PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Stat-by-stat comparison of "Grade A" Dragons: Red/Gold/Topaz Analysis



meta-dnd
2021-04-23, 01:07 AM
I'm going to propose a few changes to certain stats for published dragons, in the interests of consistency. I'd like feedback on my proposals.

There are (at least) three families of dragons, the metallic (good), chromatic (evil), and gem (neutral) dragons, each with five members. The metallic and chromatic families are presented in the Monster Manual (MM), while the gem family is presented in Gem Dragons of Faerun (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/180402/Gem-Dragons-of-Faerun) (GDOF).

There is a clear hierarchy of power within each family:

Red > Blue > Green > Black > White
Gold > Silver > Bronze > Copper > Brass
Topaz > Ameythst > Sapphire > Emerald > Crystal


I was curious what would happen if I compared the game stats of dragons of equal ranking across the 3 families (Red vs Gold vs Topaz, White vs Brass vs Crystal, etc.) and whether it would reveal anything interesting. I have found this exercise to be a useful way of identifying potential mistakes in the sources (or at the very least, areas of inconsistency).

In the table below I've listed some game stats for the top tier (Grade A) dragon types (Red, Gold, Topaz). For the columns with numeric values (e.g. CR), there is a secondary column (e.g dCR) to the right that shows the amount of change in the statistic between age categories. For example, a young red dragon has CR 10, and a wyrmling red dragon has CR 4, so the dCR cell for young red dragons shows a value of 10-4 = 6. An ancient gold dragon has a strength of 30 (column 'S') while an adult gold dragon has a strength of 27, so column dS for the 'ancient gold dragon' row has a value of 30 - 27 = 3. Both the game stats themselves, and the deltas between successive age categories, will help us identify some interesting patterns (and exceptions to those patterns).



/-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------\
| Color | Age | Source | Al | Sz | CR | dCR | AC | dAC | S | dS | D | dD | C | dC | I | dI | W | dW | R | dR | wlk | fly | clm | swm | bur | dark | blind | bite | dbite | claw | dclaw | tail | dtail | breath1 | breath2 |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Red | wyrmling | MM-98 | CE | M | 4 | | 17 | | 19 | | 10 | | 17 | | 12 | | 11 | | 15 | | 30 | 60 | 30 | | | 60 | 10 | 1d10+4 & 1d6 13 | | | | | | fire 7d6 24 15' cone dex 13 | |
| | young | MM-98 | CE | L | 10 | 6 | 18 | 1 | 23 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 14 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 19 | 4 | 40 | 80 | 40 | | | 120 | 30 | 2d10+6 & 1d6 20 | 7 | 2d6+6 13 | | | | fire 16d6 56 30' cone dex 17 | |
| | adult | MM-98 | CE | H | 17 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 27 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 21 | 2 | 40 | 80 | 40 | | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+8 & 2d6 26 | 6 | 2d6+8 15 | 2 | 2d8+8 17 | | fire 18d6 63 60' cone dex 21 | |
| | ancient | MM-97 | CE | G | 24 | 7 | 22 | 3 | 30 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 29 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 15 | 2 | 23 | 2 | 40 | 80 | 40 | | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+10 & 4d6 35 | 9 | 2d6+10 17 | 2 | 2d8+10 19 | 2 | fire 26d6 91 90' cone dex 24 | |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Gold | wyrmling | MM-115 | LG | M | 3 | | 17 | | 19 | | 14 | | 17 | | 14 | | 11 | | 16 | | 30 | 60 | | 30 | | 60 | 10 | 1d10+4 9 | | | | | | fire 4d10 22 15' cone dex 13 | weakening 15' cone str 13 |
| | young | MM-115 | LG | L | 10 | 7 | 18 | 1 | 23 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 40 | 80 | | 40 | | 120 | 30 | 2d10+6 17 | 8 | 2d6+6 13 | | | | fire 10d10 55 30' cone dex 17 | weakening 30' cone str 17 |
| | adult | MM-114 | LG | H | 17 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 27 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 25 | 4 | 16 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 24 | 4 | 40 | 80 | | 40 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+8 19 | 2 | 2d6+8 15 | 2 | 2d8+8 17 | | fire 12d10 66 60' cone dex 21 | weakening 60' cone str 21 |
| | ancient | MM-113 | LG | G | 24 | 7 | 22 | 3 | 30 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 29 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 28 | 4 | 40 | 80 | | 40 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+10 21 | 2 | 2d6+10 17 | 2 | 2d8+10 19 | 2 | fire 13d10 71 90' cone dex 24 | weakening 90' cone str 24 |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Topaz | wyrmling | GDOF-19 | CN | M | 3 | | 17 | | 19 | | 14 | | 17 | | 14 | | 16 | | 11 | | 30 | 15 | | 60 | | 60 | 10 | 1d10+4 9 | | | | | | razor 6d6 21 40' line dex 13 | |
| | young | GDOF-18 | CN | L | 10 | 7 | 18 | 1 | 23 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 13 | 2 | 40 | 20 | | 80 | | 120 | 30 | 2d10+6 17 | 8 | 2d6+6 13 | | | | razor 16d6 56 60' line dex 17 | |
| | adult | GDOF-18 | CN | H | 17 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 25 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 24 | 4 | 15 | 2 | 40 | 20 | | 80 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+7 18 | 1 | 2d6+7 14 | 1 | 2d8+7 16 | | razor 18d6 63 90' line dex 21 | dehydrating 90' line con 21 |
| | ancient | GDOF-17 | CN | G | 24 | 7 | 22 | 3 | 30 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 29 | 6 | 18 | 2 | 28 | 4 | 17 | 2 | 40 | 20 | | 100 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+10 21 | 3 | 2d6+10 17 | 3 | 2d8+10 19 | 3 | razor 20d6 70 120' line dex 24 | dehydrating 120' line con 24 |
\-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------/



