How invested are D&D players in D&D dragons?

[VoxRationis]

Trying to take a quick poll here:
If a D&D setting changed dragons significantly from their depiction in the Monster Manual (across many editions), would you still be interested in it (assuming the rest of the setting were to your liking)? Would that be a problem? Would it be something you swallow but with distaste?

[veti]

Despite the name, a D&D setting isn't actually required to include dragons at all.

And "changing absolutely everything the Monster Manual says about any, and for that matter every, entry" is completely within the scope of what a DM is allowed - nay, expected - to do.

So knock yourself out.

[VoxRationis]

In theory, yes. But I am hoping to publish settings, and in my experience (both IRL and on this forum) players can get a little upset when you mess with the core rules.

[Slipperychicken]

If a D&D setting changed dragons significantly from their depiction in the Monster Manual (across many editions), would you still be interested in it (assuming the rest of the setting were to your liking)? Would that be a problem? Would it be something you swallow but with distaste?
Depends on how you changed them.

If you came up with a monster that has nothing to do with dragons, then called it a dragon, I wouldn't be too happy with it. If you just made them big dumb flying lizards and took away their special powers aside from breath weapons, I'd probably be okay with that interpretation of what a dragon is.

[Fable Wright]

Find something interesting to do with the trumped-up godlizards. That's all I ask. Xorvintaal? Argonessen dragons? Oriental dragons? Discworld dragons? All good.

Generic treasure-hoarders? Feel free to mix it up as much as you possibly can.

[Segev]

As long as the changes are clearly spelled-out, rather than sprung on them, most players would probably be fine with it. Even if it's just an opening of, "In this setting, dragons are not color-coded for your convenience, and do not necessarily have breath weapons nor powers of the sort you might expect from the MM."

I only get annoyed, personally, when I was given to expect "D&D except where stated otherwise" and I only learn about the "otherwise" when it's right on top of me and I was already halfway through making decisions based on "D&D" rather than the "except otherwise" I didn't know about.

[Vitruviansquid]

Yeah. I don't really care about the dragons.

[VoxRationis]

If you just made them big dumb flying lizards and took away their special powers aside from breath weapons, I'd probably be okay with that interpretation of what a dragon is.

That was more the direction I was thinking of, though there are creatures in the setting that are referred to as dragons even though everyone knows there's no particular relation (much as we have "firs" which are actually pines, two families of unrelated vultures, etc., and of course creatures called "chimeras" or "dragons" even though there are no such things in the vein of the storybook monsters).

[Honest Tiefling]

I probably wouldn't really care. I don't like how DnD dragons are color coded masterminds except white dragons for some reason. But there's nothing to say you can't throw in a side bar or article about adapting the current breed of dragon with the new one. I respect 4e for trying new things, but I think it made Forgotten Realms into such a controversial issue because it changed something that already existed, and stopped supporting the old stuff. For someone invested in Living Forgotten Realms, that must have sucked big time.

I would be more okay with a smaller company being forced to take one idea and run with it. Make me like it. But something as large as WoTC? You've stopped supporting so many fan favorite settings, please stop. Just run different lines and let the grognards keep their old style dragons with conversions and in the proper settings, and let the people who want to change everything for the sake of change see something new.

If you are writing a new setting intended for DnD, I would say, do something new, at least if it is 3.5. I don't know about the other editions, but 3.5 had the Draconomicon. It's been done, it's right there! There's not a lot of need to make the whole DnD dragons all over again with a few minor tweaks here and there. (One could improve it, but I would still like to see more then minor bits changed.) But new style of dragons? Bring it! The more ideas, the merrier! And for your setting, focus on making a cohesive, fun, enjoyable whole as opposed to a giant mess that has everything stamped with the OGL license in there. A few good, well fleshed out races in a well thought deep campaign setting are going to be better then a Fantasy Kitchen Sink. But that's my opinion, some people refuse to play if they can't play their favorite race.

...I know about the name. I do occasionally play non-tieflings!

[Berenger]

...I don't even require dungeons.

[TheIronGolem]

My main thing is, I don't like dragons being spellcasters. if you tell me that dragons are smart, sure, I'll buy it. But tell me they're also wizards? That always felt to me like Gygax kludged it in when the players in his game started beating them more easily than he expected. "Oh, the dragon's claws and bites aren't beating your armor class? Fine, now he's casting finger of death! Save or die, sucker!".

I like different kinds/colors of dragons coexisting, and each type having different powers/breath weapons. I do not like the "metallic good, chromatic evil" trope.

[Slipperychicken]

As long as the changes are clearly spelled-out, rather than sprung on them, most players would probably be fine with it. Even if it's just an opening of, "In this setting, dragons are not color-coded for your convenience, and do not necessarily have breath weapons nor powers of the sort you might expect from the MM."

I only get annoyed, personally, when I was given to expect "D&D except where stated otherwise" and I only learn about the "otherwise" when it's right on top of me and I was already halfway through making decisions based on "D&D" rather than the "except otherwise" I didn't know about.

I don't see that as a world-building thing. That's just your DM trying to snag you with a gotcha because he can't handle the thought of players being prepared for his monsters.

[Professor Gnoll]

My main thing is, I don't like dragons being spellcasters. if you tell me that dragons are smart, sure, I'll buy it. But tell me they're also wizards? That always felt to me like Gygax kludged it in when the players in his game started beating them more easily than he expected. "Oh, the dragon's claws and bites aren't beating your armor class? Fine, now he's casting finger of death! Save or die, sucker!".
I'm inclined to disagree. Dragons are just as smart, if not smarter, than playable races- and every playable race can be a spellcaster. Why wouldn't some dragons pick up some spells? Especially since they seem to be such an intrinsically magical beastie.
Now, not every dragon should be able to cast spells. But I think at least some should have the ability.

I like different kinds/colors of dragons coexisting, and each type having different powers/breath weapons. I do not like the "metallic good, chromatic evil" trope.
Agreed. I'm fine with colours/metal informing personality aspects, but it shouldn't be a blanket alignment for each type. That just feels kind of lazy, and restrictive.

[Stan]

I probably wouldn't really care. I don't like how DnD dragons are color coded masterminds except white dragons for some reason.

Same here. I always found the color coding dorky and have redone dragons in homebrew settings because of it. If it's in the lore you give the players and it's not a surprise, what's the problem?

I like dragons having magic. That could be because one of my first real exposures to dragons was the Earthsea books - there magic was naming rather than spells but dragons were better than most at it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As long as your redone dragons are pretty big and powerful, it's fine with me (or a parody of that, if it's a comedy campaign). A change to 'just another beastie with claws and teeth' is a) not very useful and b) does not match my expectation of dragons, in any setting.

[Knaight]

I despise the default D&D dragons, and would be happy to see them changed. I'm not a fan of the color coding, I'm not a fan of dragons as spellcasters (dragons as having some sort of innate magic, sure, dragons as actually casting spells or SLAs, no), I think that electricity breath and ice breath and similar are incredibly cheesy, I'm not big on the dragons being hyper intelligent and I'm especially not big on the idea of baby intelligent dragons as fodder to be killed.

This isn't some dislike of all D&D flavor either - I quite like the demons and devils for the most part.

[NichG]

On the one hand, I'm of the opinion 'its a new setting, do what you want'.

But I'd caveat that by saying that when you change something, you should try your utmost to make that change both interesting and somehow significant or meaningful. Because otherwise, every change you make is just asking the DM to memorize facts without providing hooks or inspiration to help anchor them. A change is harder to remember than just removing something, so if you're changing things just to take them out of the spotlight it might be better to remove it than to change it.

So from that point of view, I would tend to not change dragons just because you don't like the details about D&D dragons or to de-emphasize them. Instead I'd either find a change to something important and tied to the setting deeply (even if it changes them from their traditional role, so long as it gives them a different but similarly important role), or I'd remove them entirely. An absence is more mysterious than a change, so DMs who really want things to be about dragons despite your setting de-emphasizing them can make a big plot about 'where did all the dragons go?' or 'no one has ever seen a dragon until now' or things like that.

For example 'dragons are just big dumb flying lizards with breath weapons; however, their breath nodes are potent alchemical ingredients that are needed to sustain elemental energies in places that have been affected by the Severing, a distancing between the world and the elemental sources; as such, dragons have been hunted nearly to extinction and are now under the protection of the Millenium Church, an organization that wishes to ensure the continued sustenance of life for the next thousand years. Killing a dragon without permission will draw down the wrath of that church, which has branches in every major city and strong political influence.'

[Jeff the Green]

I care about them so little that in my home setting there are no dragons. (At least, no true dragons. There are things like wyverns and dragonwrought kobolds and sea serpents.) They're entirely mythical.

As long as the treatment of them is halfway interesting, I'd be happy to use it over the default.

[Max_Killjoy]

How invested are D&D players in D&D dragons?


I diversified my portfolio years ago; luckily this was before the Great D&D Dragons Crash of '08, and therefore I didn't lose everything.

[Mr.Moron]

I like Dragons as general concept. I've seen a lot of variations on dragons. I generally find the color-coded "Jewerly box colors are good" "Crayon box colors are bad" version of Dragons to be one of the least cool incarnations of Dragons I've seen. You certainly wouldn't find me objecting to any games that ditched the standard dragon model, I've never used it any of my games.

[Khedrac]

Dark Sun was a very successful campaign setting for D&D and it did not feature conventional D&D dragons at all.

If your setting is good, the absence/presence/style of dragons will not make a difference.

[SilverLeaf167]

In my own setting, I prefer to treat True Dragons as unique, truly fearsome and legendary beasts. Some are intelligent and scheming, like normal D&D, but many are a bit more animalistic, though all are very powerful. Every individual is different and reproduces asexually, laying a single egg that only hatches after the parent's death. Wyverns and other such creatures can fill in when weaker "dragons" are needed.

Hasn't really become relevant yet, but the players haven't really complained about it, either. :smalltongue:

[hymer]

Depends on how you changed them.

This. And since we're talking about gut reaction more than anything, it's actually quite hard to predict.
But I'm not particularly invested in dragons. I usually have few of them in my campaign worlds, and they tend to be evil to the last scale. And they don't breathe lightning, because that's bizarre. So my gut instinct is already somehwat against D&D dragons.

[2D8HP]

Despite the name, a D&D setting isn't actually required to include dragons at all.Well not all the time maybe, it does make it hard for the PC's to survive. ...

...I don't even require dungeons.Sure wilderness adventures can be cool....

Yeah. I don't really care about the dragons.
*sputter*

Blasphemy!

Dragons even when they can't speak (maybe even especially then) are simply BADASS! With Awesome! on top of Awesome!, next to the Awesome!, with a side order of AWESOME! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)

And they know it! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0754.html)

My wife likes to watch Game of Thrones, the brutality of which would frankly make it unwatchable for me if it weren't for the Dragons! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o8RZa62feQE&itct=CBwQpDAYACITCL-mqu_h0c0CFZAhfgoddu8KCDIHcmVsYXRlZEi4hqqpk-HIn6kB)

Or take the movie Dragonslayer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHJ-gZUqD2o) which with an Ogre or a Giant would be as forgettable as "The Sword and the Sorcerer" (which came out the same year), but Vermithrax makes it a must see!

Now while they are some degenerates in need of treatment that prefer boring RPG's (Cyberpunk, Vampire etc.) with settings that lack Dragons, it is clearly evident that the deficit of AWESOME renders such settings as LAME!
You may change it around a a little bit , but for me as long as the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a Warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTIeBuLnD-A/UR_ToMA9-VI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q8g2RT4XY-s/s1600/holmes+box.jpg

SAVE THE DRAGONS!

[MrStabby]

So I have no problem with dragons being changed, however I find it useful to not change them, especially as I change so much else in the world.

Dragons act as a point of reference to the players. If the antagonist has a dragon ally who treats him as an equal, then it says a lot about that guy's strength. The trope of colour coded dragons is useful when I want to introduce hack and slash to a more in-depth campaign and to have a really tough fight with no moral questions asked for a bit of a change in pace.

Likewise if you have a group of more paranoid players in a campaign a silver dragon that gives advice or brokers discussions with other parties can act as a point of trust to push the campaign forward.

Mechanically, a big creature that can fly, has an area weapon, is tough and has some spells as well as being smart enough to avoid traps is a good pivotal encounter that is almost always hard and can't be simply defeated by a single simple strategy.

[Millstone85]

An idea I would play with is that of pseudodragons and wyverns not being merely related to true dragons but in fact juvenile versions of them.

This way, a character could say that, yes, they do have a tiny dragon perched on their shoulder. Years later, the same character could say that, yes, they are in truth a dragon rider. And long after this character's death, a wise old dragon might reminisce about the person who took care of them when they were only of beast-like intelligence.

[BWR]

D&D dragons are cliché at this point, and things become clichés because they work. There is something about it that appeals to people.
Does every setting need them as commonly portrayed in the base game? of course not. Altering or ignoring clichés is fine and good. Look at Dark Sun - only one full 'dragon' there and he's quite different from normal D&D dragons.
Should D&D dragons henceforth be ignored in all settings as passe or stupid or unimaginative? **** no! Like dungeons, I like them and they have an important place in D&D.

[Yora]

I only use Dungeons & Dragons rules in my campaign, but don't run them in a D&D world. Almost all my monsters are homebrew creations.

