons in the SRD of sufficient CR to do that are all of Huge or larger size.

I mean, if you want wimpy dragons that fifth-level characters can kill, well, sure, they're small. But it's only appropriate that they're small enough that the characters would feel silly bragging about it in a tavern afterward. They're not yet powerful enough to be real dragonslayers; the dragons they kill should be small enough to make that point.

I think Smaug kicked off the trend for ginormous dragons. I read the Sword of Welleran by Lord Dunsany which has two in it - one is big (probably Huge, but hard to tell and my memory isn't what it was) but the other sounds about the size of a dog. That was written about 1900.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
see wrote:

A dragon of normal fantasy imagination should be a reliable TPK before a party is "name" (10th) level . . . and the chromatic dragons in the SRD of sufficient CR to do that are all of Huge or larger size.

I mean, if you want wimpy dragons that fifth-level characters can kill, well, sure, they're small. But it's only appropriate that they're small enough that the characters would feel silly bragging about it in a tavern afterward. They're not yet powerful enough to be real dragonslayers; the dragons they kill should be small enough to make that point.

I think Smaug kicked off the trend for ginormous dragons. I read the Sword of Welleran by Lord Dunsany which has two in it - one is big (probably Huge, but hard to tell and my memory isn't what it was) but the other sounds about the size of a dog. That was written about 1900.

While lots of people trace DnD's roots to classical literature and legends, I personally think it really has more to do with the fantasy novels that popped up from the 30's onward. Conan and Frodo and Vance's amoral thieves are more DnD than Arthur or Perseus.

Heck, the fantasy movies of the last thirty years use impressive dragons and not the lapdog-sized ones, and I think that has shaped perception more than some medieval saints no one can name. Even in the movies with baby dragons, they aren't combatants.


Smaug is the culprit, especially the Hildebrant depiction of him on the freakin impossible mound of treasure. From that point on, bigger is better. Also keep in mind that Eastern dragons are freaking massive in scale, and us Westerners don't like being beaten by the East, especially when it comes to size.

Movies exemplify trends, not set new ones. And America is king of the "bigger is better" trend. Of course our movies show big dragons. They aren't as impressive as little dragons, so thats common sense. I was basically making a counterpoint to the assertion that dragons have always been portrayed as massive, in D&D and in other media, which is flatly untrue. The majority of classical artwork shows small dragons (with a few exceptions), and it is only after a turning point in the last century that massive became mainstream in Western art depictions of the creature

I look at world versimilitude, personally. If, in the world, dragons start the size of cats but grow to the size of whales, thats fine. Thats the way it is in that world. If a baby dragon is, statistically speaking, capabable of easily killing not one but dozens of human commoners, then that creature is well regarded as a pest if not a downright threat. And anything people want gotten rid of that bad will generate people who make a living off of getting rid of such things.

Look at vermin exterminators in the real world. Cockroaches....not very scary, but people pay through the nose to get rid of them. And lets not even talk about how people freak if an Opossum gets loose in their house. If that Opposum had a flak-jacket and a semi-auto pistol and was activily trying to kill you, wouldn't you be grateful to the person who saved your life? Would they be any less heroic in your eyes?


K wrote:


While lots of people trace DnD's roots to classical literature and legends, I personally think it really has more to do with the fantasy novels that popped up from the 30's onward. Conan and Frodo and Vance's amoral thieves are more DnD than Arthur or Perseus.

Heck, the fantasy movies of the last thirty years use impressive dragons and not the lapdog-sized ones, and I think that has shaped perception more than some medieval saints no one can name. Even in the movies with baby dragons, they aren't combatants.

I think Gygax tried borrowing as much from Arthurian and Greek mythology as from Tolkien and Howard. Though, a lot of people around here don't seem enamored of him... oh well.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the average person couldn't recognize the statue that comes to life in the Madonna video as St. Martin de Porres, however, St George slaying the Dragon is really iconic in western civalization so I believe more than no one can name him...

The baby Godzillas were combatants... She's more of a wingless Dragon than a dinosaur in the Broderrick movie. Probably spelled his name wrong... but heck, at least i didn't write boni and upset the bonuses people.


Ahem

and

must everything exist to be killed?

And while I looked and looked and couldn't find a picture, the 80's movie Dragonslayer included a few dragon whelps as well.

As an aside, the last campaign I ran featured a wyrmling green dragon as a protagonist/beneficiary of the party. The campaign before that, and the party had a 1st-2nd level adventure putting a stop to a clan of dwarves who were kidnapping baby dragons to train them as mounts. The dragons were just as dangerous - if not moreso than the individual dwarves. Couldn't have run it without wyrmling dragon stats.

We already have the stats, there's no need to drop them.

Liberty's Edge

When I think of slaying dragons, I think of this Elmore painting from the basic set.

Little tiny dragons are silly. I always remove them from modules, and save dragons till higher levels. But I think they should exist, just to add an extra twist to encoutners with adult dragons.

Scarab Sages

K wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to ever fight a dragon smaller than Huge.

Huge Dragons should be young adults, and they should just get bigger from there.

And please, I don't need rules for baby-killing. Wyrmling and young stats are just unnecessary, and a little gross.

Thanks.

I agree and have implemented the larger ones into my games. Other DM's like smaller and i, as a good player should, tolerate it without complaint. I myself, like them to be very rare and extremely hard to kill. Even to the point of the largest dragons rivaling the power of major demons and devils. But hey, that's just me.

Thoth-Amon

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / New Rules Suggestions / Bigger Dragons please? All Messageboards