Dungeons and Dragons really screwed up by making Dragons untouchable supermonsters.

[Deathtongue]

Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dragon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant. It's not only possible, but common, to have a satisfying journey from level 1 to 20 without encountering a single dragon enemy. Which is not something you can say of, say, fiends or wizards.

And it's not hard to see why it is. Dragons are simultaneously:

A) Completely unsuitable for cannon fodder enemies. Even factoring in the fudge factor Dungeons and Dragons since 3E gives all dragons, the game doesn't use dragons as cannon fodder or even minibosses like beholders and trolls. It wasn't always like this; as mentioned, the trend started in 3E D&D. In 2E D&D, it was much easier to encounter dragons en masse. You could even get them as mounts. However, somewhere along the way Dungeons and Dragons thought that having dragons pop up as random encounters degraded the mystique of dragons. The idea was that rather than Dragons being a mascot enemy, they should be memorable encounters. Couple of problems with that...

B) Not uniquely suitable for BBEGs. Dragons bring nothing to the table as a mastermind that fiends or giants or demons or mages. A lot of dragon fans attempt to correct this by giving dragons unrelated superpowers and resources (see the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica) but people don't seem to realize that this worsens the problem. Now instead of having a monster that isn't particularly suitable for a climax or antagonist, you have one that's COMPLETELY unsuitable as an antagonist except at very high levels that no one plays at.

C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as cannon fodder enemies, but we don't do that with dragons anymore.

The net effect of these is to make it so that dragons are simultaneously rare and not particularly compelling campaign elements when they do happen.

Maybe people are cool with having half of the title Dungeons and Dragons be irrelevant alliteration. By why not just call it Dungeons and Demons at that point?

[Mordaedil]

Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dungeon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant. It's not only possible, but common, to have a satisfying journey from level 1 to 20 without encountering a single dungeon. Which is not something you can say of, say, dragons or wizards.

And it's not hard to see why it is. Dungeons are simultaneously:

A) Completely unsuitable social encounters and often a poor fit for using all of the skills that the players can attribute to their characters. They are also kinda boring and uncreative compared to an open space and traveling between locations. They serve as an end-point and often are no deeper than a single floor because people get bored of delving into them. Now, a dragon encountered in the open, that is often a far more harrowing experience.

B) Not uniquely suitable for BBEGs. Dungeons bring nothing to the table as a mastermind would hole up inside as opposed to a castle in a city they own.. A lot of dungeon fans attempt to correct this by giving dungeons unrelated artifacts and gimmicks, but people don't seem to realize that this worsens the problem. Now instead of having a building that isn't particularly suitable for a climax or social encounter, you have one that's COMPLETELY unsuitable as an adventure no matter what high levels that one plays at.

C) Dungeons don't occupy a space in the realm. The closest you have are crypts. No one likes fighting in crypts, especially as an ending encounter. They're basically with undead and immunities. And because the gap between a crypt and the dungeon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as single session visits, but we don't do that with dungeons anymore.

The net effect of these is to make it so that dungeons are simultaneously rare and not particularly compelling campaign elements when they do happen.

Maybe people are cool with having half of the title Dungeons and Dragons be irrelevant alliteration. By why not just call it Sewers and Dragons at that point?

Didn't mean to be rude with this, just poking soem fun at it.

[noob]

So I know we went to Prison, a goblin hideout, a bank, a crypt, a forest(setting everything on fire is the best thing high level clerics does), a wizard tower, a necromancer castle and so on but still no dungeon in sight.
Also pseudodragons takes easily more screen time than "true" dragons.
(but it is fair: "true" dragons are not telepathic venomous flying cats and so does not deserve screen time like a pseudodragon)

[Deathtongue]

Mordaedil -- your sarcasm is sorely misplaced. Dungeons continue to be a typical part of the Dungeons and Dragons ecosystem. Hell, they just released a hardcover that is nothing but a dungeon.

If you're claiming that dungeons are not a part of the typical D&D campaign as she is played, you're completely mistaken. The only way you can do so is by being reductionist like noob here by claiming that a structure that looks like a duck, lives like a duck, and breeds like a duck is not, in fact, a duck.


So I know we went to Prison, a goblin hideout, a bank, a crypt, a forest(setting everything on fire is the best thing high level clerics does), a wizard tower, a necromancer castle and so on but still no dungeon in sight.

I mean, really now.

[noob]

Mordaedil -- your sarcasm is sorely misplaced. Dungeons continue to be a typical part of the Dungeons and Dragons ecosystem. Hell, they just released a hardcover that is nothing but a dungeon.

If you're claiming that dungeons are not a part of the typical D&D campaign as she is played, you're completely mistaken. The only way you can do so is by being reductionist like noob here by claiming that a structure that looks like a duck, lives like a duck, and breeds like a duck is not, in fact, a duck.



I mean, really now.

none of them breed like a dungeon nor do they look like a dungeon nor to they have a dungeon ecosystem.

[Mike Miller]

Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dragon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant. It's not only possible, but common, to have a satisfying journey from level 1 to 20 without encountering a single dragon enemy. Which is not something you can say of, say, fiends or wizards.

And it's not hard to see why it is. Dragons are simultaneously:

A) Completely unsuitable for cannon fodder enemies. Even factoring in the fudge factor Dungeons and Dragons since 3E gives all dragons, the game doesn't use dragons as cannon fodder or even minibosses like beholders and trolls. It wasn't always like this; as mentioned, the trend started in 3E D&D. In 2E D&D, it was much easier to encounter dragons en masse. You could even get them as mounts. However, somewhere along the way Dungeons and Dragons thought that having dragons pop up as random encounters degraded the mystique of dragons. The idea was that rather than Dragons being a mascot enemy, they should be memorable encounters. Couple of problems with that...

B) Not uniquely suitable for BBEGs. Dragons bring nothing to the table as a mastermind that fiends or giants or demons or mages. A lot of dragon fans attempt to correct this by giving dragons unrelated superpowers and resources (see the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica) but people don't seem to realize that this worsens the problem. Now instead of having a monster that isn't particularly suitable for a climax or antagonist, you have one that's COMPLETELY unsuitable as an antagonist except at very high levels that no one plays at.

C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as cannon fodder enemies, but we don't do that with dragons anymore.

The net effect of these is to make it so that dragons are simultaneously rare and not particularly compelling campaign elements when they do happen.

Maybe people are cool with having half of the title Dungeons and Dragons be irrelevant alliteration. By why not just call it Dungeons and Demons at that point?

I think many people will disagree with you. It sounds like either you have had bad experiences with DMs or you don't have enough experience as a DM. Everything you said here is group-specific and not true for the game as a whole.