In order to see these patterns, let's reorder the above rows by grouping dragons of the same age category together.



/-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------\
| Color | Age | Source | Al | Sz | CR | dCR | AC | dAC | S | dS | D | dD | C | dC | I | dI | W | dW | R | dR | wlk | fly | clm | swm | bur | dark | blind | bite | dbite | claw | dclaw | tail | dtail | breath1 | breath2 |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Red | wyrmling | MM-98 | CE | M | 4 | | 17 | | 19 | | 10 | | 17 | | 12 | | 11 | | 15 | | 30 | 60 | 30 | | | 60 | 10 | 1d10+4 & 1d6 13 | | | | | | fire 7d6 24 15' cone dex 13 | |
| Gold | | MM-115 | LG | M | 3 | | 17 | | 19 | | 14 | | 17 | | 14 | | 11 | | 16 | | 30 | 60 | | 30 | | 60 | 10 | 1d10+4 9 | | | | | | fire 4d10 22 15' cone dex 13 | weakening 15' cone str 13 |
| Topaz | | GDOF-19 | CN | M | 3 | | 17 | | 19 | | 14 | | 17 | | 14 | | 16 | | 11 | | 30 | 15 | | 60 | | 60 | 10 | 1d10+4 9 | | | | | | razor 6d6 21 40' line dex 13 | |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Red | young | MM-98 | CE | L | 10 | 6 | 18 | 1 | 23 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 14 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 19 | 4 | 40 | 80 | 40 | | | 120 | 30 | 2d10+6 & 1d6 20 | 7 | 2d6+6 13 | | | | fire 16d6 56 30' cone dex 17 | |
| Gold | | MM-115 | LG | L | 10 | 7 | 18 | 1 | 23 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 40 | 80 | | 40 | | 120 | 30 | 2d10+6 17 | 8 | 2d6+6 13 | | | | fire 10d10 55 30' cone dex 17 | weakening 30' cone str 17 |
| Topaz | | GDOF-18 | CN | L | 10 | 7 | 18 | 1 | 23 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 21 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 13 | 2 | 40 | 20 | | 80 | | 120 | 30 | 2d10+6 17 | 8 | 2d6+6 13 | | | | razor 16d6 56 60' line dex 17 | |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Red | adult | MM-98 | CE | H | 17 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 27 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 21 | 2 | 40 | 80 | 40 | | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+8 & 2d6 26 | 6 | 2d6+8 15 | 2 | 2d8+8 17 | | fire 18d6 63 60' cone dex 21 | |
| Gold | | MM-114 | LG | H | 17 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 27 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 25 | 4 | 16 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 24 | 4 | 40 | 80 | | 40 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+8 19 | 2 | 2d6+8 15 | 2 | 2d8+8 17 | | fire 12d10 66 60' cone dex 21 | weakening 60' cone str 21 |
| Topaz | | GDOF-18 | CN | H | 17 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 25 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 24 | 4 | 15 | 2 | 40 | 20 | | 80 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+7 18 | 1 | 2d6+7 14 | 1 | 2d8+7 16 | | razor 18d6 63 90' line dex 21 | dehydrating 90' line con 21 |
|-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------|
| Red | ancient | MM-97 | CE | G | 24 | 7 | 22 | 3 | 30 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 29 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 15 | 2 | 23 | 2 | 40 | 80 | 40 | | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+10 & 4d6 35 | 9 | 2d6+10 17 | 2 | 2d8+10 19 | 2 | fire 26d6 91 90' cone dex 24 | |
| Gold | | MM-113 | LG | G | 24 | 7 | 22 | 3 | 30 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 29 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 28 | 4 | 40 | 80 | | 40 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+10 21 | 2 | 2d6+10 17 | 2 | 2d8+10 19 | 2 | fire 13d10 71 90' cone dex 24 | weakening 90' cone str 24 |
| Topaz | | GDOF-17 | CN | G | 24 | 7 | 22 | 3 | 30 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 29 | 6 | 18 | 2 | 28 | 4 | 17 | 2 | 40 | 20 | | 100 | | 120 | 60 | 2d10+10 21 | 3 | 2d6+10 17 | 3 | 2d8+10 19 | 3 | razor 20d6 70 120' line dex 24 | dehydrating 120' line con 24 |
\-------+----------+---------+----+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+------------------+-------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------+---------------------------------+------------------------------/