[AslanCross]

Find something interesting to do with the trumped-up godlizards. That's all I ask. Xorvintaal? Argonessen dragons? Oriental dragons? Discworld dragons? All good.

Totally agree. I really liked the removal of color-coding in Eberron, for example.

[Jay R]

The introduction to my last campaign included the following.

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

[Ninja_Prawn]

For me, I would like to say "it's not D&D without Dragons," but honestly, I wouldn't be upset if I sat down to play and the DM said: "there are no dragons in this setting."

And like, you definitely don't need Dungeons for it to be D&D, so...

[erikun]

Most of the D&D games I run or play in don't have dragons. Part of this is because I consider dragons to be A Big Deal™ and so don't throw them around very casually; if you are fighting a dragon, chances are that something important is happeneing. Part of the reason is that I tend to find other creatures in the MM far more interesting, and so will more frequently use them instead. I don't think I've ran a campaign that ever centered on dragons.

The biggest concern will likely be player assumptions. That is, if you system is going to be "like D&D but..." then expect a few of the D&D assumptions to come along on the ride. One of those assumptions is the ability to run whatever they'd like, with includes tossing in dragon opponents. It would probably be a good idea to clarify what dragons are in your setting - D&D dragons have been everything from godlike monsters to wizard housepets to PCs - just so potential GMs know what to expect from a specific stat block.

[BearonVonMu]

As long as you were doing something with your world, I would be happy to play in a game where the standard conventions about creatures were shaken up. I'd be on board with this.
Just plan for the party to have knowledge skills and use them to figure out what that man-shaped creature is, what that race tends to be like, and what its strengths and weaknesses were.
As an example: if you were in a multiverse game and a large, green-skinned humanoid came around the corner, it would be expected for a knowledge check to tell the difference between an orc, ork, super mutant, a twi'lek, or Orion space pirate. Without that knowledge check, it might be tricky for your medieval adventurer to tell the difference, or even to have heard of such a creature.

[Knaight]

D&D dragons are cliché at this point, and things become clichés because they work. There is something about it that appeals to people.
Does every setting need them as commonly portrayed in the base game? of course not. Altering or ignoring clichés is fine and good. Look at Dark Sun - only one full 'dragon' there and he's quite different from normal D&D dragons.
Should D&D dragons henceforth be ignored in all settings as passe or stupid or unimaginative? **** no! Like dungeons, I like them and they have an important place in D&D.

They aren't cliche though - they're an identifiable quirk of a particular game, but they never really extended outwards from it to any real extent, cliches crop up all over the place by definition. There's no particular reason to think they work or appeal to people based on them being a cliche.

[Thisguy_]

I've been stewing on the idea of introducing dragons into a campaign setting which has yet to see any by wildly varying their appearance from the accepted norms. I've always thought that the typical D&D dragons were boring, but I've always liked the idea that if you put two red dragons in a room and asked the PC which was a Red Dragon, he'd get stressed out.

It pretty much goes like this, in my head: Dragons are A) Fantasy creatures B) Near the height of magic. Therefore, why not allow the personality and/or upbringing of the creature to affect its appearance? For example, if a dragon grew up and lived in a forest, why not make it a giant elk-pegasus with six horns and feathery wings that spits acid instead of a green lizard that spits acid?

[Jay R]

It pretty much goes like this, in my head: Dragons are A) Fantasy creatures B) Near the height of magic. Therefore, why not allow the personality and/or upbringing of the creature to affect its appearance? For example, if a dragon grew up and lived in a forest, why not make it a giant elk-pegasus with six horns and feathery wings that spits acid instead of a green lizard that spits acid?

I get that a magical beast can look like anything it chooses. So there's no reason not to have a fantasy creature near the height of magic that looks like a giant elk-pegasus with six horns and feathery wings that spits acid.

But why in the world would you call it a dragon?

That's like arbitrarily deciding that the short bearded guys are call "zombies", and the hyena-headed evil humanoids are called "pixies". Yes, you can do it, but what's the point?

[Mr.Moron]

They aren't cliche though - they're an identifiable quirk of a particular game, but they never really extended outwards from it to any real extent, cliches crop up all over the place by definition. There's no particular reason to think they work or appeal to people based on them being a cliche.

Yeah. I can't say I've seen anything resembling D&D dragons anywhere else save perhaps the Heroes of Might & Magic video games.

[OldTrees1]

What I conceive of as a Dragon is broader than the D&D Dragon but not as broad as the full extent to which the word has been used (For example I would call a Landwurm a Wurm, and often will reduce a Wyvern to merely a Wyvern rather that a Dragon).