[TheCount]

Also pseudodragons takes easily more screen time than "true" dragons.
(but it is fair: "true" dragons are not telepathic venomous flying cats and so does not deserve screen time like a pseudodragon)

Can i sig this?

As for the topic, Dragons are there for suprise encounters/extra difficulty!

I imagine most dragons (aside from the ones from Eberron) are quite content waiting for fouls to come and "donate" thier valuables for thier hoards (the ones that dont burn/melt anyway).

On that note, i can easily see them working together with the rulers of whatever country they decide to make thier home (for a price ofc) wether as protectors or heavy hiters or just as the apex predator for wildlife controll.

Honestly, its up to the GM how they use them. its not like you need magic to play a campainge from 1-20, but is sure makes it more diverse (even if that diversity is discarded as magic is more effective/pragmatic than the mundane methods)

[Deathtongue]

I think many people will disagree with you. It sounds like either you have had bad experiences with DMs or you don't have enough experience as a DM. Everything you said here is group-specific and not true for the game as a whole.

I've been playing and DMing D&D since the nineties. It's a trend I noticed starting with the conversion to 2E D&D, where dragons went from a horde monster (most notably in, but not limited to Dragonlance) to becoming an overpowered supermonster in 3E D&D. 4E and 5E D&D have continued this trend. You can even see this evolution in D&D games. Dragons were a common enemy type in the pre-Baldur's Gate D&D games (Gold Box, Warriors of the Eternal Sun) to becoming supermonsters.

Dragons stopped being a horde monster in 3E D&D. The game designers said they deliberately overpowered dragons for their CR. Unfortunately, this had the effect of making dragons a much more rare encounter. However, dragons really don't have the 'it factor' to make them BBEGs like fiends. You can of course overcome this with writing, but it runs into two problems:

A) Dragons are already overpowered for their CR in 3E, 4E, and 5E. If you give them more powers and abilities to make them suitable nemeses, you make them too powerful to use as villains.
B) More importantly, dragons are written to be socially isolated unless otherwise stated. There's no fraternal order of dragons. There's no hidden army of dragons waiting to overthrow society. This makes them much harder to use than other BBEG monsters like fiends and giants and wizards.

It's like Dunkelzahn in Shadowrun being a CEO. Okay, so what? Are there going to be dragon invasions? Are people going to start mutating into dragons? Are a colony of dragon supremacists going to take over a portion of Europe and kick out non-dragons like in the Tir Nations? What?

[Hackulator]

There are so many things wrong with this argument. First off, it really has zero foundation for there to even be a complaint other than "dragons is in the name". Secondly, it's fundamentally wrong as there are literally a hundred different dragon monsters in the game, many of which can serve as lower level challenges. Third, your argument as to why they are not good BBEGs is basically nonexistant other than to say "other things can be BBEGs too". Fourth, the "pop culture" vision of a dragon is a powerful monster, not something easily taken on. Finally, if dragons are not compelling in games, its because the DM is bad at using them, as there is no other entity that is innately particularly more compelling.

[noob]

Can i sig this?


Permission granted.

[Telonius]

C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint.

https://www.topsimages.com/thumbs/vBTwS4-XWDhWYooJSxFcuRbH6SOlPtCJSyskvlvH__SX_4wyVkdOPzL-SLmAP-kAtqbSVKyjkB2flcfaMQRNoQ.jpg

Maybe we just need stats for a Purple Dragon?

[Mordaedil]

Mordaedil -- your sarcasm is sorely misplaced. Dungeons continue to be a typical part of the Dungeons and Dragons ecosystem. Hell, they just released a hardcover that is nothing but a dungeon.

If you're claiming that dungeons are not a part of the typical D&D campaign as she is played, you're completely mistaken. The only way you can do so is by being reductionist like noob here by claiming that a structure that looks like a duck, lives like a duck, and breeds like a duck is not, in fact, a duck.

I mean, really now.
Missed the white text at the end of my post, I take it. It's okay, I meant no offense, I was poking fun. There's really no way to approach your argument cause there really isn't much to say about it. But earnestly I don't see dungeons nearly as often in most of my D&D games as I do dragons. Often dragons show up as kings, tyrants and political leaders in large cities in the guise of humans and elves in my experience.

But that's kind of the thing, my experience is entirely subjective and often I had no clue the people I meet are actually dragons. I learned most of it from talking to DM's long after we stopped playing games. Movers and shapers of his world were mostly dragons, hoping to drive out humans with potential to fight their rivals. But you know, a lot of us were inspired by old AD&D games, so that goes to follow.

[5crownik007]

A) Not really valid. What's the problem with not being cannon fodder? I for one think that the mythological symbolism of dragons leading back to ancient human civilization grants them the right to not be cannon fodder. They're fire breathing cat-snake-birds which is just about the scariest thing short of a cat-snake-bird-spider.

Besides, if I had it my way, I'd have minimal cannon fodder. Fighting non-memorable enemies has little purpose in my mind. After all, if you don't remember it, what's the point?

B) So they aren't the only creature that can be a BBEG, I don't see the problem. They're another type of badman that the PCs can go out to slay or be slain by as the case may be. Are you saying that fiends, giants, demons and mages all need to be unique to their own categories in terms of villain potential? It doesn't make sense.

C) Do note that parties don't have to meet a BBEG for most of their time. The BBEG can be off causing villainous circumstances that the party is following, feeling the shadow of evil cast by this dragon on their quest to (insert badman motivation). The fact that they don't show up often doesn't diminish their relevance, because they are the cause of all of the events the PCs are experiencing, whether or not they actually meet the dragon.

TL;DR I think OP is just trying to find something to complain about.

[noob]

C) Do note that parties don't have to meet a BBEG for most of their time. The BBEG can be off causing villainous circumstances that the party is following, feeling the shadow of evil cast by this dragon on their quest to (insert badman motivation). The fact that they don't show up often doesn't diminish their relevance, because they are the cause of all of the events the PCs are experiencing, whether or not they actually meet the dragon.

If you never know the bbeg is a dragon then it could be as well a level 1 commoner or a bear that is disguised into an elf and which mauls people who see through the disguise and the adventure will be identical.
So the adventurers not knowing the thing is a dragon for the entire campaign truly makes the dragon part irrelevant for the campaign and you could replace "the dragons are allying and plotting for purpose X" by "level 1 commoners are allying and plotting for purpose X" or "bears are allying and plotting for purpose X".

[Uncle Pine]

Let's proceed with order.


Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dragon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant. It's not only possible, but common, to have a satisfying journey from level 1 to 20 without encountering a single dragon enemy. Which is not something you can say of, say, fiends or wizards.

