4e Draconomican


4th Edition


So this book will be all about Chromatic Dragons, and according to the description on the WotC website, they are including three new chromatics.

My thoughts are that the three new one's will be Yellow, Orange, and Purple. With the existing dragons being Red, Blue, and Green it would provide for the missing primary/secondary colors in the color wheel. Now if these new chromatics will be like any prior versions of Yellow, Orange, or Purple dragons . . . I doubt it.

Anyone have any thoughts on what the new chromatics are and what they may or may not be like?

Scarab Sages

William Pall wrote:

So this book will be all about Chromatic Dragons, and according to the description on the WotC website, they are including three new chromatics.

My thoughts are that the three new one's will be Yellow, Orange, and Purple. With the existing dragons being Red, Blue, and Green it would provide for the missing primary/secondary colors in the color wheel. Now if these new chromatics will be like any prior versions of Yellow, Orange, or Purple dragons . . . I doubt it.

Anyone have any thoughts on what the new chromatics are and what they may or may not be like?

with 4E its seems a bit redundant. Why not simply have a "Dragon" entry an you choose damage type (fire, acid, cold, necrotic, etc) and based on that choice you select a power(s) for that type?

Honestly, look in the 4E MM...pick a dragon, any dragon, and see if you can't create a "new" dragon by changing its damage type (and resistance of course) and evocative text.


Stedd Grimwold wrote:
William Pall wrote:

So this book will be all about Chromatic Dragons, and according to the description on the WotC website, they are including three new chromatics.

My thoughts are that the three new one's will be Yellow, Orange, and Purple. With the existing dragons being Red, Blue, and Green it would provide for the missing primary/secondary colors in the color wheel. Now if these new chromatics will be like any prior versions of Yellow, Orange, or Purple dragons . . . I doubt it.

Anyone have any thoughts on what the new chromatics are and what they may or may not be like?

with 4E its seems a bit redundant. Why not simply have a "Dragon" entry an you choose damage type (fire, acid, cold, necrotic, etc) and based on that choice you select a power(s) for that type?

Honestly, look in the 4E MM...pick a dragon, any dragon, and see if you can't create a "new" dragon by changing its damage type (and resistance of course) and evocative text.

I assume that you didn't read the 4E MM. Because each dragon variety has:

- Different ability scores - which means that dragons of the same level don't have identical stats. The green and black dragon, for instance, have Dextery better than Strenght. Unlike 3.5E where almost every dragon of same CR had exactly the same ability scores.

- Different roles - which means different attacks and defense values. Unlike 3.5E where all dragons belonged to the "dragon" subtype, thus had exactly the same attack bonuses and saving throws.

- Different primary skills. Green dragons are master negotiators - and this is reflected on their skills, just like red dragons are dominators of lesser races, black dragons are stealthy, and white dragons are bestial. Unlike 3.5E where all dragons had the same set of class skills.

- Different atack routines - For instance, the blue dragon uses a gore attack instead of a bite attack, that deals extra lightning damage and knocks the target prone. The green dragon uses a bite attack that poison his foes. Each dragon also has an unique tail attack. Unlike 3.5E where dragons of same size had exactly the same atack routines.

- Unique breath weapons. Unlike 3.5E, 4E breath weapons are not only different by being "line" or "cone" and by different damage types. Each breath weapon has different mechanics - green dragon's breath weapon poisons and slows his enemies; red dragon's breath weapon nullifies his enemies' fire resistance.

- Different special abilities. Each dragon variety has, besides its breath weapon, 3-4 exclusive special abilities that's almost certainly going to use, like the red dragon's inferno aura or the green dragon's lure glare... Unlike 3.5E where dragon variety's unique abilities were conditionally useful, like "charm reptiles" or "corrupt water".

In fact, the only thing that 3.5E chromatic dragons are more "varied" than its 4E counterparts is, well, alignment.


At a certain point dragons would get spells as a sorcerer, but given their shelf life it didnt come into play very often. When the black dragon popped up in Age of Worms I'd applied the Xorvintaal template from Monster Manual 5 to remove all the excess spells and give it some other tricks.

Every dragon in 4th Edition fulfills one of the five roles now, and I'm thinking that Draconomicon will likewise have five dragons that fit the roles, but it different ways.


They couldn't fit all the dragons in one volume? I have the 3.5 Draconomicon and it seems pretty complete. Why are they milking us with multiple volumes? Will that be where they finally add the metallics?


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
They couldn't fit all the dragons in one volume? I have the 3.5 Draconomicon and it seems pretty complete. Why are they milking us with multiple volumes? Will that be where they finally add the metallics?

Sorry to nit pick, but the 3.x draconomicon is 3.0, not 3.5


RPG characters and creatures are not the sum of their abilities; they are the end result of their personal motivations. Ignoring this changes the game from a ROLE-playing game to a RULE- or ROLL-playing game, which has less to offer any competent role-player.

Dragons should all be powerful and awe-inspiring individual beings of legend, not just big lizards with abilities and stats that PCs can kill so they can take it's stuff.


William Pall wrote:
Sorry to nit pick, but the 3.x draconomicon is 3.0, not 3.5

Uhm .... not to nitpick back, but the Draconomicon is 3.5 .... check the copyright date.


Ixancoatl wrote:
RPG characters and creatures are not the sum of their abilities; they are the end result of their personal motivations. Ignoring this changes the game from a ROLE-playing game to a RULE- or ROLL-playing game, which has less to offer any competent role-player.

So, by going from 3rd Edition (an action-adventure RPG) to 4th Edition (also an action-adventure RPG), what exactly has changed?