[Segev]

I don't see that as a world-building thing. That's just your DM trying to snag you with a gotcha because he can't handle the thought of players being prepared for his monsters.

In my experience, it's more the DM having thought he'd mentioned it, and maybe he had...to one player...once...in passing, but nobody remembering it and him failing to make sure it was clear.

[Draconium]

In my opinion, one of the best things about dragons? It's such a broad term, that describes so many different creatures nowadays, that no one has the exact same picture in their head when asked to think of one. And that's amazing. There are so many interpretations, and you're free to make them in any way you see free in your world.

With that being said, a few words of caution. First, let your players know what Your Dragons are Different (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDragonsAreDifferent) (Warning: TV Tropes link). I know that if I was expecting one thing, and got another instead, I'd be disappointed. Second, just because you're free to make them any way you want, that doesn't mean your players have to like it - I personally dislike the "dumb beast" interpretation for "True" dragons. If they have criticisms, take them in stride, and maybe change a few things if it doesn't mess up your world too much.

Now, go have fun with your dragons!


*sputter*

Blasphemy!

Dragons even when they can't speak (maybe even especially then) are simply BADASS! With Awesome! on top of Awesome!, next to the Awesome!, with a side order of AWESOME! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)

And they know it! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0754.html)

My wife likes to watch Game of Thrones, the brutality of which would frankly make it unwatchable for me if it weren't for the Dragons! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o8RZa62feQE&itct=CBwQpDAYACITCL-mqu_h0c0CFZAhfgoddu8KCDIHcmVsYXRlZEi4hqqpk-HIn6kB)

Or take the movie Dragonslayer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHJ-gZUqD2o) which with an Ogre or a Giant would be as forgettable as "The Sword and the Sorcerer" (which came out the same year), but Vermithrax makes it a must see!

Now while they are some degenerates in need of treatment that prefer boring RPG's (Cyberpunk, Vampire etc.) with settings that lack Dragons, it is clearly evident that the deficit of AWESOME renders such settings as LAME!
You may change it around a a little bit , but for me as long as the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a Warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game! *snip*

SAVE THE DRAGONS!

You and I? I think we're gonna get along just fine. :smallbiggrin:

[Hopeless]

I like the idea of changing things, especially explaining where they came from.

Most probably it won't even come up, but imagine discovering a link between a specific dragon and a druid coven that protected an ancient city since it's founding over 8 centuries ago!

I'm considering revealing he first dragons were the result of early magical research the majority are the result of unfortunates permanently polymorphed into dragons that bred resulting in the wild dragons that usually lack spellcasters capabilities replacing that with barbaric rages making them feared and the usual reason dragons are actively hunted.

Those the result of careful research are much more dangerous coupling the raw draconic power with the spellcasters capabilities of maybe even an archmage, but such foes are the product of a major campaign not an insignificant encounter you'd see in a game!

My final example is the truly legendary dragons the ones spoken of either in awe but always well feared their appearances mark either the beginning or end of an age...
For example the Guardian of Ballister, a mythical figure thought to be a coven of druids until the day Ballister fell for when the Cult of Fire succeeded in turning the populace against its Guardian they burnt down the druid's grove that was the literal symbol of the deal between the First Lord of Ballister and the Druid who allowed him to found the city.
As they did this the Druid rose to defend Ballister from a trio of Hell-Carriers literal flying fortresses that threatened to bomb Ballister from the skies... the revealed Silver Dragon destroyed the terrible war machines but following the battle the Druid left Ballister and 3 days later the magic that kept Ballister safe ended causing its destruction...

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Well, I for one like true dragons, and other creatures of the dragon type, as how they are presented in D&D (or at least Pathfinder, which is what I play). I like my (true) dragons powerful, smart, and spellcasters. I like the tactical value, the imagery and aesthetics, and effect it has on players. We know to not mess with dragons. If someone is riding one or has a little one on their shoulder, that communicates immediately that the person isn't ordinary.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm not open to settings that don't have dragons. Certainly, there have been some unique takes on it. My own novel-in-progress features both of the conventional types, the inhumanly intelligent and bestial. Now, I can play in those settings, and I could even run something in those settings. That isn't to mean I alter dragons in settings I have a hand in. My friend and I have bickered for hours on the topic; he wants firebreathing monsters that ravage everything, and I don't want big stupid lizards that you have to bend the rules to make effective. I mean yes, you could make their breath bypass all fire resistance and immunity... but then, what's the point? By invalidating gaming mechanics like that, you just make a player-GM arms race. Now, I have seen RPGs that establish a difference between normal fire and magic fire, and there the system works fine, but in D&D, I kinda like the norm.