And it's not hard to see why it is. Dragons are simultaneously:

A) Completely unsuitable for cannon fodder enemies. Even factoring in the fudge factor Dungeons and Dragons since 3E gives all dragons, the game doesn't use dragons as cannon fodder or even minibosses like beholders and trolls. It wasn't always like this; as mentioned, the trend started in 3E D&D. In 2E D&D, it was much easier to encounter dragons en masse. You could even get them as mounts. However, somewhere along the way Dungeons and Dragons thought that having dragons pop up as random encounters degraded the mystique of dragons. The idea was that rather than Dragons being a mascot enemy, they should be memorable encounters. Couple of problems with that...
This is false:
- The first adventure published for 3rd edition, the Sunless Citadel, features a dragon wyrmling (white, if I remember correctly) as a miniboss and it's a 1st-3rd level adventure. On the other side of the spectrum, the Bastion of Broken Souls, a famous 18th-20th adventure, features the red great wyrm Ashardalon as BBEG. Many more examples pop up in between.
- Even without considering the above, the dragon type includes plenty of other creatures that are easily featurable in all sorts of adventures and encounters. In addition to those, every living, corporeal creature can be turned into a half-dragon for even more dragons. Then there are dragonwrought kobolds, but we talk about them more than enough around here.
- You can make dragons into mounts just fine. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. There are even feats (i.e. Draconic Steed) and whole classes (i.e. Dragon Rider, Zhentarim Skymage) that can nab you a dragon mount as a player.
- There are 7 random encounter example tables in chapter 3 of the DMG. Of these, four feature true dragons, one features a half-dragon, and only one (cold mountain) features beholder and trolls.


B) Not uniquely suitable for BBEGs. Dragons bring nothing to the table as a mastermind that fiends or giants or demons or mages. A lot of dragon fans attempt to correct this by giving dragons unrelated superpowers and resources (see the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica) but people don't seem to realize that this worsens the problem. Now instead of having a monster that isn't particularly suitable for a climax or antagonist, you have one that's COMPLETELY unsuitable as an antagonist except at very high levels that no one plays at.
Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica is a 5e product. Now I admit I haven't read it, but I don't think it'd teach me more about 3rd edition and 3.5e dragons than sourcebooks from the actual edition we're examining.
Dragons as BBEG usually sport at least 3 of the following features: big size, lizard scales, flashy spells, and a tendency for evil. It's easily noticeable that fiends, giants, demon, and mages are lacking in either of these fields, so if you as a DM want all these flavours for your campaign boss, dragon is a good choice. That isn't to say that you need any of them for a BBEG - a LG medusa can be quite the formidable adversary. "I can use other creatures as BBEG" isn't a bug, but a feature.


C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as cannon fodder enemies, but we don't do that with dragons anymore.
Entirely subjective. However, if you were to play in a level 1 to 7 scenario and needed a dragon as a final boss, there are plenty Large true dragons in the CR 9-11 range that would be perfect for this purpose.


https://www.topsimages.com/thumbs/vBTwS4-XWDhWYooJSxFcuRbH6SOlPtCJSyskvlvH__SX_4wyVkdOPzL-SLmAP-kAtqbSVKyjkB2flcfaMQRNoQ.jpg

Maybe we just need stats for a Purple Dragon?
Dragon Compendium has purple dragons, MMII has amethyst dragons, and Shining South has rattleyr dragons.

[Deathtongue]

NOTE: I realize that I posted this to the 3E forums rather than the 5E forums. I think my complaint is more valid for that edition, but TBH the problems really started in 3rd.


A) Not really valid. What's the problem with not being cannon fodder? I for one think that the mythological symbolism of dragons leading back to ancient human civilization grants them the right to not be cannon fodder. They're fire breathing cat-snake-birds which is just about the scariest thing short of a cat-snake-bird-spider.

Besides, if I had it my way, I'd have minimal cannon fodder. Fighting non-memorable enemies has little purpose in my mind. After all, if you don't remember it, what's the point?What do you mean, 'don't remember it'? There are plenty of cannon-fodder enemies in D&D that are a crucial part of its memetic ecosystem. Zombies, skeletons, orcs, goblins, ogres, human bandits, whatever.

I'm not saying that dragons have to be cannon fodder enemies, I'm just saying that making them superbosses that aren't particularly well-integrated into the default campaign system really hurt their relevance to Dungeons and Dragons.


B) So they aren't the only creature that can be a BBEG, I don't see the problem. They're another type of badman that the PCs can go out to slay or be slain by as the case may be. Are you saying that fiends, giants, demons and mages all need to be unique to their own categories in terms of villain potential? It doesn't make sense.

Well, for one, fiends, giants, demons, and mages are much better integrated into the campaign setting (of any edition post-2nd) than dragons. Take for example fiends: you start fighting fiends as soon as you pick up swords. You encounter fiend mini-bosses and superbosses very shortly in and you fight them all the way to level 20. You're aware of their hierarchies and their unique capabilities. You interact with them in a variety of contexts. You can even go to their headquarters and meet demon societies.

You don't do that with dragons. They're all isolationists who, when they are BBEGs, either work through proxies like you noted in part C or they're basically Powerpuff Girls/Justice League-style Monsters of the Week.



C) Do note that parties don't have to meet a BBEG for most of their time. The BBEG can be off causing villainous circumstances that the party is following, feeling the shadow of evil cast by this dragon on their quest to (insert badman motivation). The fact that they don't show up often doesn't diminish their relevance, because they are the cause of all of the events the PCs are experiencing, whether or not they actually meet the dragon.The problem with this observation is that you can do this with any creature. Beholders, githzerai, vampires, whatever.

[Quertus]

So, I agree with the OP, in that I used to see a lot more Dragons in 2e and earlier than I do/have in 3e on. Heck, just grabbing random modules off my shelf, I've got 2 from 3e that really should have Dragons, but the Dragon is gone / dead, and a third which contains 2 Dragons. OTOH, both 2e modules I grabbed included Dragons (despite one feeling a bit... unexpected).

But I think that the OP is mistaken about the causes of the decline of Dragon occurrences. Or, at least, not entirely correct.

Let's take as look at this:



- There are 7 random encounter example tables in chapter 3 of the DMG. Of these, four feature true dragons, one features a half-dragon, and only one (cold mountain) features beholder and trolls.

OK, but who uses random encounters any more? ... And that's the problem, IMO. The culture has changed. And many of these changes have edged out Dragons' natural habitat.