The degree of similarity in values across the three dragons in each age category makes it pretty clear that an attempt has been made to have the dragons in a particular "tier" be of equal power. For example, the fact that all three dragons have exactly the same AC at each age category is not a coincidence.

Below, I'm going to enumerate some observations about these three dragons, commenting on which differences look like mistakes (while acknowledging that the designers are of course welcome to introduce variability wherever they want to) and which differences look intentional. Given that the gem dragons from Kobold Press aren't as official as those in the Monster Manual, I'm going to put less weight on them (and be more prone to assume errors in their material), justified or not.

I'd appreciate input from others interested in dragons, internal consistency, finding ways to develop accurate measures of CR, etc.



CR: The CR of all three dragons is the same except that Red Dragon Wrymlings be CR4 while the other two are CR3. If the Red dragons at young, adult and ancient age categories were also one CR above their Gold/Topaz compatriots, I'd assume this was intentional, but the sole difference looks like a mistake to me. I'm leaning towards making Red Dragon Wyrmlings CR3 (adjusting scores if necessary to acheive this).

AC: All three dragons have the exact same AC. Which, as we'll see when we get to dexterity, implies that Red dragons have tougher hides than Gold or Topaz dragons, but are less nimble).

S: All three dragons have identical Strength scores except Adult Topaz dragons have Str 25 instead of 27. This looks like a mistake to me; I think Topaz dragons should have Str 27, which will increase their damage and attack by +1 but is unlikely to increase their CR (we can adjust something else to avoid a CR increase if need be).

D: Red dragons have Dex 10, while Gold and Topaz dragons have Dex 14. The consistency in the difference is obviously intentional (and as we'll see when we look at other tiers, differences in Dex are common but consistent in their differences). I have no issue with this, other than the fact that all three dragons have the same AC. Both Gold and Topaz dragons gain a +2 bonus to AC because of their Dex, which means their natural bonus is 2 less than for Red dragons (which seems a bit odd, even if game mechanically irrelevant). Since this doesn't really make much sense, one possibility would be to reduce the AC of Red dragons by 2. This would seemingly reduce their CRs below Gold/Topaz, but see my notes on bite attacks for where Red dragons have a benefit that Gold/Topaz do not.


C: All three dragons have identical Constitution scores except Adult Topaz dragons have Con 23 instead of 25. This looks like a mistake to me; I think Topaz dragons should have Con 25, which will increase their hp by +HD, which hopefully doesn't affect their CR.

I: All three Adult/Ancient dragons have the same intelligence, but Red Wyrmling/Young dragons are 2 points below their Gold/Topaz peers. This may be intentional, but the inconsistency in the inconsistency doesn't feel right. I think we should either increase the Int of Red Wyrmling/Young dragons by 2, or decreate the Int of Red Adult/Ancient dragons by 2. Given how little intelligence matters in 5e (to my internal frustration), this won't have any game-mechanical impact and improves iconsistency.

