We also have a recent clarification (well, it was a clarification to me) that the chromatics and metallics are here to stay in a more way than we all were thinking. .
So… no more hyper and chatty brass dragons
Or what about copper dragons?
Please don’t tell me the days of copper dragons being pranksters and jesters is over
I'm thinking... there's room for a book, eventually? Something along the lines of Book of the Dead, for dragons. Not soon, though. It doesnt' feel like it's particularly critical for any of the region books they might want to produce any time soon, and it would absolutely want to wait until after the OGL-derived dragons were properly remastered... which is something that's going to take a while regardless.
Might work well in association with a heavily dragon-focused AP, though, again, I can't really think of any regions where dragons are a particularly big deal.
We're about to spend a lot of time in what 1e called 'the Dragon Empires,' Tian Xia, which could certainly contribute to things. Even if you stay focused on the Inner Sea, the Brevoy/Choral the Conqueror plot has dragons all over it and needs to pop off eventually, we've got two Dragon-friendly Dwarf peoples in the Mwangi (the nomadic Taralu and the settled Mbe'ke, the latter of whom also count Kobolds as full citizens), and the titular Linnorms of the LotLK. The very first 2e AP was about dragon deity Dahak and, in the final volume, gold dragon/eugenicist/head-of-state Mengkare.
I feel like a PF2R Dragon book feels remarkably likely, especially as Paizo wants to define how they do them distinctly from The Dragon Game.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also have a recent clarification (well, it was a clarification to me) that the chromatics and metallics are here to stay in a more way than we all were thinking. .So… no more hyper and chatty brass dragons
Or what about copper dragons?
Please don’t tell me the days of copper dragons being pranksters and jesters is over
CaptainRelyk, you've made a dozen posts asking about Brass Dragons, often repeatedly in the same threads. You'll get your answers in time, I promise... but the repeated insistence isn't helping things any. There's legal peril afoot when it comes to OGL stuff; Paizo literally has to run Chromatic and Metallic Dragons by their lawyers before they can talk to you meaningfully about them.
Please, try and channel that passion into something other than public anxiety.
This is a really good change to make before getting books set in Tian Xia, since it is is such a good opportunity to have a whole lot of Golarion-centric dragon content. I am glad it is happening and look forward to seeing how it works out through sorcerers, barbarians, and dragon-adjacent archetypes.
I do have a number of concerns about it though.
It feels like it is going to end up being a lot of work that will end up looking a little bit too much like a mid-edition patch to major narrative content change, rather than a natural design around the narrative construction of the game universe, which is unfortunate. I get that is what it is and that the narrative change has been forced, perhaps earlier than would have been desired to make these changes more naturally in the future.
Moving dragons and dragon knowledge generally out of arcane has pretty big implications for a lot of items and story lines as well as some of the classes and feats, so it would be kinda cool to see this handled like the introduction of 2 new elemental planes, where everyone thought that dragons were inherently tied to arcane magic, but that that was an in-world false belief and the steady stream of additional dragon types is finally coming to a head enough that scholars across Golarion are having to rewrite the books on draconic knowledge so to speak.
"Dragon Lore" as a skill is kinda in a weird place now, because it almost become like a "monster lore" or a "magic lore skill" when it applies to creatures that cross many other knowledge skill types. Here is hoping there is a bit of a rework to the recalling knowledge system in the remastered player core that might help simplify all this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, we already have tons of Recall Knowledge crossovers. Constructs and haunts are two other examples.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that theory about a draconic Versatile Heritage in Player Core 2 is right, then there's a chance we'll see parties with both Devil-spawn Nephilim and Diabolic Dragonkin together! You could even make the other two a Draconic Barbarian and Sorcerer for a whole themed squad.
Every idea I have for these new dragons really excites me; further entangling them in this world and its magic was definitely the right call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diabolic is clearly Divine, and probably has a mirror over on the Celestial side.
Fortune and Omen sound pretty Occult.
I'm going to guess that Adamantine is Primal and Mirage is Arcane?
If the dragons are going to be based long the lines of traditions, I wonder if there will be any impact to how Sorcerer bloodlines work out.Well, for one thing you're going to have dragon sorcs of all four traditions.
All of a sudden my ash oracle blaster build becomes better accessing dragon sorcerer spells with divine casting proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of talk around the forums of the new dragons replacing the old chromatic and metallic dragons, but honestly, I don't believe nor hope that's what's happening. Those types are way too entrenched in the lore to just excise. Even if you say they can simply not be referenced in future books, that still breaks a lot of stuff because most dragons used so far have been in those two groups. I mean, Choral the Conqueror? Are they just gonna remove that entire plotline? Probably not.
What's more likely is that these serve as an addition to the cast as the move to the ORC is happening and the old cast will likely just receive a name change at a later date. If they just wanted a replacement they could've used one of the other dragon types not yet ported to 2e. I mean, what really is the difference between Diabolic and Infernal?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of talk around the forums of the new dragons replacing the old chromatic and metallic dragons, but honestly, I don't believe nor hope that's what's happening. Those types are way too entrenched in the lore to just excise. Even if you say they can simply not be referenced in future books, that still breaks a lot of stuff because most dragons used so far have been in those two groups. I mean, Choral the Conqueror? Are they just gonna remove that entire plotline? Probably not.
What's more likely is that these serve as an addition to the cast as the move to the ORC is happening and the old cast will likely just receive a name change at a later date. If they just wanted a replacement they could've used one of the other dragon types not yet ported to 2e. I mean, what really is the difference between Diabolic and Infernal?
Yeah it has already been confirmed that the new dragons aren't replacing other dragons, a focus is being shifted to them, but several paizo writers have mentioned they will eventually like to do stuff with chromatic and metallic dragons again but it may take some time to figure some things out. There is a lot of misinformation spreading sadly.