[Uncle Pine]

OK, but who uses random encounters any more? ... And that's the problem, IMO. The culture has changed. And many of these changes have edged out Dragons' natural habitat.
OP, at the very least. The original claim being that dragon started to disappear from random encounter tables during 3rd edition, which is definitely not the case in 3.5e.
I still use random encounters from time to time, but I prefer to have a general idea of the flora and fauna that are present in an area and throw something appropriate and/or interesting during travel if I feel like it. Usually I have the party ambushed by creatures already present in nearby areas of the dungeon if they decide to rest in the middle of it instead of rolling for new ones on a table. However, many DMs I met would roll on their custom tables every time the party moved from one city to another and every other rest.

[frogglesmash]

Well, for one, fiends, giants, demons, and mages are much better integrated into the campaign setting (of any edition post-2nd) than dragons. Take for example fiends: you start fighting fiends as soon as you pick up swords. You encounter fiend mini-bosses and superbosses very shortly in and you fight them all the way to level 20. You're aware of their hierarchies and their unique capabilities. You interact with them in a variety of contexts. You can even go to their headquarters and meet demon societies.

You don't do that with dragons. They're all isolationists who, when they are BBEGs, either work through proxies like you noted in part C or they're basically Powerpuff Girls/Justice League-style Monsters of the Week.

This is straight up untrue. There are countless options for draconic encounters at all levels including various draconic templates, a large collection of tiamat spawn, and a variety of miscellaneous wyrms, drakes, and other draconic offshoots. They may be outnumbered by the staggering volume of options available for evil outsiders, but they certainly rival almost any other themed collection of baddies you could think of.

As a side note, I don't think "mage" is a category that fits the discussion, as it is a character archetype that can be applied to most monster types including dragons.

Edit: I almost forgot to mention kobold's and dragon cults, and the plethora of options those introduce.

[King of Nowhere]

And that's the problem, IMO. The culture has changed. And many of these changes have edged out Dragons' natural habitat.

The culture has changed, but i don't see it as bad.
Maybe my perception is skewed because i matured in the years, but i see the older d&d as dungeons inexplicably filled with treasure and monsters that make no sense together, pasted with some excuse plot.
Modern D&D culture cares to ask questions like "how does the ecology of the dungeon supports itself?" "what does this thing eats?" "who placed all the gold in there?" "is this economically sustainable?" "couldn't the bad guy achieve more by playing nice?" "if this creature has such a high intelligence, shouldn't it act a bit smarter? Wouldn't it make sense for it to do x?"
There's a lot more depth, and i like it.

Regarding dragons, they find space in some campaigns, not in others.
And you don't have to keep the fluff. I refluffed the society and behavior of pretty much any major monster race in my world, and after a bit of puzzlement and skewed expectations, my players appreciated it a lot. Your dragons don't need to be the standard ones

[Man_Over_Game]

The culture has changed, but i don't see it as bad.
Maybe my perception is skewed because i matured in the years, but i see the older d&d as dungeons inexplicably filled with treasure and monsters that make no sense together, pasted with some excuse plot.
Modern D&D culture cares to ask questions like "how does the ecology of the dungeon supports itself?" "what does this thing eats?" "who placed all the gold in there?" "is this economically sustainable?" "couldn't the bad guy achieve more by playing nice?" "if this creature has such a high intelligence, shouldn't it act a bit smarter? Wouldn't it make sense for it to do x?"
There's a lot more depth, and i like it.

Regarding dragons, they find space in some campaigns, not in others.
And you don't have to keep the fluff. I refluffed the society and behavior of pretty much any major monster race in my world, and after a bit of puzzlement and skewed expectations, my players appreciated it a lot. Your dragons don't need to be the standard ones

This wraps up most of my thoughts pretty well.

Also, aren't there multiple age groups for dragons, each with varying CRs?

I can understand the concern about Wyrmlings, and I can understand the concern about Ancients, but there's a few in-between that should serve any concerns about being boss fodder. Ancient dragons didn't get big and scary by doing nothing. At one point, they were Young or Adult, trying to gather a hoard of minions and treasure like every other Ancient worth their salt.

Maybe it's not that dragons are overpowered, just that there aren't enough of them in our worlds to justify using them as nameless minibosses.

[ezekielraiden]

If you want weak dragons, that's what juveniles are for. Isn't that what they have always been for, as far as "the MM is a list of things to fight" goes?

Did 1st level adventurers fight proper adult dragons ever? (For any reason other than "oops, rolled up a red dragon on the random encounter table..." I mean.) If not, it seems to me that your complaint is somewhat misplaced; you are holding dragons to only the best, strongest, most dangerous members of their kind, but taking "giants" or "fiends" to include all possible creatures with that type. That would seem to reflect biased selection. Pathfinder has proper dragons as low as CR 2 (wyrmling white dragons), as well as drakes and other lesser forms with the dragon type (river drake, pseudodragon) at similar or lower CR. Very young dragons (the next step up from wyrmling) start appearing at CR 4. And I know most of these (except the drakes) are OGL 3.5e content.

And then if you factor in all the half-dragon offspring flying around 'cause dragons cannot keep it in their pants...well, I don't really agree that we have a shortage of draconic opponents. We just don't fight adult or older dragons on the regular. In fact, in a (Dungeon World) game I'm currently running, I have a black dragon antagonist, who uses genies, half-dragons (masquerading as regular dragonborn), dragon-blooded humans, and other draconic/magical agents as part of his effort to take over the city the players live in.

(As an aside, 4e is technically impossible to criticize in this fashion, as there are rules for raising or lowering the level of any creature in a consistent and fairly balanced way, such that there is technically no such thing as a level that cannot in principle have legit dragon opponents, if the DM wants to use one. However, you can argue that these rules are merely a stopgap to cover a lack of official low-level dragons; I'm not familiar enough with the 4e MMs/Draconomicons to speak on that side of it.)

[magic9mushroom]

OK, but who uses random encounters any more? ... And that's the problem, IMO. The culture has changed. And many of these changes have edged out Dragons' natural habitat.

I do. I threw a dragon at my players as a random encounter. (Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of the whole "dragon CRs are lying" thing at that point, so it killed a PC. But I could have used a lower-CR one easily without it being a wyrmling.)

More generally...

I do think the Dragonfall War and Spawn of Tiamat are rather uncompelling, and much of the same goes for metallic dragons (I mean, they're greedy and arrogant, and we're supposed to accept that they're "always good"???). I do think 3.5e screwed up with the "lol dragons have hueg LA" thing; in 3.0, you could get a dragon cohort big enough to be a mount with a lot less effort (though this is more of an issue with LA than with dragons).