W: Wisdom has the most variability between the three dragons. Gold dragons increase Wisdom by +2 per age category, and Topaz dragons increase by +4, but Red dragons don't abide by this trend, having the same wisdom as Wyrmlings as they do when Young. There are two different ways to fix this: 1) make Red Wyrmling's Wisdom be 9, 2) make Red wisdom match Gold wisdom across all categories. Since Gold dragons are known to be wise (and Red dragons are not know for such), it makes sense to me to go with the first variant (Red's have -2 wisdom compared to Gold at each age category).

There is, however, a much more serious philosophical inconsistency here. Across all 15 dragon types, the highest Wisdom score any dragon achieves is a 17 ... except the Topaz dragon, which has an inordinately high wisdom of 28 by the time it reaches ancient age. This was obviously intentional on the part of Kobold Press, but I have some reservations about Topaz wisdoms being so far out of sync with every other dragon, and am tempted to make Topaz wisdoms equal Gold wisdoms across the board. Especially given that the writeup for Topaz dragons makes no mention whatoever to them being godlike in wisdom. On the contrary, they are described as


(GDOF-16) The most misanthropic and unpredictable of the gem dragons, topaz dragons dwell far from civilization, on windswept seaside cliffs or in underwater grottos.

R: Charisma is also quite inconsistent across the three dragon types. On the plus side, Gold increase by +4 each category, and Topaz increases by +2 each category. But Red is once again a problem child, increasing by +4 between Wyrmling and Young, and by +2 between the other two. I don't object to Gold's being more charismatic than Red's, nor do I object to Topaz's having significantly lower Charismas given their aforementioned misanthropic and unpredictable natures. But there is no reason not to have some consistency within these differences. One simple way to do this is a single change ... Red Wyrmling's Charisma is 17 (instead of 15) so that they increase by +2 each category (even though this means Red Wyrmling's are slightly wiser than Gold Wyrmlings ... this reverses quickly as Gold's age).

wlk: Walk speeds are identical.

fly: Fly speeds for Red/Gold are identical, and Topaz dragons have one fourth the fly speed of the other two. This fits very well with the written description:



(GDOF-16) Topaz dragons have lived in oceans and on the Elemental Plane of Water for untold eons, and they are well adapted to their native environment. Their finlike wings are almost vestigial, but their muscular builds offset their poor flight, granting them unparalleled speed and maneuverability in the water.


clm: Climb and Swim speeds: Red dragons have climb speeds but no swim speed, while Gold dragons have swim speeds but no climb speeds (the speeds are the same between Red and Gold, just different forms). For the most part, Topaz dragons have double the swim speed of Gold dragons, except that instead of an Ancient swim speed of 80, it is 100. Across all 15 dragon types, the walk, fly, climb and swim speeds all follow a very consist pattern (a certain speed as Wyrmlings, then a slightly higher speed as Young that does NOT increase at Adult or Ancient) ... the only exception is the Ancient Topaz swim speed. Whether this was intentional or not, in the interests of consistency I am setting this speed to 80 not 100.

bur: none of these dragons have a burrow speed.

dark: darkvision is identical across all three.

blind: blindsight is identical across all three.

bite: the values in this show the die roll(s) involved in the attack as well as an integer representing the average damage per bite. Note that the expected damage is signficantly higher for Red dragons at all age categories than for Gold or Topaz dragons (and this is true for all chromatic dragons compared with metallic or gem dragons). This is because chromatic bite attacks do both piercing and elemental damage, whereas metallic and gem bite attacks do piercing damage only. On the other hand, metallic and gem dragons have two breath weapons to the chromatic dragons one breath weapon. More game-mechanically relevant, this increased bite damage risks Red's have a higher CR than Gold or Topaz dragons ... which is why reducing their AC by 2 makes sense to compensate for this (see my comments above about AC and Dex).

One other discrepancy is the bite damage of Adult Topaz (2d10+7) vs Adult Gold (2d10+8). This is because of the erroneously low Strength score of Adult Topaz (see above). If Adult Topaz dragons had Str 27, this discrepancy would go away.

claw: All three are identical except Adult Topaz. Fixing its Str score fixes this difference.

tail: All three are identical except Adult Topaz. Fixing its Str score fixes this difference.

breath1: This column packs in a bunch of information about damage dealing breath weapons. For example, the Red Wyrmling entry is "fire 7d6 24 15' cone dex 13", which states that there is 7d6 fire damage (avg 24hp) in a 15' cone, requiring a DC 13 Dex save to half the damage.

