| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Primal and Imperial aren't part of this book, unless they aren't included in the Dragon category. Since there's 8 dragons and 4 have already been named. Cinder, Despair, Requiem, and Rune. 4 open slots.
There's 5 Imperial dragons, so that's too many to include in this.
There's 5 Primal (elemental) Dragons, so they don't fit unless one is dropped (unless one of the new ones replace Umbral for some reason). Also since Rage of Elements added 2 more planes they probably need to add 2 more Primal Dragons, maybe Fungal and Rust? Maybe uplift the Zomok to true dragon status with young and ancient variants.
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.
I hope we finally get ice dragons back. The new dragons and the primal elemental dragons combined filled all the mechanical niches I really needed from basic Dragons... except Ice. Nothing has ice breath right now. It's a bit of a glaring absence, especially with one 2E AP featuring one as a major antagonist.
There's so many fun names you could use. Rime Dragons, Glacial Dragons, Hoarfrost Dragons, Winter Dragons, Polar Dragons, etc.
Hear hear!
More.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this news and still no sign of Outer Dragons? That's heartbreaking :C
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many are brand new ones, remastered ones or converted ones though?
For the record...
- Chromatic and Metallic Dragons have been mentioned with new names, and since they were already converted, they would need remastering. This doesn't seem to be this complex.
So, presumably the upcoming (MC2) Cinder Dragon is our remastered red (as well as, y'know, the diabolic also being a remastered red), in the same way that the horned dragon is our remastered green, which means we'd only be getting at most three other remastered chromatics. I'd honestly rather they didn't do that - having five dragons for the sake of equivalency with a license that isn't being used anymore seems like a waste of creative effort that could be better used for new and original ideas.
On the other hand, I also want an ice-breathing dragon please!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this news and still no sign of Outer Dragons? That's heartbreaking :C
We're getting a divine cosmic dragon for Starfinder, and the outer dragons could be material for future primal dragons in the system. (The first one is going to be a host dragon, which I'm very excited to see.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, presumably the upcoming (MC2) Cinder Dragon is our remastered red (as well as, y'know, the diabolic also being a remastered red), in the same way that the horned dragon is our remastered green, which means we'd only be getting at most three other remastered chromatics. I'd honestly rather they didn't do that - having five dragons for the sake of equivalency with a license that isn't being used anymore seems like a waste of creative effort that could be better used for new and original ideas.On the other hand, I also want an ice-breathing dragon please!
Yeah, with the Primal Dragons (should probably rename them Elemental Dragons..) covering most of the elements and Horned covering poison really fills every classic draconic elemental niche... Except ice... I'm fine using Cloud Dragons for lightning and Brine Dragons for acid, as long as Monster Core 2 or Draconic Codex has an ice dragon I'll be happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those could be reserved for Starfinder though.
They're also not in the leaked Alien Core, which is fueling my frustration. I've liked them for a long while, especially because one appears in Iron Gods - it's a little sad to wait 6+ years for them in 2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest fear is that the new dragons introduced in Draconic Codex will be truly new rather the return of some long awaited 1e Dragons like the Outer and Planars. Don't get me wrong, Fortune Dragons and the like were nice, but I've been wanting to see Edict Dragons and the like for quite a while. There's new dragons coming in Monster Core 2 and well, and we know that Cinder Dragons there correspond to the old Red. Maybe the others are also updated pre remaster dragons, but the names aren't giving me that vibe. Requiem Dragon could perhaps be the Crypt Dragon renamed... But you wouldn't really need to rename that one would you?
I'm still uncertain if Infernal and Diabolic are supposed to be the same Dragon. The Monster Core one certainly isn't treated like a Planar, but I feel like having both would be extremely redundant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Requiem Dragon could perhaps be the Crypt Dragon renamed... But you wouldn't really need to rename that one would you?
True, it may not need a rename, but it wouldn't be entirely unrealistic for them to choose to rename it anyway, since Requiem shares a lot more thematic vibes with the Boneyard and the anti-undead psychopomps (incl. their language, Requian) compared to "Crypt", which could easily be mistaken for a more pro-undead monster that hangs out in graveyards and tombs surrounded by skeletal minions.