However, I think chromatic dragons are perfectly fine as antagonists. Sure, you're not generally going to have an army of chromatic dragons (unless you're in Eberron), but you can certainly have a chromatic dragon as BBEG (or general) with an army of something else (like, say, his own half-dragon children). And there's a pretty-wide spread of CRs - sure, you're not going to be facing a great wyrm at level 2, but at level 3-4 or so you can certainly face some ambitious dragon kid off to terrorise the peasants. And it's not like armies of dragons were ever really a mythological 'thing' anyway - I guess Tolkien did have one army of dragons in the War of Wrath, but that was a special case (Morgoth is literally the cosmic root of evil) and the rest of the time they're solitary.

[tstewt1921]

Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dragon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant. It's not only possible, but common, to have a satisfying journey from level 1 to 20 without encountering a single dragon enemy. Which is not something you can say of, say, fiends or wizards.

And it's not hard to see why it is. Dragons are simultaneously:

A) Completely unsuitable for cannon fodder enemies. Even factoring in the fudge factor Dungeons and Dragons since 3E gives all dragons, the game doesn't use dragons as cannon fodder or even minibosses like beholders and trolls. It wasn't always like this; as mentioned, the trend started in 3E D&D. In 2E D&D, it was much easier to encounter dragons en masse. You could even get them as mounts. However, somewhere along the way Dungeons and Dragons thought that having dragons pop up as random encounters degraded the mystique of dragons. The idea was that rather than Dragons being a mascot enemy, they should be memorable encounters. Couple of problems with that...

B) Not uniquely suitable for BBEGs. Dragons bring nothing to the table as a mastermind that fiends or giants or demons or mages. A lot of dragon fans attempt to correct this by giving dragons unrelated superpowers and resources (see the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica) but people don't seem to realize that this worsens the problem. Now instead of having a monster that isn't particularly suitable for a climax or antagonist, you have one that's COMPLETELY unsuitable as an antagonist except at very high levels that no one plays at.

C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as cannon fodder enemies, but we don't do that with dragons anymore.

The net effect of these is to make it so that dragons are simultaneously rare and not particularly compelling campaign elements when they do happen.

Maybe people are cool with having half of the title Dungeons and Dragons be irrelevant alliteration. By why not just call it Dungeons and Demons at that point?

I legit just ran a campaign where all my players played as Dragons, we used the templates out of one of the Dragon Magazines and we slapped that on to one side of their gestalt characters and we had a blast. Dragons are as relevant or irrelevant as the DM wants them to be. A dragon is still a really good endgame boss. We are about to come up against a dracolich...and it's terrifying.

[doctor doughnut]

Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dragon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant.

Nothing in your whole post is true.

Maybe in your games you have made dragons irrelevant untouchable superpowers, but there are lots of other games.

[Thedez]

Nothing in your whole post is true.

Maybe in your games you have made dragons irrelevant untouchable superpowers, but there are lots of other games.

See, I recall a campaign I played in a few years ago where Dragons literally ended up being just about every other link in the chain for us. The second session I joined in for this group(I joined in the middle) had us going to try and rescue the guy I ended up replacing. It was this weird cave-thing for a while with an undead horde guarding it that we wiped out pretty much immediately. After some puzzle-solving, we got to the bottom and, hey, waddya know, Dragon. The party was panicking. I played a 4 wis character with 16 int, so he was absolutely fascinated and wanted to ask it all about it's life. Walked right up to the thing. The dragon breathed fire on him. He had fast-healing, so by the end of the conversation he would've been fully healed up, so his response was, 'Ow. Well, hey, do you think we could talk for a moment?' He'd actually won the damned dragon over with his quirkiness, then the party busted in, started treating the dragon like a bad guy, and triggered the boss fight.
Through a variety of shenanigans and a *lot* of lucky rolls, we got out in one piece with the dude who turned out to be dead, and the Dragon, having been lost in the pursuit, burned down a forest in rage.

Skip forward a few sessions, and we headed back to the tower that had become our base of operations, only to find it completely gutted. See, the Dragon had found our base and, in a streak of vengeance, gutted the place. We weren't keen on fighting it, though, so we just carried on without the place.

Skip forward a few *more* sessions, and we've been directed toward the patron deity of a reclusive nation of psions for some valuable information in regards to planar instabilities we'd been observing for quite some time by this point. Through some information gathering we discover that the deity is actually a dragon. We don't know what color, but the party's knee-jerk reaction by this point is to just kill it and find what we need from its' treasure. I, having just had my feelings hurt and my trust betrayed by a dragon, reluctantly agreed to help, and formulated a plan where we teleported in riding ballista bolts to surprise-attack the dragon, whom we quickly slew. Before we realized this one was actually a *good* dragon, which we then had to revive. We got the info we needed, and it became a frequent contact which helped us out throughout the campaign.

Skip forward some more, and we come back, only to be tasked with tracking down a dragon-slayer who's got them living in fear. So, yeah. Dragons aren't necessarily rare--Maybe you just haven't come up with enough uses for them.

[Eladrinblade]

People don't use dungeons because people are lazy and want their games to be more like movies. Which is most of why I don't enjoy actually playing D&D most of the time; it's not D&D I'm playing, it's fantasycraft, only the DM doesn't know it.

People don't use dragons because, like he said, nobody really wants to fight a baby dragon, and personally I think a cat or dog sized creature with 40 hp is ridiculous.

I don't like D&D dragons for several reasons. I don't like them color coded. I don't like them being so small or so big (medium to huge is fine, gargantuan for unique highest level ones). I don't like them being polymath geniuses, especially not if they're going to live like dumbass raiders. I'd prefer if they were basically just the strongest of magical beasts; maybe smart enough to trick or surprise you from time to time, but I don't even really want them to talk (understanding speech is okay). I do think they should be almost the strongest/toughest in the physical sense (hp, fort saves, attack bonus/damage, etc) and have strong magical defenses as well (SR, DR, immunities), but certain monsters that can't fly or breathe fire or whatever can be stronger/tougher.

For that matter, I think outsiders are overpowered as well; full bab? no. 8 skill points / level? no. All around high ability scores? cmon now. Angels are the worst with their better-casting-than-a-cleric-at-a-lower-CR-than-said-cleric.

Anyway, making dragons so "special" has basically removed them from most games. I agree with the OP almost completely. I've fought exactly two dragons since getting into the game in 2001, and both of those were within a year or two of starting.