The average damage of each dragon's breath weapon is relatively consistent. The fact that Gold's use fewer d10's vs Red's using more d6's means Gold damage will be more variable, while Red damage will be more consistently near the mean. I do think it makes sense to have Topaz dragons do the same d6 damage as Red dragons (7d6 instead of 6d6 as Wyrmlings, and 26d6 instead of 20d6 as Ancients). Or maybe Topaz dragons could use d8's to mix up the variabilty a bit.

There is a bit of inconsistency between the Ancient Gold dragon doing on average 71hp vs Red dragons 91hp. Increasing Gold damage from 13d10 to 16d10 (avg 88hp) or 17d10 (vg 93hp) would make this more consistent. consistency.

Save DCs are consistent across all three dragon types, and Red/Gold have the same range on their cones. It makes sense for Topaz dragons to have a longer range on their line-based breath weapons as well.

breath2: Only Gold and Topaz dragons have a second (non-killing) breathweaopn.



Do the above suggestions for changes feel sensible? I'm all for adding differences when they increase flavor and roleplaying possibilities, but I'm also in favor of internal consistency. Besides which, if all dragons in a given tier have very similar game-mechanical values, it makes it easier to compute CRs (once game-play has identified a good CR for one of the dragons in the tier, we know the CR of all dragons in the tier). See the related thread for a discussion of how computing dragon CRs from first principles aligns with published CRs.

What would you do differently, in the above analysis?

MaxWilson
2021-04-23, 01:27 AM
I'm going to propose a few changes to certain stats for published dragons, in the interests of consistency. I'd like feedback on my proposals.

There are (at least) three families of dragons, the metallic (good), chromatic (evil), and gem (neutral) dragons, each with five members. The metallic and chromatic families are presented in the Monster Manual (MM), while the gem family is presented in Gem Dragons of Faerun (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/180402/Gem-Dragons-of-Faerun) (GDOF).

There is a clear hierarchy of power within each family:

Red > Blue > Green > Black > White
Gold > Silver > Bronze > Copper > Brass
Topaz > Ameythst > Sapphire > Emerald > Crystal



That ranking doesn't look right. My Monstrous Manual has a different order, Amethyst at the implied top.

Amethyst (14 HD)
Sapphire (13 HD)
Emerald (12 HD)
Topaz (11 HD)
Crystal (10 HD)

Compare: Red is 15 HD, Silver is 15 HD, Gold is 16 HD.

I don't know what this Gem Dragons of Faerun thing is but it sounds like it's inconsistent with the source material.

P. G. Macer
2021-04-23, 01:48 AM
That ranking doesn't look right. My Monstrous Manual has a different order, Amethyst at the implied top.

Amethyst (14 HD)
Sapphire (13 HD)
Emerald (12 HD)
Topaz (11 HD)
Crystal (10 HD)

Compare: Red is 15 HD, Silver is 15 HD, Gold is 16 HD.

I don't know what this Gem Dragons of Faerun thing is but it sounds like it's inconsistent with the source material.

That’s because GDoF is a third-party product, by James Haeck and Kobold Press.

meta-dnd
2021-04-23, 02:46 AM
That ranking doesn't look right. My Monstrous Manual has a different order, Amethyst at the implied top.

...

I don't know what this Gem Dragons of Faerun thing is but it sounds like it's inconsistent with the source material.


That’s because GDoF is a third-party product, by James Haeck and Kobold Press.

If y'all know of a more canonical 5e source for Gem Dragons, I'm entirely open to using it instead of Kobold Press ... that's the only 5e source I know of. MaxWilson, your Monstrous Manual is from 2E, yes? Things do tend to change between editions but it is certainly unfortunate if Kobold Press has done something inconsistent relative to previously published canon. Maybe we'll get an official book with Gem Dragons sometime later this year...

In James Haeck's defense, he does appear to have modeled his Gem dragons on the metallic dragons. There are some inconsistencies, but there are far more consistencies than would happen by chance. So I have the sense that they are as well balanced as the metallic dragons, and they do introduce some delightful flavor.

Unoriginal
2021-04-23, 03:38 AM
If y'all know of a more canonical 5e source for Gem Dragons, I'm entirely open to using it instead of Kobold Press ... that's the only 5e source I know of.