[VoxRationis]

Well, it's nice to see that there's a wide range of opinions and few are too aggressively opposed to any particular one. Thanks, everyone.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Some of them are pretty married to the current model, so I skirt it in my setting by having dragons be exceedingly rare and replacing them with drakes in most situations, which are basically very large, very smart cats in the bodies of sleeker dragons.

[VoxRationis]

On a related note: What would a reasonable flight speed be for a dragon large enough to bear a human into the air? Obviously, I'm not asking for an accurate biomechanical analysis— some degree of fudging is required just to get it into the air—but rather a vaguely believable value for a large flying vertebrate.

[Draconium]

On a related note: What would a reasonable flight speed be for a dragon large enough to bear a human into the air? Obviously, I'm not asking for an accurate biomechanical analysis— some degree of fudging is required just to get it into the air—but rather a vaguely believable value for a large flying vertebrate.

In D&D 3.5, a Large-sized quadreped creature can serve as a mount for a Medium-sized biped, such as a human. A Wyvern has a fly speed of 60 feet, twice as fast as a human's land speed. I don't know how biologically accurate that would be, though. I know the Large True Dragons have a fly speed of at least 150 feet, which should theoretically be more than enough - ignoring the fact that the wingspan of a dragon that size would have to be enormous to lift them up without magic. :smalltongue:

[VoxRationis]

In D&D 3.5, a Large-sized quadreped creature can serve as a mount for a Medium-sized biped, such as a human. A Wyvern has a fly speed of 60 feet, twice as fast as a human's land speed. I don't know how biologically accurate that would be, though. I know the Large True Dragons have a fly speed of at least 150 feet, which should theoretically be more than enough - ignoring the fact that the wingspan of a dragon that size would have to be enormous to lift them up without magic. :smalltongue:

Thank you, but I was more looking for an overland mph number appropriate to real-life organisms, since I don't really know how "realistic" the D&D statistics are in that regard.

[Draconium]

Thank you, but I was more looking for an overland mph number appropriate to real-life organisms, since I don't really know how "realistic" the D&D statistics are in that regard.

Those numbers are per round, which is about six seconds. So a 60' fly speed is about 10' a second, and 600' a minute. This means 36000' per hour, which s only about 6.8 mph at a moderate pace. Use a similar formula to determine the faster fly speeds.

Again, probably not what you wanted, as you said you're looking for examples closer to real-life organisms. But this way, you have a method to compare the real-life conclusion with what classic D&D would say on the matter.

[Knaight]

Those numbers are per round, which is about six seconds. So a 60' fly speed is about 10' a second, and 600' a minute. This means 36000' per hour, which s only about 6.8 mph at a moderate pace. Use a similar formula to determine the faster fly speeds.

These are combat speeds - with a run action (which in flight is more along the lines of flying quickly) that can be multiplied by 4, getting a hair over 25 mph.

[Mechalich]

Dragons in the current era of fantasy tend to hew pretty close to the general D&D model across literally hundreds of series. It's a pretty powerful and solidly defined trope. Now there's plenty of wiggle room there, ranging across a spectrum of intelligence, magical ability, whether or not they have arm-wings or an extra wing-girdle, etc., but the important thing is that if you call something a dragon it should be recognizable as such to the reader. Beyond that, I suspect its perfectly reasonable to most gamers to build a d20 setting where the dragons are GoT style dragons or so forth.

[Khedrac]

Thank you, but I was more looking for an overland mph number appropriate to real-life organisms, since I don't really know how "realistic" the D&D statistics are in that regard.
The big problem with this is that, so far as we know, an overland flight speed for animals big enough to carry a human for long periods is zero.

There are no records of flighted birds or mammals capable of carrying an adult human any distance (if at all).
This means we need to turn to dinosaurs, and some of the pteranodons were the size of light aircraft - so big enough to carry humans?
Again, probably not - all flying animals go for very light structures to be able to fly - and humans are heavy.

If we hand-wave that (because dragons) to enable them to carry humans, the next problem is how the humans are carried.
If you look at footage of any if the fish-eating eagles (which do carry relatively heavy fish back to land to eat them) they tend to grasp the fish in their claws aligned with the direction of flight (rather than across it which is the natural way to grasp) - yes drag becomes a big issue.
If the dragon can fly at any speed, sitting upright on its back will get the rider ripped off by air resistance.
Probably the only way to ride it would be to lie flat along its back - not dignified, and not good for visibility (let the dragon steer).