[Torpin]

its all about how dragons are used. I had a campaign where we ran across a silver dragon wyrmling being attack by 2 very young red dragons and we saved the silver and got it back to its nest only to discover its mother had been killed by some larger dragon and we spent the next 5 months of sessions trying to find someone to resurrect this dead dragon, and find the silvers maternal grandmother to wreck vengeance upon the initial red brood

good dragons are excellent plot points and incredibly helpful to use

[magic9mushroom]

People don't use dragons because, like he said, nobody really wants to fight a baby dragon, and personally I think a cat or dog sized creature with 40 hp is ridiculous.

No Tiny dragon has 40 HP. The copper wyrmling is the only one that comes close, with 37 (every other Tiny has 30 or less). Moreover, dragon sizes only count the length of the body proper; a copper wyrmling, according to Draconomicon, has a body 1.5 feet long (large cat or reasonably-sized dog), but that body's also a foot wide (!) and there's a foot of head/neck in front and 1.5 feet of tail behind.

And then it also supposedly has a wingspan of eight feet (although Draconomicon's wing sizes are way out of whack; every single dragon is listed as having their wingspan/length ratio decrease as they get larger, which is in blatant defiance of their flight being (Ex)).

[frogglesmash]

And then it also supposedly has a wingspan of eight feet (although Draconomicon's wing sizes are way out of whack; every single dragon is listed as having their wingspan/length ratio decrease as they get larger, which is in blatant defiance of their flight being (Ex)).

Ex abilities are explicitly allowed to break the laws of physics.


Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

[magic9mushroom]

Ex abilities are explicitly allowed to break the laws of physics.

I correct myself: their flight is not even (Ex) but natural.

And in any case, the wingspans are still way out of whack, because there's about a factor of two between the wyrmling's ratio and the great wyrm's. Not to mention how the gold dragon has a wingspan blatantly contradicting the picture of a gold dragon with its wings spread right next to the table.

[Keltest]

For my part, im generally against making dragons random encounters. Every appearance of a dragon is going to be memorable to the players, and so due work should be put into it. Any time a dragon appears, it should either be because the players sought it out or because the DM specifically put that dragon there with a purpose, even if that purpose is something a simple as putting the fear of godDM back into the players for a while.

[Kyrell1978]

I'm pretty sure that around 90% of the problems that the OP pointed out can be solved (at least in 3.x) by using more than just the top two or three categories of dragon. It was pointed out up thread that Sunless Citadel had a wyrmling as a miniboss at level 2-3 and there are about 10 categories of dragon between that and the overpowered character eating monsters that the OP describes. In fact with I'd say that Pathfinder in particular(with 12 age categories that slowly increase in CR as the go up) did an excellent job of making a dragon encounter that was appropriate for nearly any level.

[magic9mushroom]

In fact with I'd say that Pathfinder in particular(with 12 age categories that slowly increase in CR as the go up) did an excellent job of making a dragon encounter that was appropriate for nearly any level.

I don't really see how PF did this better than 3.5, except inasmuch as most dragon CRs in 3.5 are lying and only some of PF's are. 3.5 has at least three dragons at every CR from 3 through 25, and at least one from 2 through 27, just in the Monster Manual, and while this is shifted up slightly due to the aforementioned lying CRs, PF's CR 2 white wyrmling is still lying (it's literally stronger than the "CR 2" white wyrmling from 3.5, with the sole exception of having a slightly-slower fly speed that still massively outpaces the party) so there's not much difference as to the minimum real CR of dragons.

[Knaight]

D&D doesn't necessarily use the term "dragon" to describe creatures that fit within the broader genre definition of "dragon". Most notably, there's the CR 6 wyvern. Size of a horse, wings & scales, fangs and what not, the only thing it doesn't have is the fire breath and neither do most of the things actually called dragons. Then there's the Yrthak at CR 9, which fits just as closely. Size of an elephant, wings & scales, teeth & claws, breath weapon (still not fire, but again, D&D true dragons).

You can avoid wyrmlings, you can avoid pseudodragons, you've still got options. That's just from the MM1 too, and it's not like 3.5 has only one monster book. Especially once 3.0 and Pathfinder get dragged in.

[Kyrell1978]

I don't really see how PF did this better than 3.5, except inasmuch as most dragon CRs in 3.5 are lying and only some of PF's are. 3.5 has at least three dragons at every CR from 3 through 25, and at least one from 2 through 27, just in the Monster Manual, and while this is shifted up slightly due to the aforementioned lying CRs, PF's CR 2 white wyrmling is still lying (it's literally stronger than the "CR 2" white wyrmling from 3.5, with the sole exception of having a slightly-slower fly speed that still massively outpaces the party) so there's not much difference as to the minimum real CR of dragons.

I think it is hilarious that not only did I say that 3.x did it well (which includes 3.5) but that when you specifically pointed out that you didn't understand how Pathfinder did it better, you immediately followed it with a way that Pathfinder did it better (more accurate CRs). I only started at 3e because that's where the OP started his complaint, the 12 age category system existed before CRs did. One of my favorite pieces of fantasy art came from the 2e players handbook and displayed a party celebrating the slaying of a small dragon.

http://vinzdecals.com/ambersdragonlair.com/pictures/green/grndrg12.jpg

The actual point of the post was that the problem could be corrected by using a different age of dragon for different encounter levels.

[Jack_McSnatch]

OP your post is entirely subjective. I've been playing in a game where we seem to fight dragons every other in game day. We have so many dragon kills under our belts that it's actually kind of ridiculous. You say making them powerful has reduced their relavence, but I'd argue it's the complete opposite. See, I don't WANT dragons to be cannon fodder chumps. Screw that, they're part of the name! If I fight a dragon, that dragon should be a powerful, memorable encounter, not just another random mob like zombies, skeletons, orcs, or human bandits. Those guys can take all the low level encounters, because they suck. They're perfect cannon fodder enemies. Dragons are not. A dragon is not a puny little pissant waiting to be crushed before the unstoppable might of the PCs. A Dragon is thousands of pounds of corded muscle and steely scales. A Dragon is a walking wall of blades. A Dragon is older than you, smarter than you, and should you choose to fight one, is all but guaranteed to push you to your limits. A dragon being cannon fodder is insulting, not just to the legacy of the monster, but to me as a player.

[noob]

For my part, im generally against making dragons random encounters. Every appearance of a dragon is going to be memorable to the players, and so due work should be put into it. Any time a dragon appears, it should either be because the players sought it out or because the DM specifically put that dragon there with a purpose, even if that purpose is something a simple as putting the fear of godDM back into the players for a while.

Then you figure out the dragon beats the team only if it gets access to spell one level higher than the party and if not then it is a tie and if it have spells one level lower than the party it lose and then you decide to send bards which roughly have the same casting progression by cr as the core dragons or you send kobolds if you were using dragons with faster progressing spellcasting.