If there is no actual official source, then it is better to not use the data at all.

A comparison between Metallic and Chromatic dragons is plenty already. Gem dragons will be coming soon-ish.

Randomthom
2021-04-23, 03:51 AM
I'd be more inclined to ask "why do you want to homogenise?"

You say that the CR of something is wrong but then say that, by changing it you'd be willing to change the monster's stats to make it fit so perhaps it isn't wrong, it's just different, and you just want them to be the same because...?

I'm not trying to criticise your project as much as question it's necessity. Why do you need all of these things to line up neatly?

Unoriginal
2021-04-23, 03:58 AM
I'd be more inclined to ask "why do you want to homogenise?"

You say that the CR of something is wrong but then say that, by changing it you'd be willing to change the monster's stats to make it fit so perhaps it isn't wrong, it's just different, and you just want them to be the same because...?

I'm not trying to criticise your project as much as question it's necessity. Why do you need all of these things to line up neatly?

That is a good question.

meta-dnd
2021-04-23, 05:32 AM
I'd be more inclined to ask "why do you want to homogenise?"

This "comparison of equally powered dragons" is a (fun) side-tangent that came out of a different post about how to compute the CRs of dragons from first principles (see this thread). In that thread, I'm only discussing the CRs of wyrmlings (because they are the simplest to present), but even when limiting myself to that simple case, the CRs produced by the process on DMG-274+ rarely produces the published CRs (the process is even less accurate for young, adult and especially ancient dragons, as will become apparent as I find time to post some more threads about them).

One possible explanation for why the DMG-274 process isn't yielding CRs that match published results is because the CRs in the MM and other canonical source material isn't using that process (instead providing hand-tweaked CRs based on play-testing, random guesses, etc). But another possibility is that most of the CRs *are* based on the DMG-274 process, and I'm just missing some aspects that will produce correct results. One helpful giantitp peep has already pointed out two issues in my process that were definitely leading me to incomplete results (ironically, fixing those issues just makes my computed CRs even less aligned with published CRs).

By grouping like with like, I am hoping to identify inconsistencies that may shed some light on my quest for algorithmic CR prediction.


You say that the CR of something is wrong but then say that, by changing it you'd be willing to change the monster's stats to make it fit so perhaps it isn't wrong, it's just different, and you just want them to be the same because...?

In my post, I mentioned:


Below, I'm going to enumerate some observations about these three dragons, commenting on which differences look like mistakes (while acknowledging that the designers are of course welcome to introduce variability wherever they want to) and which differences look intentional. Given that the gem dragons from Kobold Press aren't as official as those in the Monster Manual, I'm going to put less weight on them (and be more prone to assume errors in their material), justified or not.


I totally agree that some of the differences are intentionally, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the degree of commonality between the stats of Red/Gold/Topaz dragons cannot possibly be a coincidence given how much commonality there is. Which opens up the question of whether a few mistakes slipped into the complicated process of creating the races.

I want them to be the same because that would mean that identifying an accurate CR for any of the three gives an accurate CR for the other two, reducing the complexity of a as-yet-unmentioned project. In particular, I'm interested in seeing what happens in the 94 years that a dragon spends in the "young" category. In the wild, a young red dragon doesn't stay a CR 10 creature for 94 years then instantaneously power up to a CR 17, nor do their ability scores, AC, HP, claw/claw/bite attacks, breath weapons, etc. stay frozen at the values presented in the MM, only to suddenly skyrocket when they turn 100. Instead, all of those scores gradually increase to the values listed for an Adult red dragon over those 94 years. Similarly, an Adult Red Dragon doesn't stay a CR 17 creature for 700 years and then suddenly become a CR 24 creature ... it continually improves over those 700 years, and its CR changes along the way. I'd like to know exactly how the CR evolves.

This will make more sense when I post some material this interpolation process (I just haven't gotten around to it yet).


I'm not trying to criticise your project as much as question it's necessity. Why do you need all of these things to line up neatly?

Hopefully the above explanation makes sense. I don't expect anyone else to be particularly interested in this project, but I thought maybe there might be one or two others who enjoyed this sort of exploration who could offer their thoughts on what I'm doing.

meta-dnd
2021-04-23, 05:38 AM
If there is no actual official source, then it is better to not use the data at all.

That is certainly a viable position to hold. I'm not as militant about it as you are, but I can understand your sentiment. And until this thread (and a related one), I was unaware that Kobold Press was held in poor regard.


A comparison between Metallic and Chromatic dragons is plenty already. Gem dragons will be coming soon-ish.

It is much easier to identify trends/consistencies/inconsistencies between three items than between two items, because when 2 of the 3 are doing one thing and the third is doing something else, there is at least some sensible path forward towards creating consistency.

As soon as a official Gem dragon release exists, I'll be able to update all of these numbers very easily. Call this a test run while we wait for the official data.

Unoriginal
2021-04-23, 07:03 AM
That is certainly a viable position to hold. I'm not as militant about it as you are, but I can understand your sentiment. And until this thread (and a related one), I was unaware that Kobold Press was held in poor regard.

I don't hold them in poor regard, I can't speak of the quality of their products at all, I can only say if they're official or not. And they aren't.



It is much easier to identify trends/consistencies/inconsistencies between three items than between two items, because when 2 of the 3 are doing one thing and the third is doing something else, there is at least some sensible path forward towards creating consistency.

Fair, but since the Gem Dragons are from a different designer, isn't it more logical to assume that it is not a question of intentional consistency between the results but rather of the author of the Gem Dragons using the already existing ones as starting points?

Keravath
2021-04-23, 09:49 AM
I didn't read all of it ... just your first comment.

"Red dragon wyrmling is CR4 the others are CR3 - this is a mistake and they should be the same"

However, Red dragon wyrmling does 50% more damage with each bite. It's breath weapon does more damage on average. It's breath weapon is a cone that can potentially hit more creatures (same as gold - but gold does less average damage). (At higher levels these differences are probably proportionally less and thus result in the same CR)

The bottom line is that at level 3 or 4, the red dragon wyrmling is likely to be a more difficult opponent due to its enhanced damage compared to the others.

So, no, I would disagree on them all being CR3 unless you also normalize the damage by changing the creatures to make them the same.

----

I didn't read any farther since the differences in this one case seem pretty obvious to me and its not worth looking at the rest to see whether they individually make sense or not.

----

P.S. I skimmed through the rest. The basic premise appears to be that dragons from each type at each age category should be the same and should have comparable progression. I disagree. I don't see any issue with certain types of dragons having lower dex or higher wisdom than others. These may be a key distinguishing feature of the dragon types. In particular, red dragons are noted for lack of patience, violent reactions, greed and other characteristics. It isn't at all surprising if their wisdom never increases while it does for other dragons. I see no need to normalize stats across age groups so that they can all get wiser as they age even if the maximum wisdom is different. Some dragons just may not learn ... it comes down to how dragons are envisaged by the folks who wrote the MM.

meta-dnd
2021-04-23, 04:22 PM
I didn't read all of it ... just your first comment.

"Red dragon wyrmling is CR4 the others are CR3 - this is a mistake and they should be the same"

However, Red dragon wyrmling does 50% more damage with each bite. It's breath weapon does more damage on average. It's breath weapon is a cone that can potentially hit more creatures (same as gold - but gold does less average damage). (At higher levels these differences are probably proportionally less and thus result in the same CR)

The bottom line is that at level 3 or 4, the red dragon wyrmling is likely to be a more difficult opponent due to its enhanced damage compared to the others.

So, no, I would disagree on them all being CR3 unless you also normalize the damage by changing the creatures to make them the same.


Two (opposing) observations related to the above:



After looking over all of the 5 "tiers" of dragons, I am leaning towards a different solution than I originally proposed. When looking at the Red/Gold/Topaz, Blue/Silver/Amethyst, Black/Copper/Emerald and White/Brass/Crystal tiers, the chromatic Wyrmling dragon always has a CR one higher than its peers. The only exception to this pattern is the Green/Bronze/Sapphire tier, in which Wyrmlings CRs are the same across all three. Another way to provide consistency would be to increase the CR of Green dragons by 1 so that Wyrmling chromatics are always one more than their peers.