That's not to say there isn't something else going on here, but the first thing that pops into mind hearing Requiem Dragon is definitely peaceful rest, psychopomps, and the Boneyard.
Infernal and Diabolic seem very much different to me. Diabolic is fiendish, while infernal is elemental fire. Both will share fire, but one is clearly more tied to the element, and the other tied to being unholy.
For clarity, in Pathfinder parlance, "Infernal" means devilish and associated with Hell. You probably were comparing Cinder and Diabolic, but I wanted to clarify that Pathfinder does have a dragon called Infernal and it is a Hell-themed lawful evil dragon. Which, to my recollection, a dev has implied is still canon and not the same thing as a Diabolic Dragon... curious how they plan to make those not feel redundant myself when a lot of planar dragons already feel kind of redundant to me re: the rest of the more on-theme creatures of the planes.
We'll see!
Requiem Dragon could perhaps be the Crypt Dragon renamed... But you wouldn't really need to rename that one would you?True, it may not need a rename, but it wouldn't be entirely unrealistic for them to choose to rename it anyway, since Requiem shares a lot more thematic vibes with the Boneyard and the anti-undead psychopomps (incl. their language, Requian) compared to "Crypt", which could easily be mistaken for a more pro-undead monster that hangs out in graveyards and tombs surrounded by skeletal minions.
That's not to say there isn't something else going on here, but the first thing that pops into mind hearing Requiem Dragon is definitely peaceful rest, psychopomps, and the Boneyard.
Infernal and Diabolic seem very much different to me. Diabolic is fiendish, while infernal is elemental fire. Both will share fire, but one is clearly more tied to the element, and the other tied to being unholy.For clarity, in Pathfinder parlance, "Infernal" means devilish and associated with Hell. You probably were comparing Cinder and Diabolic, but I wanted to clarify that Pathfinder does have a dragon called Infernal and it is a Hell-themed lawful evil dragon. Which, to my recollection, a dev has implied is still canon and not the same thing as a Diabolic Dragon... curious how they plan to make those not feel redundant myself when a lot of planar dragons already feel kind of redundant to me re: the rest of the more on-theme creatures of the planes.
We'll see!
Oh yes, I didn't consider that Requian is the Psychopomp language, you're absolutely right. It might be very possible then that Crypt Dragon was simply renamed to have better cohesion with the Boneyard's theme and naming conventions. Suppose we'll find out when Monster Core 2 comes out.
Regarding Infernal/Diabolic; yes, what you're referring to is what I was referring. It is Red/Cinder and also Magma which are more tied to elemental fire, while the former are unholy and tied to Hell. Another point is that Infernal used to be the language used by Devils before the remaster changed it to Diabolic, further making me think that the new Diabolic Dragon is actually the Infernal Dragon renamed. But unfortunately I also remember the statement you mentioned saying that they're separate, which I feel is really redundant; now there's two hell dragons who seek to influence people.
Similarly, the new Empyreal Dragon mentions that each of the Celestial planes has a type of dragon corresponding to them, and that Empyreal is Heaven's, which... Makes me wonder why it couldn't just be the Paradise Dragon. I've heard no statement for that one, but also again it's not treated as a separate category of "Planar" dragon, instead being a divine dragon (as in the spell tradition). It's possible they've ditched the whole Chromatic/Metallic/Imperial/Outer/Esoteric/Planar categories in favour of just the types of magic approach. Except I think I remember Imperial dragons still being classified as such? And Adamantine being labelled as a Skymetals Dragon, which we know is a category from Starfinder. idk. Hoping the book clarifies.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that we're too accustomed with Paizo giving us 5 dragons per Monster Core/Bestiary...
Back in the day, being someone who grew up minding the front in mom's jewelry shop for an hour or two after school, and who is also OCD like nothing on this earth, the idea of the 'Pearl Dragon' being a 'gemstone dragon' always bugged me, so I wanted a five dragon lineup of dragons based on precious/semi-precious stuff that's *not* gemstones.
Pearl Dragon (aquatic, thick armor full of whorls and spires like a fancy conch shell or whelk, peers out from this armor like a hermit crab, spits pressurized water full of grit that does slashing / knockback)
Coral Dragon (aquatic, branches of toxic fire coral all over body, sprays out threads of toxic and corrosive strands of stinging nematocysts, like those that dangle from a Portuguese Man-O-War, creating difficult dangerous terrain for a bit)
Ivory Dragon (sleek furry body, abundant horns at various locations (not just atop head) almost like a giant dragon-cat, 'breathes' either a single large shard at a larger single target, or a whole barrage of smaller fangs and teeth)
Amber Dragon (hide has a bark-like consistency, and leaf like growths in place of usual dragon spines and horns, belches up a quantity of sticky copal that entangles all in area, and can possibly even suffocate them, leaves behind a sticky mire)
And a fifth was always a stumper for me. I kinda wanted something that would be found in jewelry, but not be a gemstone, so was thinking along the lines of something like darkwood (spits thorns, kinda too same-same with the Ivory Dragon, IMO).
But instead just going on the organic construct themes, there's also stuff like chitin, venom and webbing to consider, and a spider-like 'Web Dragon' that has a breath weapon of entangling webs that swarm with tiny spiders could be horrifying to spring on an arachnophobic player. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many are brand new ones, remastered ones or converted ones though?
For the record...
- Chromatic and Metallic Dragons have been mentioned with new names, and since they were already converted, they would need remastering. This doesn't seem to be this complex.
So, presumably the upcoming (MC2) Cinder Dragon is our remastered red (as well as, y'know, the diabolic also being a remastered red), in the same way that the horned dragon is our remastered green, which means we'd only be getting at most three other remastered chromatics. I'd honestly rather they didn't do that - having five dragons for the sake of equivalency with a license that isn't being used anymore seems like a waste of creative effort that could be better used for new and original ideas.
On the other hand, I also want an ice-breathing dragon please!
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".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many are brand new ones, remastered ones or converted ones though?
For the record...
- Chromatic and Metallic Dragons have been mentioned with new names, and since they were already converted, they would need remastering. This doesn't seem to be this complex.
So, presumably the upcoming (MC2) Cinder Dragon is our remastered red (as well as, y'know, the diabolic also being a remastered red), in the same way that the horned dragon is our remastered green, which means we'd only be getting at most three other remastered chromatics. I'd honestly rather they didn't do that - having five dragons for the sake of equivalency with a license that isn't being used anymore seems like a waste of creative effort that could be better used for new and original ideas.
On the other hand, I also want an ice-breathing dragon please!
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".
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.
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
If you want them to release a blog post saying, "call black dragons bog dragons and call white dragons and call red dragons cinder dragons", that won't happen because it undermines the effort by making it look like Paizo is doing nothing but renaming D&D's dragons.
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.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.
Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?
... Huh? I'm sorry, I'm really lost on what you want.
What feats do dragons get? What damage types do dragons do that got changed in the remaster? What spells do dragons have that aren't covered by the spell change rules?
Do you just want the red dragon reprinted with "Telekinetic Hand" instead of "Mage Hand", and named a "fire dragon"? Or am I misunderstanding something?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this news and still no sign of Outer Dragons? That's heartbreaking :CWe're getting a divine cosmic dragon for Starfinder, and the outer dragons could be material for future primal dragons in the system. (The first one is going to be a host dragon, which I'm very excited to see.)
Oooo, a Host Dragon!
I hope, instead of a "fear" Aura, it has a "Calm" Aura. and encourages you to relax, drink "Sea Breezes" and sing Karaoke!
Huh... apparently, Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was leaked by a Barnes & Nobles page...
Good lord, every time I swear I'm going to cut back on my physical products, Paizo releases another book I must get in hardcover. Neither my wallet nor my shelves can take it anymore! TT_TT
Anyhow, the Draconomicon is one of the last 3.5 books I still have in hardback, so absolutely this is a must buy.
Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?... Huh? I'm sorry, I'm really lost on what you want.
What feats do dragons get? What damage types do dragons do that got changed in the remaster? What spells do dragons have that aren't covered by the spell change rules?
Do you just want the red dragon reprinted with "Telekinetic Hand" instead of "Mage Hand", and named a "fire dragon"? Or am I misunderstanding something?
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?... Huh? I'm sorry, I'm really lost on what you want.
What feats do dragons get? What damage types do dragons do that got changed in the remaster? What spells do dragons have that aren't covered by the spell change rules?
Do you just want the red dragon reprinted with "Telekinetic Hand" instead of "Mage Hand", and named a "fire dragon"? Or am I misunderstanding something?
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.
I mean, that's what Monster Core 1 was, 70% Bestiary 1 but updated, a few favorites from later bestiaries like Vilderavn, and a few monsters replaced with new versions (Hags, Sargassum Heaps, Horned Dragon, Caligni replacing Drow's spot).
I assume Monster Core 2 is also going to be a "Best Of" book of Bestiary 2 and 3, with a few remastered monsters (like the already confirmed Cinder Dragon), and some new monsters. Some dragons will be new, some might be old with new abilities/names.
It really isn't a big deal if it's not a remake of Bestiary 1 dragons that are the exact same with the names filed off. Maybe the ice dragon replacement is Occult and it collects the bodies of those who die lost in the snow to create frozen undead minions, or maybe a bog dragon also sheds disease-ridden spores in an trail behind it. It's a new monster book, and even if it's a twist on old Dragons, let's have fun with it.
This did remind me though, we never got a Mimic replacement from Bestiary 1, and I would love to get something that filled a similar role as a trap monster. A slime that replicates furniture, a fey that turns into treasure to trap people, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The main issue with doing that is the OGL stuff they need to remove from the dragons is the Chromatic/Metallic organization of the dragons in the Bestiary. So if they do a Remaster version they need to organize the dragons differently.
So they're doing that, by introducing new dragons and incorporating older dragons piecemeal without the chromatic/metallic stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because remastered spells, feats, skills, damage types and terminologies don't count as "rules changes" now?... Huh? I'm sorry, I'm really lost on what you want.
What feats do dragons get? What damage types do dragons do that got changed in the remaster? What spells do dragons have that aren't covered by the spell change rules?
Do you just want the red dragon reprinted with "Telekinetic Hand" instead of "Mage Hand", and named a "fire dragon"? Or am I misunderstanding something?
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.
Yeah, that's what they can't do.
"Your honor, we did not copy D&D's dragons."
"So, what changed between the book where you said, 'Thank you, D&D, for letting us copy your dragons' and what you're publishing now?"
"The names are different, your honor."
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.
My guess from the names of the 4 dragons we know, there is one per magic tradition.
Cinder - Primal
Rune - Arcane
Requiem - Divine
Despair - Occult
Although, requiem and despair could be swapped.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need most of the old D&D dragons. Gold's can be folded into sovereign dragons. Copper, bronze and brass can be scrapped and use the personality and quirks for brand new dragons that actually stand apart. Chromatic are just elemental dragons so easy to redo or fold into existing elemental dragons. I would like to see Silver dragons return, perhaps mixed with mirror/iron dragon themes., A mythril dragon that tends to be a combination of social butterfly and social justice warrior or oppressor depending on how they view the communities they play with.
Then all we need is all the old pathfinder specific dragons back, there's plenty of those. Add more new ones or stat up the RFC dragons and that's a full dragon book.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally I seem to err towards a side of cautious pessimism, so let me try and be a bit optimistic this time around, as like many of you I really want to see Esoterics, Outers, and Planars returning before any new kinds of Dragon. It's possible, I think, that the reprints are in addition to the 20+ dragons in the book. Looking at it, it appears to be a 224 page book like Book of the Dead and Howl of the Wild, both of which had expansive bestiaries. HotW I think is the best comparison, as it included a wealth of character options alongside its creature. 6 ancestries and plenty of feats and items. Draconic Codex will also have feats and items, but only one new ancestry, and usually ancestry expansions like they mentioned for Kobold and Dragonblood barely take up a page each. Now, I can't account for draconic pacts, and each of the nine deities will take up a page each, but that's still a lot of room for a bestiary. Now, it's a fact dragons take up more room than your average creature, because you have to stat up each age category, with this book seeming to go up to archdragon, with options for caster variants as well. However, even if we say that only leaves room for a third of the creatures in HotW, that's still enough room for 20 or so new dragons plus 18 reprints.
Or I could be on copium. But this book definitely seems to follow the style set by [creature type] books, and that means that the bestiary is going to be the biggest part of its content rather than player options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally I seem to err towards a side of cautious pessimism, so let me try and be a bit optimistic this time around, as like many of you I really want to see Esoterics, Outers, and Planars returning before any new kinds of Dragon. It's possible, I think, that the reprints are in addition to the 20+ dragons in the book. Looking at it, it appears to be a 224 page book like Book of the Dead and Howl of the Wild, both of which had expansive bestiaries. HotW I think is the best comparison, as it included a wealth of character options alongside its creature. 6 ancestries and plenty of feats and items. Draconic Codex will also have feats and items, but only one new ancestry, and usually ancestry expansions like they mentioned for Kobold and Dragonblood barely take up a page each. Now, I can't account for draconic pacts, and each of the nine deities will take up a page each, but that's still a lot of room for a bestiary. Now, it's a fact dragons take up more room than your average creature, because you have to stat up each age category, with this book seeming to go up to archdragon, with options for caster variants as well. However, even if we say that only leaves room for a third of the creatures in HotW, that's still enough room for 20 or so new dragons plus 18 reprints.
Or I could be on copium. But this book definitely seems to follow the style set by [creature type] books, and that means that the bestiary is going to be the biggest part of its content rather than player options.
Important to note that this is a Lost Omens book, so the % of content which is lore-focused instead of mechanically focused is likely higher vs something like BotD or HotW, which this breakdown doesn't really seem to be accounting for.
I would expect Paizo to move away from the "there are 5 of them" theme for dragons.
Just as the evil dragons are red/white/blue/green/black, the "dragons come in groups of 5" is a D&D-ism. It is inseparable from the D&D product and its lore. It is an artificial constrain on monster design that I would expect Paizo is not interested in continuing.
I don't expect we will ever get a "here are the 5 chromatic dragons remastered." That is hueing too close to D&D.
That being said, the idea of a fire dragon or an ice dragon was not invented by TSR/WotC/Hasbro, and that is something Paizo can do and probably wants to.
The horned dragon is not really a Remasted Green, it's its own thing. I would expect the Cinder dragon to be equally distinct from the old red dragon.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't expect we will ever get a "here are the 5 chromatic dragons remastered." That is hueing too close to D&D.
...
I see what you did there! ;D
(^_')=b☆
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?
-----
- ARCANE: Force, Mental, Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Poison
- PRIMAL: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Fire, Poison, Electricity, Cold, Acid
- DIVINE: Fire, Spirit, Sonic, Cold, Electricity, Force, Mental
- OCCULT: Poison, Sonic, Mental, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing
-----
This is loosely based on the damage type spells from those respective traditions make use of.
Oddly enough, none of you commented on the lack of a line-shaped breath weapon XD
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?
-----
- ARCANE: Force, Mental, Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Poison- PRIMAL: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Fire, Poison, Electricity, Cold, Acid
- DIVINE: Fire, Spirit, Sonic, Cold, Electricity, Force, Mental
- OCCULT: Poison, Sonic, Mental, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing
-----
This is loosely based on the damage type spells from those respective traditions make use of.Oddly enough, none of you commented on the lack of a line-shaped breath weapon XD
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.
Eastern dragons are just flying skinks, just like meso has flying serpents. Doesn't matter, we need more of all of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
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
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yapping.Important to note that this is a Lost Omens book, so the % of content which is lore-focused instead of mechanically focused is likely higher vs something like BotD or HotW, which this breakdown doesn't really seem to be accounting for.
Hm, you're correct. I'd forgotten it was listed as Lost Omens product, whereas something like BotD is a rulebook. In this case the amount of mechanical content that it contains is a bit unique, but not too out of place when compared to Divine Mysteries, which released in the same timeslot. But traditionally Lost Omens books don't have a very large bestiary, if at all. I'm interested in seeing how it turns out. Still holding out hope that we'll get to see a great variety of returning Dragons, but it's likely too early for me to speculate. Apparently more details are coming with Paizocon.
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
Just call the four limb and two winged ones True dragons, like they do in science. What does that mean scientifically? NOTHING.
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.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
"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".
A Wyvern is a type of drake in the Lost Omen setting, so the "conventional" fantasy classification already don't apply.