So, ignoring all that, how fast?
Ok, let's look at real-life big birds: (Google search)
Californian condor has a top speed of 55mph (or thereabouts), but top speed is probably the wrong measure
Slightly more useful is the general Wikipedia article on condors: "often traveling 250 km (160 mi) a day in search of carrion" - but that is an energy-saving soar (and probably is a very loose estimate due to meandering). Also - how long is a day?
So, how about migrating birds? Useful article here (https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html).
I would suggest that 20 to 30 mph cruise speed is probably a good travel speed.

Oh - when it comes to bird speeds, everyone knows that the peregrine falcon is the fastest bird on the planet, well...
Whilst the falcon can do 200mph in a dive (just faster than an eagle) the swift can do 69mph in self-powered level flight and is the fastest self-powered bird on the planet (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8539000/8539383.stm)).

[Jay R]

I don't know how biologically accurate that would be, though. I know the Large True Dragons have a fly speed of at least 150 feet, which should theoretically be more than enough - ignoring the fact that the wingspan of a dragon that size would have to be enormous to lift them up without magic. :smalltongue:

We know that the laws of conservation of mass and energy, conservation of momentum, universal law of gravity don't work consistently in D&D. I just include the cube-square law as one of the laws of physics that is contra-indicated by a magical universe. Otherwise giants couldn't walk and dragons couldn't fly.

[Hawkstar]

So, ignoring all that, how fast?
Ok, let's look at real-life big birds: (Google search)
Californian condor has a top speed of 55mph (or thereabouts), but top speed is probably the wrong measure
Slightly more useful is the general Wikipedia article on condors: "often traveling 250 km (160 mi) a day in search of carrion" - but that is an energy-saving soar (and probably is a very loose estimate due to meandering). Also - how long is a day?
So, how about migrating birds? Useful article here (https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html).
I would suggest that 20 to 30 mph cruise speed is probably a good travel speed.

Oh - when it comes to bird speeds, everyone knows that the peregrine falcon is the fastest bird on the planet, well...
Whilst the falcon can do 200mph in a dive (just faster than an eagle) the swift can do 69mph in self-powered level flight and is the fastest self-powered bird on the planet (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8539000/8539383.stm)).

We aren't looking for the "Fastest", though - we're looking for the slowest a bird can fly and still be flying (Without resorting to flapping backward to maintain loft against a counterbreeze)

[Khedrac]

We aren't looking for the "Fastest", though - we're looking for the slowest a bird can fly and still be flying (Without resorting to flapping backward to maintain loft against a counterbreeze)
Are we? - the original question just wanted "flight speed":
On a related note: What would a reasonable flight speed be for a dragon large enough to bear a human into the air? Obviously, I'm not asking for an accurate biomechanical analysis— some degree of fudging is required just to get it into the air—but rather a vaguely believable value for a large flying vertebrate.
I did go for an average travel speed (my suggestion was 20-30mph).

Now as for slowest - there we have a problem - at what point does a flying creature stall and what happens when they do: discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13f4l4/can_a_bird_stall/).
This suggests that birds only stall intentionally, and recover immediately when they do.
Very few birds can truly hover (kestrels and hummingbirds being the main ones), but dragons are rarely depicted with bird-like wings so the "bird" discussion is probably irrelevant (from other search results control of the feathers makes a big difference).
So - on to bats (as bat-like wings are more common in illustrations).
I cannot find a discussion of stalling in bats (except for an article (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110620/full/news.2011.376.html) looking at the effects of the wing hairs) but bats are usually thought of pretty acrobatic - even fruit bats!
So, without looking back at the physics of fixed-wing flight and stalling (assuming dragons just soar) I don't think a minimum speed discussion can have any basis in reality - they probably can fly slower than stall speed by extra wing work, and, since we are having to hand-wave to get them off the ground, we don't have any valid physics to apply here.

[Tokidoki]

Go for it! I've never minded people experimenting with fantasy or mixing it up, vanilla high fantasy Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk/Dragonlance-esque stuff gets really stale after a while. That's why I vastly prefer Eberron or Dark Sun as settings. And while I don't like Wil Wheaton at all, his Titansgrave setting, inspired by science fantasy stuff like Thundarr the Barbarian, is also a big one for me.

So how invested am I, personally, in the default state of dragons from the Monster Manual? Not at all.


For me, I would like to say "it's not D&D without Dragons," but honestly, I wouldn't be upset if I sat down to play and the DM said: "there are no dragons in this setting."

And like, you definitely don't need Dungeons for it to be D&D, so...