Ixancoatl wrote:
Dragons should all be powerful and awe-inspiring individual beings of legend, not just big lizards with abilities and stats that PCs can kill so they can take it's stuff.

How are they any more less so now than they were before?


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
They couldn't fit all the dragons in one volume? I have the 3.5 Draconomicon and it seems pretty complete. Why are they milking us with multiple volumes? Will that be where they finally add the metallics?

Likely so. Perhaps we'll also see a return of the Gem Dragons as well. I always liked those psionic beasties, and would be happy at their return! :)


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
They couldn't fit all the dragons in one volume? I have the 3.5 Draconomicon and it seems pretty complete. Why are they milking us with multiple volumes? Will that be where they finally add the metallics?

I'm happy there giving each type their own book, I have no interst in Mettalics, so now I don't have to sludge through their entry.


Yeah but to have to buy two seperate books at least to get all the Dragons. The old one was pretty expensive. If the new ones are cheaper i won't care as much... but i would imagine it is rare for a dm to want metallics and not chromatics or vice versa.
As for the gem dragons i am not sure...if the draconomicon 1 is chromatic they won't likely be in it. Since they aren't metallic either i shudder to think of having to buy three seperate books just to have the same number of dragons i had from one 3.5 supplement. Thats a gouge dude.


Honestly, I really only care about chromatic dragons... well, and fang dragons (but who knows if they'll ever show up again). I've never used the stats for metallics in any of my games. It's because of this I welcome the division of the different types of dragons into separate books.


How many seperate books though? Geez i don't want to spend 100$ just to get all the major established Dragon types.


The reason they ars plitting the books is simple - to keep the company going. Game companies need to make money to survive. Any game who's been around for a while can list plenty of game companies that have folded due to bankruptcy. Few game books make the publisher much money after the first month. By breaking things up, they get more books out and make more money. I don't begrudge them this money so long as the books have decent stuff and aren't cheap filler.


Ixancoatl wrote:

RPG characters and creatures are not the sum of their abilities; they are the end result of their personal motivations. Ignoring this changes the game from a ROLE-playing game to a RULE- or ROLL-playing game, which has less to offer any competent role-player.

Dragons should all be powerful and awe-inspiring individual beings of legend, not just big lizards with abilities and stats that PCs can kill so they can take it's stuff.

Well talk to Gary Gygax about that one.

Humm I guess you can't.


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
How many seperate books though? Geez i don't want to spend 100$ just to get all the major established Dragon types.

Your buying the 4E books? I thought you loathed them?


The 4E MM mentions at least two more types of Dragons other than the Chromatic and Metalic ones. I don't have my books by me but I am pretty sure of that.


I made a young amethyst dragon quite awhile back, just to see how well I could do it.
As I was going through the stats, I decided that it should be an artillery role because of its explosive gem thing that it can do, and started using the blue dragon as a basis for balance. In the end its close to the blue dragon, but differs in appearance, energy association, and its ranged attack has some differences as well.

Of course, this is a young dragon, and I cant think of any young dragons that had wildly different powers at the lower age categories.

I would say that if you dont want to buy the book and invent your own dragons that its a possibility. I plan on picking it up, because I'm curious about the new dragons as well as how they will differentiate them from the first five.


Lensman wrote:
The 4E MM mentions at least two more types of Dragons other than the Chromatic and Metalic ones. I don't have my books by me but I am pretty sure of that.

Catastrophe, planar, and scourge dragons are all mentioned, and making a volcanic dragon was something I was going to do. It would be fire-associated but as it walked it would create difficult terrain at the younger categories, but would later end up creating actual fissures in the ground (difficult terrain plus fire damage), until finally there would be lava flows (LOTS of fire damage).

It would be able to create a volcanic eruption, perhaps as a kind of zone, maybe able to breathe lava that does a secondary attack if you get knocked into the AoE, or start in it. Not sure if I'd want wings or just to make it a burrowing dragon.


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
How many seperate books though? Geez i don't want to spend 100$ just to get all the major established Dragon types.

Well, it depends on what those three books contain doesn't it? Three books is three times the material. They've said additional dragons will be added to each book, so you aren't just getting the same 15 dragons. An expanded set of the cromatic, mettalic, and gem dragons would be good.

Miguel Valdespino wrote:
I don't begrudge them this money so long as the books have decent stuff and aren't cheap filler.

This is sort of the point really. If those books contain quality material, with lots of fun ways to customize dragons and dragonic theme items and powers, then I don't care. It gives us three time the material to use, broken up into sections based upon the types. (I doubt for instance, unless it is very good, I would buy the gem book.)


I'm a little concerned with the idea of splitting the books up myself. For one I actually need metallics for my campaign so I'd like them ASAP. Since we already have chromatics after a fashion I'd rather the metallics came first. My other concern is that, while Good Dragons play important roles in my campaign, I'm unsure if I need a whole book devoted to them. If they do a really good job or have a really interesting angle I'll be happy to cough up the cash but it is an area of concern.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I'm a little concerned with the idea of splitting the books up myself. For one I actually need metallics for my campaign so I'd like them ASAP. Since we already have chromatics after a fashion I'd rather the metallics came first. My other concern is that, while Good Dragons play important roles in my campaign, I'm unsure if I need a whole book devoted to them. If they do a really good job or have a really interesting angle I'll be happy to cough up the cash but it is an area of concern.

From the excerpt on the 4E MM, it's likely that metallic dragons will be unaligned or have "any" alignment, rather than being good. They will be very different critters with different powers.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4e Draconomican All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition