Why Don't Dragons Have Spellcasting?

[Strill]

The sorcerer's whole schtick about getting magical power from being descended from dragons doesn't really make sense now that dragons apparently don't have spellcasting. What's up with that?

[pwykersotz]

The sorcerer's whole schtick about getting magical power from being descended from dragons doesn't really make sense now that dragons apparently don't have spellcasting. What's up with that?

You know the variant in the Monster Manual gives them spells, right?

Assuming you do know and you're wondering why it's not tied in more closely to their nature...I don't know. I was wondering the same thing myself.

[SaintRidley]

Take a look at the sidebar that tells you about dragons with spellcasting.

[Sartharina]

The sorcerer's whole schtick about getting magical power from being descended from dragons doesn't really make sense now that dragons apparently don't have spellcasting. What's up with that?Dragons can come in two types this edition - the Gloriously Overpowered Spellcasters from 3rd and 4th editions, and the powerful and terrifying but more mundane wyrms of earlier D&D editions.

[Pinnacle]

Dragons are very magical. Spells are one way to be magical, but it doesn't necessarily imply spellcasting.

Some of 'em can breathe fire, y'know.

[Draken]

Magical power comes in more forms than spellcasting now.

The average dragon may no longer be an incredible spellcaster, but they are no less magical. It is just that their magic now takes the form of their lair actions and regional effects. A red dragon can't cast a fireball, but it can manipulate volcanic activity, its mere presence opens gates to the elemental plane of fire, and myriad other effects. It is a lot more thematic, I think.

[Easy_Lee]

Giving them casting makes things difficult for novice DMs. That's a lot more abilities to worry about, and can lead to analysis-paralysis. I suspect most of the "casts spells as an X level Y" has been removed this gen just to simplify. But, as said, you can just use the variant and give them casting anyway.

[Shining Wrath]

I wait for the DM guide, which I hope shall discuss adding PC levels to monsters.

[Inevitability]

Some of 'em can breathe fire, y'know.

Which, since it works in an Anti-Magic Field, is obviously the result of two glands producing chemical fluids that combust when mixed.

[Pinnacle]

Some of them also breathe sleepiness.

[Gnomes2169]

Some of them also breathe sleepiness.

Do you know how easy it is to make an airborn sedative out of a mixture of chemicals? Hell, it could even just be a paralytic for the slowing gas! Truly, dragons are the most biologically superior creature the world has ever seen.

[D-naras]

Truly, dragons are the most biologically superior creature the world has ever seen.

Well, duh! :smalltongue:

[Morty]

One of the few good things 5e kept from 4e was taking spellcasting away from dragons. They're already armoured flying monsters that breathe fire, or other nasty things. Giving them spells on top of that was overblown, and part of D&D's paradigm that everything interesting must involve spells somehow.

[1of3]

Which, since it works in an Anti-Magic Field, is obviously the result of two glands producing chemical fluids that combust when mixed.

Maybe. Antimagic field and Dispel are quite fuzzy in what they affect.

[Daishain]

One of the few good things 5e kept from 4e was taking spellcasting away from dragons. They're already armoured flying monsters that breathe fire, or other nasty things. Giving them spells on top of that was overblown, and part of D&D's paradigm that everything interesting must involve spells somehow.
You do realize that they are the original source for nearly everything mages know about magic, right? Other races have expanded on the field greatly, but their knowledge forms the core of it.

In the lore, they were the original magic practitioners, and are still among the strongest in that field. Hell, a wizard seeking a dragon's knowledge of magic by one means or another is a common event.

If that makes them overblown, its because they're supposed to be among the toughest bastards around to face, and the strongest allies to have, not just minibosses with exceptional loot drops, much less talking combat pets to ride. 4E watered them down badly, and I'm not happy to see 5E doing the same.

[rlc]

You do realize that they are the original source for nearly everything mages know about magic, right? Other races have expanded on the field greatly, but their knowledge forms the core of it.

In the lore, they were the original magic practitioners, and are still among the strongest in that field. Hell, a wizard seeking a dragon's knowledge of magic by one means or another is a common event.

If that makes them overblown, its because they're supposed to be among the toughest bastards around to face, and the strongest allies to have, not just minibosses with exceptional loot drops, much less talking combat pets to ride. 4E watered them down badly, and I'm not happy to see 5E doing the same.

So that means they must have innate spellcasting?
They are magic. They can manipulate magic without needing to cast spells. That's represented in-game, as well as the magic variant. It makes sense if you take a second to think about it.

[D-naras]

You do realize that they are the original source for nearly everything mages know about magic, right? Other races have expanded on the field greatly, but their knowledge forms the core of it.

In the lore, they were the original magic practitioners, and are still among the strongest in that field. Hell, a wizard seeking a dragon's knowledge of magic by one means or another is a common event.

If that makes them overblown, its because they're supposed to be among the toughest bastards around to face, and the strongest allies to have, not just minibosses with exceptional loot drops, much less talking combat pets to ride. 4E watered them down badly, and I'm not happy to see 5E doing the same.

I would say that they are far from being watered down. Old dragons are so magical, they literally warp the land for miles. And you can always have them cast spells by using the variant. I prefer this edition's dragons to 3.5 since here, they can be customized much easier. Feel like the dragon needs to know about magic? Slap them an Arcana proficiency and you are ready to go. Instead, in 3.5 you had to figure the dragon's Int mod and hit dice and class levels and them give them the proper skill points. By the book, that takes way too long. 5th streamlines this to a great extent.

[Morty]

You do realize that they are the original source for nearly everything mages know about magic, right? Other races have expanded on the field greatly, but their knowledge forms the core of it.

In the lore, they were the original magic practitioners, and are still among the strongest in that field. Hell, a wizard seeking a dragon's knowledge of magic by one means or another is a common event.

Did that suddenly become canon in 5e? Because it sure as heck isn't the "lore" for any other edition. Inasmuch as D&D has lore or canon in the first place. Which it doesn't, really.

Regardless, dragons already have magic. They are magic. But it's a primal, elemental magic, expressed in their immense physical power, deadly breath, fearsome presence and longevity.

[Sartharina]

You do realize that they are the original source for nearly everything mages know about magic, right? Other races have expanded on the field greatly, but their knowledge forms the core of it.

In the lore, they were the original magic practitioners, and are still among the strongest in that field. Hell, a wizard seeking a dragon's knowledge of magic by one means or another is a common event.
[Citation Needed]

[Grayson01]

Well, duh! :smalltongue:

I kinda have to second that "Well, Duh"!

[hachface]

Did that suddenly become canon in 5e? Because it sure as heck isn't the "lore" for any other edition. Inasmuch as D&D has lore or canon in the first place. Which it doesn't, really.

It was never totally explicit, but something along these lines was suggested in 3rd edition. In 3.0, draconic was the language of magic. Wizards wrote in draconic, and (at least some) sorcerers were said to get their magic abilities from having a dragon ancestor. So this all implied that dragons and arcane magic were deeply linked.

Additionally, dragons have been able to cast spells in every edition except 4e, and even that was only because no one cast spells in the way they had in previous editions.

[LTwerewolf]

The only origin story of magic was the weave in faerune. Mystra was put in charge of it, and the other gods granted power to mortals in the form of divine magic. Arcane casters came after, they learned to tap into the weave themselves without intervention from deities.

[rollingForInit]

If the 8 1/day spells that an Ancient Gold Dragon can cast per the variant rules aren't enough, I see no reason why you can't just add more spells, if they are fluff spells that don't really do much for combat, or giving them rituals. Divination spells would generally not do much for combat, but would be a good way to play on a dragon's magical abilities. Give a good dragon additional healing spells that can only be used on humanoids. Or allow the dragon to change which spells it can cast every day the same way that a Wizard prepares spells.

None of that should drastically impact the CR, but would add more magical abilities to the dragon.

[Morty]

It was never totally explicit, but something along these lines was suggested in 3rd edition. In 3.0, draconic was the language of magic. Wizards wrote in draconic, and (at least some) sorcerers were said to get their magic abilities from having a dragon ancestor. So this all implied that dragons and arcane magic were deeply linked.

Implied, not stated. Sorcerers were originally only suggested to maybe have draconic origin, everyone just sort of ran with it. Every setting still has its own origin of magic.


Additionally, dragons have been able to cast spells in every edition except 4e, and even that was only because no one cast spells in the way they had in previous editions.

That doesn't make it a good idea. Like I've already said, giving dragons spells was just another facet of spells being the only important thing in D&D.

[Sartharina]

It was never totally explicit, but something along these lines was suggested in 3rd edition. In 3.0, draconic was the language of magic. Wizards wrote in draconic, and (at least some) sorcerers were said to get their magic abilities from having a dragon ancestor. So this all implied that dragons and arcane magic were deeply linked.Magic and dragons are deeply linked, but not dragons and spellcasting. Dragons are extremely magical even without spells - have you seen how the world REACTS to their presence?


Additionally, dragons have been able to cast spells in every edition except 4e, and even that was only because no one cast spells in the way they had in previous editions.In OD&D, less than 50% of dragons could cast spells (except silver+gold, which were almost all spellcasters). In AD&D, they had extremely limited and haphazard spellcasting.

Only in 3e was Every Dragon a Full Casting Demigod of Magic.

[Segev]

[G]iving dragons spells was just another facet of spells being the only important thing in D&D.

No, not really. Dragon spellcasting was so weak for their CR that it honestly was not going to make them T1 on its own. As in, a T1 of their CR would trounce them almost as easily as they would a T3.

Giving dragons spells did two things: it simplified the design of dragons for the writers by allowing them to tap into an existing (and ever-expanding) batch of resources rather than having to make up whole new and complete magical powersets; and it thematically linked the concept of "sorcerers descend from dragons" better than normal by explaining easily why a sorcerer with distant heritage of a single dragon could cast magic of all elements and (nearly) any variety.

Spellcasting being the be-all and end-all of mechanical supremacy had nothing to do with dragons having spells.

[Person_Man]

Because D&D is a game, and it tends to work a lot better for a majority of DMs that way. D&D monster design tends to swing back and forth between two basic design philosophies

The gamist/4E/ease of use school of thought believes that DMs should be able to open up the Monster Manual to the monster they want to use, read aloud from the fluff text as needed, and then use the monster as written for any encounters that come up, with a minimum of hassle. The DM shouldn't have to wade through long lists of powers/abilities/spells/etc when realistically you're only going to use 1-4ish of them in a real game, and these powers should be iconic and interesting, differentiating this monster from others. You shouldn't have to look up or cross reference things like spells or summons from somewhere else, because doing so can dramatically slow down the game (or increase prep time). There should be no paperwork or calculations that the DM has to do before using the monster (like applying a template, or determining the duration of spells). If you need or want different difficulty levels applied to the same monster, the book should just print each difficulty level seperately (Ogre/Ogre Mage, different ages of dragons, etc) but should do so very sparingly, so that you don't end up with a dozen or more pages of what's essentially the same monster. Customization rules are a good thing, to the extent that they keep with the above design goals (like a sidebar listing spellcasting options). But the easiest way to customize things is via DM fiat, and its not cheating, because its all made up anyway, and I'm not going to spend an hour creating an Anthropomorphic Cat Wizard when all I really want is an intelligent cat that can cast Dominate Person for one encounter.