[ericgrau]

Starting with 3E D&D and showing signs of stopping, the 'Dragon' part of Dungeons and Dragons is increasingly irrelevant. It's not only possible, but common, to have a satisfying journey from level 1 to 20 without encountering a single dragon enemy. Which is not something you can say of, say, fiends or wizards.

And it's not hard to see why it is. Dragons are simultaneously:

A) Completely unsuitable for cannon fodder enemies. Even factoring in the fudge factor Dungeons and Dragons since 3E gives all dragons, the game doesn't use dragons as cannon fodder or even minibosses like beholders and trolls. It wasn't always like this; as mentioned, the trend started in 3E D&D. In 2E D&D, it was much easier to encounter dragons en masse. You could even get them as mounts. However, somewhere along the way Dungeons and Dragons thought that having dragons pop up as random encounters degraded the mystique of dragons. The idea was that rather than Dragons being a mascot enemy, they should be memorable encounters. Couple of problems with that...

B) Not uniquely suitable for BBEGs. Dragons bring nothing to the table as a mastermind that fiends or giants or demons or mages. A lot of dragon fans attempt to correct this by giving dragons unrelated superpowers and resources (see the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica) but people don't seem to realize that this worsens the problem. Now instead of having a monster that isn't particularly suitable for a climax or antagonist, you have one that's COMPLETELY unsuitable as an antagonist except at very high levels that no one plays at.

C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as cannon fodder enemies, but we don't do that with dragons anymore.

The net effect of these is to make it so that dragons are simultaneously rare and not particularly compelling campaign elements when they do happen.

Maybe people are cool with having half of the title Dungeons and Dragons be irrelevant alliteration. By why not just call it Dungeons and Demons at that point?

A) Absolutely true. I think 2e or heroe's of the lance used to have something. Now all we have are kobolds, kinda. At least in the core rules.

B) They're intelligent creatures, you just need to give them a role. Ever since I heard of the TV show dragon's den I was thinking they could finance profitable yet nefarious operations like a rich entreprenuer. It's a perfect fit for money lovers. And gives them a more practical reason to keep more of their funds liquid (but also in property holdings). But any intelligent action besides attack townsfolk and nab their treasure is fine. They can do that too, but keep in mind they're int 16++. Not int 6. Plan out how, it's not brute force alone, and you have a plot.

C) Eh I think 95% of campaigns go from 5 to 11. Many go from 1 to 15 or some portion of that range. Young adult is around CR 11-13 and as a solo boss fight you want to fight that around level 8-11. Perhaps 8-10 because dragons are tough. Dragons leave the nest and work on their own after wyrmling so technically you could fight very young ones around CR 4-5. And even that's int 10-12, at least average. The child should strategize as well as an average human. Maybe not a grand scheme, but a basic feeding & looting strategy like a bandit. Such as attacking caravans from hiding then fleeing after nabbing the goods. So you can easily fight them as early as level 3 (technically level 2, but, again, dragons are hard) and this one doesn't hold water. This is totally on the DM, and you have options all the way from early game to late game. The dragon may be cautious so he can live longer, but that's half the interesting and fun challenge. And he still needs to feed & loot somehow.

In spite of having low level options, it is true plot-wise you shouldn't be randomly fighting a bunch of them. But a dragon new from the nest is suddenly raiding a trading path and we can't catch him? Absolutely, go for it, send the PCs at him. Or raiding an outpost, or X part of the main plot, or whatever you like.

[ksbsnowowl]

I'm just going to summarize the published modules I've run in the last 8 or so years...

Red Hand of Doom: Widely recognized as one of the best modules of 3rd edition. It has 4 true dragons, ranging from a CR 5 boss of chapter 1, to the CR 10 boss you have to kill in the middle of a siege and onslaught against the last bastion of safety, to the CR 11 one guarding the BBEG's base. Also includes a half-dragon BBEG, who summons an aspect of mommy-T at the end of the module. Introduced Dragonspawn of Tiamat, which all have the dragonblood subtype.

Sunless Citadel: Has a CR 2 White Dragon Wyrmling as a mini-boss that the PC's will fight right around the time they cross from 1st level to 2nd level (the fight likely gets them the XP to reach 2nd, though they might have gotten there already).

The Forge of Fury: It has a dragon on the cover... You fight him as the boss of the module, around 5th level.

Speaker in Dreams: There is a lot of weird stuff going on in this module, but you are correct; this one has no dragons.

The Standing Stone: This is a subterfuge and misdirection adventure. There are no dragons (though there is evidence of one previously harrowing the area).

Expedition to the Demonweb Pits: This module is about Sigil, Planescape, and demons. There is a possibility of encountering a ... Mature Adult?... Red Dragon, but it is very unlikely. My Players did come back to that hook later, and defeated said dragon.

Beyond the Veil: Not a WotC-published module, but it was written by Monte Cook. There is a dragon on the cover, and the BBEG of the module is a rampaging dragon. In truth, it is a Ghost Dragon, who auto-makes the DC 16 level check to rejuvenate. He doesn't have to fear being killed during one of his rampages. It also features several half-dragons throughout the module.

Heart of Nightfang Spire: No true dragons. At least not living ones. There is a half-dragon flesh golem, though.

Lord of the Iron Fortress: BBEG is a half-dragon. The main location for the module is the outer plane of Acheron. Though the Draconomicon hadn't been published yet when this one was written, a DM could easily insert some Rust Dragons as a random encounter.

Bastion of Broken Souls: Campaign-topping BBEG is a CR 29 Great Wyrm Red Dragon. You also encounter several of his dragon (Mature Adult) and half-dragon children.

So, out of the 10 published modules I've run in the last 8 years or so, 9 of them were published by WotC, and 6 of them have the possibility of fighting true dragons. Only 2 of them have no dragon anythings in them.

[Yogibear41]

Less "adventure paths" and more "sandbox" games. If your players want to go kill a dragon, they just go look for one. If they don't they go do X, Y, or Z instead.

[Cosi]

It was pointed out up thread that Sunless Citadel had a wyrmling as a miniboss at level 2-3

This is true, but I will say that it isn't entirely unreasonable to complain that a critter the size of a housecat isn't exactly central to people's conception of what a Dragon is. I think D&D would be better served by re-scaling things so that dragons start bigger. The smallest dragons should be Large, and they should be available (at least as boss monsters) from low levels. And at the high end, things should generally get bigger than they do in 3.5. A Colossal Dragon is 30ft on a side, which means it's about the size of an apartment. Dragons don't necessarily need to go up to Godzilla (though that would be cool), but it would be nice to be able to fight something the size of a house before epic.