Exactly! Dark Sun has a single dragon, in the entire setting, and he's usually reclusive and doesn't involve himself with the rest of the world very often.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Another thing is, for me at least, the 'default' state for dragons in media is a big dumb fire-breathing lizard that can fly, and I really like the interpretations that cast them as superhumanly intelligent, and especially the D&D version that is also a badass spellcaster. If the big dumb lizard was the standard for D&D, I think I would mind less about changing them up.

[Mlmiii]

On the Intelligent Dragon/Primal Dragon discussion, something I read on this forum suggested making kobolds the haploid offspring of normally-diploid dragons (like worker bees). This was going through my mind when I read a blog post claiming that the best way to run dragons was to make each one unique (and monstrous), and an idea came to me: In the candy industry, "mystery flavor" is just the overlap zone between two different flavors of candy production (so it'll go X units of cherry, then Y units of mystery flavor when strawberry flavor begins to be mixed in, then Z units of strawberry when the remaining cherry is used up), and having a mixup stage in the transition from kobolds to true dragons could allow both bestial-intelligence dragons and high-intelligence dragons to exist somewhat harmoniously in the same ecosystem. Personally I like that sufficiently aged True Dragons allow for encounters with beings of high intelligence and personal power, but their value drops the more of them that there are in a world.

On whether or not D&D players are dead-set on dragons, the players in the games I run (the few chances I get to run a game) are more concerned about playing the game than fighting any one specific monster. Besides, since dragons are Every Frightening Reptile (primarily snakes, crocs, and pterosaurs) in the same way most Lovecraftian monsters are Every Frightening Invertebrate, they don't immediately spring to mind unless you're either trying to evoke fear or aiming for iconic fantasy monsters.

[2D8HP]

On the Intelligent Dragon/Primal Dragon discussion
Bestial Dragons could be immature young dragons, senile old dragons, or....
AMOK TIME!
Remember the Star Trek episode when Spock goes bestial during the Vulcan rutting season!
What if Dragons after decades of peacefully minding their treasure hoards, get "the urge to merge", and then go on mindless rampages!
Heroes would be needed to fight back the crazed Dragons until the season had past!
:biggrin:

[Tvtyrant]

I like d&d dragons, worts and all. I dislike that they all sot around on piles of shony stuff, or that it is okay to murder them for it. In moat of my settings dragons either rule pwtty kingdoms or sell their monster clearing services for money.

[nrg89]

Trying to take a quick poll here:
If a D&D setting changed dragons significantly from their depiction in the Monster Manual (across many editions), would you still be interested in it (assuming the rest of the setting were to your liking)?

Yes, because I don't like the execution of the dragon in D&D anyway.

I don't like Forgotten Realms because every barmaid is a 12th level sorcerer and I don't understand why heroes are needed. This is why I don't like dragons either. Dragons are mostly treated as a big deal, but not a mover and shaker in the universe, which is akin to the 12th level sorcerer (a really big deal for most NPCs) who somehow got where she is by waiting tables. They're akin to the recluse arch mage, very powerful but if he dies the world would go on. So, if they're not a mover and shaker in the universe, why are dragons so absurdly powerful with spells and all? I mean, these are creatures who could easily cast wish/miracle, yet they're perfectly content with just sitting on their ass? And somehow, they have alignments and ambitions just like everyone else? Yeah, I don't buy that, it's just too many different roles to play; the wisened sage, the "monster of the week" and the greedy, super intelligent meddler. Who also copulates with humanoids in other forms to spread their genes. No, too silly.

I however think dragons have lots of potential but they need to be more focused. You want to make them super powerful? Great, but either give them the influence too or a good excuse, not a hand wave, you can't hand wave something as big as this. I would much rather like it if their powers were limited, taking away their spell casting could be a good step, and make the much more focused on a few specific things. The problem is that the characters can not reach ultra high levels because then they can kill dragons easily (in my old group which consisted of engineers with too much free time and access to min/max boards this was still a problem anyway) which sort of ruins the effect.

Dragons has a lot of room for improvement and I encourage you to take risks because even if they don't pay off I doubt you'll make them as bland as the original dragons.

[sktarq]

On Dragonflight: it is known that all dragon hatch with a mystic magic movement motor that allows flight and occasional kangaroo hopping (which always makes people loose respect for reds), and sometimes burrow speeds that ignores basic physics in too many ways to count.

Thus dragon overland speeds are the same as a Whitestar cruiser from Babylon 5; they move at the speed of the plot.

As for changing dragons: Sure but don't half-donkey it. Figure out consequences and what dragon means in the setting and to the PC's. And be upfront about it to your players.