The simulationist/old school way of designing monsters is that Non-Player Characters should generally function under the same rules as Player Characters. In other words, monsters are just players controlled by the DM. They should use the same process used to create player characters, or something very similar. If you want your dragon to cast spells, then there needs to be rules for how dragons gain sorcerer (or cleric, or whatever) class levels. Monsters should have lists of different abilities/spells/etc, because "not every X is the same, and not every combat with an X should be the same." The Monster Manual descriptions should give DMs all the tools they need to build whatever they want in way that's consistent with the rules and the overall "physics" of the game world. And since everything is internally consistent, players can theoretically pick up and use many (if not all) of the monsters in the monster manual and use it as a playable race.

[Sartharina]

By your definition, Person_Man, only 3.5 is "Old School", while AD&D and OD&D were "Gamist".

[hachface]

By your definition, Person_Man, only 3.5 is "Old School", while AD&D and OD&D were "Gamist".

Yes. The idea that monsters are just another kind of NPC is strictly a 3.x thing. I hope it is an idea that remains safely dead.

I don't mind if some monsters are spellcasters in a manner similar to PCs. It makes sense that a lich or an orc shaman would use magic like a PC would. What I don't like is when monsters routinely have long lists of spell-like abilities that I need to look up during play. Giving a fire elemental an innate fireball instead of defining a unique fire power in its stat block might save page space, but it really annoys me that I have to either then look up fireball in the middle of a combat or take valuable prep time to add it to my notes.

So basically I want monsters to basically be like they were in 4e, plus occasionally they sometimes get a spell list.

5e is close to my ideal, but not quite there. To make it perfect I would remove innate spellcasting as an idea entirely.

[rollingForInit]

Yes. The idea that monsters are just another kind of NPC is strictly a 3.x thing. I hope it is an idea that remains safely dead.

I don't mind if some monsters are spellcasters in a manner similar to PCs. It makes sense that a lich or an orc shaman would use magic like a PC would. What I don't like is when monsters routinely have long lists of spell-like abilities that I need to look up during play. Giving a fire elemental an innate fireball instead of defining a unique fire power in its stat block might save page space, but it really annoys me that I have to either then look up fireball in the middle of a combat or take valuable prep time to add it to my notes.

So basically I want monsters to basically be like they were in 4e, plus occasionally they sometimes get a spell list.

5e is close to my ideal, but not quite there. To make it perfect I would remove innate spellcasting as an idea entirely.

I mostly agree with you, except for the last part - I actually think that 5e is my ideal. Now, I really liked the long spell lists in 3.x, mostly because I like spells. But from a practical perspective, I very much prefer 5e.

I wouldn't mind if all the spells from innate spellcasting were described in the stat block, but I do think that the variety that they bring to the monsters give them a more uniquely magical feeling, and the fact that they use spells ties them into the magic system somewhat, even if they aren't full casters.

[Person_Man]

By your definition, Person_Man, only 3.5 is "Old School", while AD&D and OD&D were "Gamist".

Fair enough. I'm not really interested in definitions, or being right about anything. I was just trying to provide context, because reading and writing about it helps clarify my own thoughts on the subject and better informs my games. Perhaps its better to say that there are two general design philosophies, and D&D has swung back and forth between them depending on the writer.

Having said that, although I briefly played 1st edition for a year or so (because I happen to find that edition in a used book store), the bulk of my formative D&D playing experiences in the 1990's was spent playing a heavily supplemented (including subscriptions to Dragon and Dungeon magazines) version of 2nd edition AD&D, and to me, it felt like the clear trend in D&D at the time was towards more "realistic" and elaborately detailed monsters with tons of options, rules for progression, etc. For example, I clearly remember rules somewhere for playable monster races like drow and githyanki, and remember plenty of 2nd edition monsters with spells that I had to look up in the PHB (rather then being self contained Powers or abilities), different power levels of a monster based on the level of the PCs they encountered, and so on.

[Baptor]

Because D&D is a game, and it tends to work a lot better for a majority of DMs that way. D&D monster design tends to swing back and forth between two basic design philosophies

The gamist/4E/ease of use school of thought believes that DMs should be able to open up the Monster Manual to the monster they want to use, read aloud from the fluff text as needed, and then use the monster as written for any encounters that come up, with a minimum of hassle. The DM shouldn't have to wade through long lists of powers/abilities/spells/etc when realistically you're only going to use 1-4ish of them in a real game, and these powers should be iconic and interesting, differentiating this monster from others. You shouldn't have to look up or cross reference things like spells or summons from somewhere else, because doing so can dramatically slow down the game (or increase prep time). There should be no paperwork or calculations that the DM has to do before using the monster (like applying a template, or determining the duration of spells). If you need or want different difficulty levels applied to the same monster, the book should just print each difficulty level seperately (Ogre/Ogre Mage, different ages of dragons, etc) but should do so very sparingly, so that you don't end up with a dozen or more pages of what's essentially the same monster. Customization rules are a good thing, to the extent that they keep with the above design goals (like a sidebar listing spellcasting options). But the easiest way to customize things is via DM fiat, and its not cheating, because its all made up anyway, and I'm not going to spend an hour creating an Anthropomorphic Cat Wizard when all I really want is an intelligent cat that can cast Dominate Person for one encounter.

The simulationist/old school way of designing monsters is that Non-Player Characters should generally function under the same rules as Player Characters. In other words, monsters are just players controlled by the DM. They should use the same process used to create player characters, or something very similar. If you want your dragon to cast spells, then there needs to be rules for how dragons gain sorcerer (or cleric, or whatever) class levels. Monsters should have lists of different abilities/spells/etc, because "not every X is the same, and not every combat with an X should be the same." The Monster Manual descriptions should give DMs all the tools they need to build whatever they want in way that's consistent with the rules and the overall "physics" of the game world. And since everything is internally consistent, players can theoretically pick up and use many (if not all) of the monsters in the monster manual and use it as a playable race.

This is a brilliant observation!

I started D&D in AD&D but really cut my teeth as a DM in 3rd Edition. A part of me really likes the "simulationist" idea of everything being quantitative and equal. In college I enjoyed spending hours crafting homebrewed monsters and NPCs. I calculated magic items, spell durations, and even feat and skill point selections.

Over time however, I saw what this guy saw, hours of prep work going into about a ten minute battle. Most of the skills/feats/spells were never even used. Still, I was undaunted until the incident with the Demonologist.

I made this BBEG. He was a Nar Demonbinder, a PrC from a FR splatbook. He was level 15. I spent a long time creating the wizard himself. His stats, spell selections, skills, feats and magic items. This had to be done just so because the requirements for Nar Demonbinder were dizzying. Once I had fine-tuned him, I got to work on his bound demon. I took an existing demon and used the correct rules for adding Hit Dice to max him out for the Demonbinder. The result was a dynamic duo beyond compare. I was very impressed with myself.

The day came and the party was confronted by this diabolical duo. An elven wizard in the party goes first.

"I pull out my oathbow and swear to destroy the demon."

"Ok..." I am thinking, this wizard is level 15 and he's using his bow? Someone is not on his A-game.

"I knock my arrow of demon slaying and shoot."

Wait...what? An arrow of what?
"You don't have one of those." I mocked.

"No he does. Remember he bought one when he rolled up this character and you said it was a silly waste of money?" said one of the other players.

"Oh...that's right." my heart sank "Still! There is no way he is failing that save!"

I rolled a 1. Dead demon. Needless to say the demonbinder without his pet was easily dispatched thereafter.

Now I was not upset at what the player did. That was classic and reminds me of that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. (You know the one!)

What bothered me was my hours and hours of crafting was undone in ONE ROUND. After that, I rarely did any special monsters.

Anyways my point is that 5e is a gift from above. The monsters are simple and require almost no prep if at all. If a player happens to smote the Glabrezu with an arrow of slaying, I'm not out any personal time.

YMMV.

[LTwerewolf]

In 3rd specials aren't too hard to do as long as you have the appropriate applications. Spellgen2 is something i use for quick spell lists (takes about 2 minutes).