[magic9mushroom]

This is true, but I will say that it isn't entirely unreasonable to complain that a critter the size of a housecat isn't exactly central to people's conception of what a Dragon is. I think D&D would be better served by re-scaling things so that dragons start bigger. The smallest dragons should be Large, and they should be available (at least as boss monsters) from low levels. And at the high end, things should generally get bigger than they do in 3.5. A Colossal Dragon is 30ft on a side, which means it's about the size of an apartment. Dragons don't necessarily need to go up to Godzilla (though that would be cool), but it would be nice to be able to fight something the size of a house before epic.


No Tiny dragon has 40 HP. The copper wyrmling is the only one that comes close, with 37 (every other Tiny has 30 or less). Moreover, dragon sizes only count the length of the body proper; a copper wyrmling, according to Draconomicon, has a body 1.5 feet long (large cat or reasonably-sized dog), but that body's also a foot wide (!) and there's a foot of head/neck in front and 1.5 feet of tail behind.

And then it also supposedly has a wingspan of eight feet (although Draconomicon's wing sizes are way out of whack; every single dragon is listed as having their wingspan/length ratio decrease as they get larger, which is in blatant defiance of their flight being (Ex)).

A Colossal red dragon has 35 ft. by 15 ft. of body, 35 ft. of neck, 50 ft. of tail, and "75" ft. of wing on either side (the picture looks more like 150, which would fit the relative dimensions given for Small and Medium red dragons).


Also... Colossal things are rare in general in D&D 3.x. In the Monster Manual there's the Colossal Animated Object (CR 10), Great Wyrm Red/Gold/Silver dragons (CR 26-27), advanced Kraken (CR 17+), advanced Nightcrawler (CR 19+), advanced Purple Wurm (CR 18+), advanced Roc (CR 15+), the Tarrasque (CR 20), advanced Baleen and Cachalot Whales (CR 9+/10+), and Colossal Monstrous Centipedes/Scorpions/Spiders (CR 9/12/11). One monster, and the top size of thirteen more, out of over 400 in the book - that's not many. Now, a lack of Colossal monsters might be considered an issue with D&D 3e more generally, but dragons don't have it all that bad in a relative sense.

[Kyrell1978]

This is true, but I will say that it isn't entirely unreasonable to complain that a critter the size of a housecat isn't exactly central to people's conception of what a Dragon is. I think D&D would be better served by re-scaling things so that dragons start bigger. The smallest dragons should be Large, and they should be available (at least as boss monsters) from low levels. And at the high end, things should generally get bigger than they do in 3.5. A Colossal Dragon is 30ft on a side, which means it's about the size of an apartment. Dragons don't necessarily need to go up to Godzilla (though that would be cool), but it would be nice to be able to fight something the size of a house before epic.

I wasn't saying that any argument was unreasonable, just that the premise was flawed. The premise that there are no Dragons that fit "Z" levels in 3.x. There are, for almost all values of x and Z.

[The Kool]

Conjecture: Many DMs use dragons less or not at all because it's a lot of work to stat a dragon.

Unrelated suggestion: Try using the stats of younger dragons and increasing the size and flight speed alone to have a more cinematic but still lower level dragon fight. Such dragons would make effective cannon fodder, mounts, or armies if such is the role they take in your world.

[ShurikVch]

C) Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7. The closest you have are wyrmlings. No one likes fighting wyrmlings, especially as a BBEG. They're basically oversized lizards with a breath weapon. And because the gap between a wyrmling and the historical/pop cultural depiction of a dragon is so big that it's bound to disappoint. Maybe they'd work as cannon fodder enemies, but we don't do that with dragons anymore.Ahem!..
Dragons are extremely powerful monsters and should be used with caution when encountered by low level player characters (such as those found in the D&D BASIC rules). It is recommended that until characters reach the fourth and higher levels of experience (see the D&D EXPERT rules) that only the youngest and smallest dragons be used.



Dragons stopped being a horde monster in 3E D&D.Please, excuse me, but when, exactly, they were "horde monsters"? :smallconfused:
Two or More Dragons: If two Dragons are encountered they will be a mated pair of at least the 4th age category. If three or four Dragons are encountered will constitute a family group of a male, female and one or two young. The adults will be of the 4th or greater age category, the young of the 1st. If the young are attacked both parents will automatically use their breath weapons. If the female is attacked the male will attack at double value unless he is simultaneously attacked, and vice versa.
Encountering Multiple Dragons: If two or more dragons are encountered outside their lair it will be a mated pair if two are encountered and sub-adults if three or more are encountered. If two or more dragons are encountered in their lair it will be a mated pair - with their young if applicable. Moted pairs are always 5th through 8th age categories. Any young in lair ore eggs (10%) or very young (90%). If young dragons are attacked both adults will automatically breathe and then melee to bite, gaining a ferocity bonus of +2 to hit and +1/+3 in clawing/biting damage. If either of the mated pair is attacked the other dragon will rush to its defense, goining the ferocity bonuses stated above, unless it is attacked simultaneously.One family is hardly a "horde"

[Psychoalpha]

Dragons don't occupy a space in the realm where 95% of campaigns live and die, from levels 1 to 7.

This is easily the most depressing thing I've read all day. I've been playing since the 80s and if I were to ever have felt like a group's campaigns were 'living and dying' from levels 1 to 7 I would have gone to find another group.

This is not the first time I've seen this sentiment, and it still boggles my mind. I've lived in seven states over the years, with D&D groups in all of them, and aside from a handful of campaigns that petered out early due to non-game issues (usually scheduling) and one DM who just couldn't get a handle on running stuff above level 12 in 3.5. And for that last bit, we just didn't let him DM anymore after the third attempt stalled at the same general point, I can't even imagine we'd have let him get to three if it kept dying at level 7.

I feel like somebody just told me that 95% of movies end around 60 minutes, and I'm left wondering just what the hell I've been watching in theaters for all my life. >_>

Edit: Or more accurately, wondering what the hell the people saying this have been doing with the extra 30-60 minutes of their day when they keep leaving the movies after an hour. <_<

[Bohandas]

https://www.topsimages.com/thumbs/vBTwS4-XWDhWYooJSxFcuRbH6SOlPtCJSyskvlvH__SX_4wyVkdOPzL-SLmAP-kAtqbSVKyjkB2flcfaMQRNoQ.jpg

Maybe we just need stats for a Purple Dragon?

I agree, Spike is definitely one of the more well-known dragons in contemporary pop-culture, and so the argument about wyrmlings and small dragons being far from pop-culture doesn't stand

[Xania]

Dragons are actually my least favorite creatures, wyrmlings, wyverns and maybe white dragons are enough.