As you mention, the chromatic dragons do more bite damage than their metallic/gem peers. All else being equal, that would indeed suggest that the chromatic dragons would have a higher CR. However, for most tiers the chromatic dragons have one or more CR-affecting scores that are *lower* than their peers (and I suspect this was an intentional choice so that CRs would equal out). For example, in the Blue/Silver/Amethyst and Green/Bronze/Sapphire tiers, chromatics have less Str/Con than their peers (both of which have a negative impact on CR). That said, in the Black/Copper/Emerald tier there isn't any attempt to weaken Blacks (in fact, not only do they do more bite damage, they also have better AC than their peers) which does not strengthen my argument (but the amount of additional damage Blacks do is pretty negligible and probably doesn't need counterbalancing). More on point, in the case of the Red/Gold/Topaz tier, there is some indication that Red's were intentionally weakened (they have AC 10 while Gold and Topaz have AC 14). However, this is not reflected in a lower AC (which I suspect was a mistake, but maybe not). In any event, my point here is that although chromatic dragons do more bite damage, they often have other attributes that are weaker (and I'm assuming this is because the designers wanted CRs to match for the most part).




P.S. I skimmed through the rest. The basic premise appears to be that dragons from each type at each age category should be the same and should have comparable progression. I disagree. I don't see any issue with certain types of dragons having lower dex or higher wisdom than others. These may be a key distinguishing feature of the dragon types. In particular, red dragons are noted for lack of patience, violent reactions, greed and other characteristics. It isn't at all surprising if their wisdom never increases while it does for other dragons. I see no need to normalize stats across age groups so that they can all get wiser as they age even if the maximum wisdom is different. Some dragons just may not learn ... it comes down to how dragons are envisaged by the folks who wrote the MM.

Although you have every right to skim posts, doing so means you misrepresent my position in a variety of ways. My basic premise is that the CRs of dragons in each "tier" should be the same. I am not claiming that each dragon in the tier should be identical (they can and should have differing ability scores to capture their unique flavor), but I do think the progression of ability scores (and other game mechanics) should be consistent. If two of the three dragons have Constitution score progressions of 17/21/25/29 and the other one has a progression of 17/21/23/29, this seems far more likely to have been a simple error than an intentional attempt at flavor. If one dragon has a Wisdom progression of 11/13/15/17 (increasing by +2 each age category) and another has a progression of 16/20/24/28 (increasing by +4 each age category, then when the third has a progression of 15/19/21/23 (increasing +4, then +2, then +2) I contend that it is more likely that this is a simple mistake and that the progression was meant to be 17/19/21/23 (increasing by +2 each category) than that it was an intentional attempt at flavor. I can of course by incorrect in these assumptions, and you have every right to disagree with my preference for internal consistency. But do me the favor of accurately representing my position rather than incorrectly characterizing it.

meta-dnd
2021-04-23, 04:31 PM
Fair, but since the Gem Dragons are from a different designer, isn't it more logical to assume that it is not a question of intentional consistency between the results but rather of the author of the Gem Dragons using the already existing ones as starting points?

I don't understand why you are framing "intentional consistency" and "using existing ones as starting points" as mutually exclusive choices. To me, it seems very obvious that the Gem dragons are based on the pre-existing chromatic/metallic dragons. The very fact that there is so much consistency between their stats and the WotC stats is what leads me to believe that the occasional inconsistency was a mistake rather than an intentional decision.

MaxWilson
2021-04-23, 06:05 PM
Although you have every right to skim posts, doing so means you misrepresent my position in a variety of ways. My basic premise is that the CRs of dragons in each "tier" should be the same.

Ah. 5E seems to follow this philosophy, but it's actually a new thing (unless it was also that way in 3E and 4E?). In TSR editions of D&D, Gold Dragons are straight-up more powerful than any chromatic dragons, and Silver Dragons (when they exist) are as powerful as Reds. Gem dragons (when they exist) are physically weaker but psionically more powerful.

In any case, thanks for stating your premise. I don't share it so I'll keep quiet from here on out but I wish you luck!

Unoriginal
2021-04-23, 06:14 PM
To me, it seems very obvious that the Gem dragons are based on the pre-existing chromatic/metallic dragons.

That's what I said, yes.


I don't understand why you are framing "intentional consistency" and "using existing ones as starting points" as mutually exclusive choices.

Sorry, I haven't explained it well.

To be clearer: WotC never intended Kobold Press's Gem Dragons to be consistent with the ones they designed, since they have not designed the Gem Dragons. Kobold Press most likely took the existing dragons and intentionally built them to be similar.

To use an analogy: if a sculptor crafts two statues, and then a different sculptor intentionally crafts a statue similar to the first sculptor's ones, then one cannot say that there is consistency between the first two artworks and the last one.


My basic premise is that the CRs of dragons in each "tier" should be the same.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this premise.