New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Is there a reason or explanation why the elements are all mixed up? They're all over the place.

    Sivak (silver) explode in fire. So maybe there's an opposites theme? Nope, it's the only one that does an opposite damage type.

    Baaz (brass) has a petrification gas explosion. Not quite the sleeping gas breath weapon of a brass dragon, but sort of in the vein of incapacitating.

    Kapal (copper) explode with acid. A match!

    Bozak (bronze) explode with force damage. Which I'll count as close enough to the bronze dragon's repulsion energy breath.

    Autak (gold) has a lightning death throes, and a poison breath weapon. Neither match the fire breath of a gold dragon. However, the breath weapon can cause exhaustion, which is different from the gold dragon's weakening gas, but kinda in that direction.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Troll in the Playground
     
    JadedDM's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Because WotC has no respect for Dragonlance's lore whatsoever? I dunno.

    Originally, Baaz turned to stone (trapping your weapon inside if they were piercing or slashing), Bozaks exploded, Kapaks melted into acid puddles, Sivaks transformed into a corpse of whoever killed them, and Auraks went on a berserk rampage and then exploded.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tawmis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    I think it has more to do with the fact, that they're "generalizing" it for ALL D&D - not just Dragonlance.

    So you need to account for the MANY other Dragons in D&D 5e right now (especially introduced in Fizban's book).

    It could be, we may (which I think would be ideal) the Draconians with their Dragonlance names (Sivak, Baaz, Kapal, Bozak, and Autak) in the Dragonlance book, doing more in line with Dragonlance lore.

    But in the end, if they don't (and it seems like it could cause confusion to some) I am still OK with it.
    Need a character origin written? Enjoyed what I wrote? How can you help me? Not required, but appreciated! <3

    Check out my 5e The Secret of Havenfall Manor or my character back stories over at DMsGuild.com! (If you check it out - please rate, comment, and tell others!)

    Subscribe to my D&D Channel on Youtube! (Come by and Sub)

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tawmis View Post
    I think it has more to do with the fact, that they're "generalizing" it for ALL D&D - not just Dragonlance.

    So you need to account for the MANY other Dragons in D&D 5e right now (especially introduced in Fizban's book).

    It could be, we may (which I think would be ideal) the Draconians with their Dragonlance names (Sivak, Baaz, Kapal, Bozak, and Autak) in the Dragonlance book, doing more in line with Dragonlance lore.

    But in the end, if they don't (and it seems like it could cause confusion to some) I am still OK with it.
    That doesn't make sense. There is no contradictory lore in non-dragon lance D&D that these are supporting.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    That doesn't make sense. There is no contradictory lore in non-dragon lance D&D that these are supporting.
    Yeah, it's just WOTC being WOTC, which these days seems to mean having no idea at all about anything they do xD

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tawmis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    That doesn't make sense. There is no contradictory lore in non-dragon lance D&D that these are supporting.
    Except there are - I mean, in Fizban's.
    Draconians - Draconians are bipedal monsters born from dragon eggs that have been corrupted or warped by powerful magic. Most often, this corruption is a deliberate act, the work of an aspiring tyrant seeking to transform stolen eggs into a draconian army. A single corrupted egg yields several draconians of the same kind. A draconian might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings. When draconians die, they do not go quietly. Instead, their lifeless bodies unleash a last act of magical violence.

    Draconian Dreadnought - The largest of the draconians are the dreadnoughts, who are born from the eggs of silver, blue, or sapphire dragons.
    Draconian Foot Soldier - The most numerous draconians are the foot soldiers, who are born from brass, white, or crystal dragon eggs.
    Draconian Infiltrator - Copper, black, and topaz dragon eggs yield these sly and stealthy draconians, who often serve their creators as scouts and spies.
    Draconian Mage - Draconians born from the eggs of bronze, green, and emerald dragons have some ability to wield magic.
    Draconian Mastermind - The rarest and most powerful of the draconians are the masterminds—spellcasters and strategists who most often serve as military commanders or as advisors to those who created them. They emerge from gold, red, or amethyst dragon eggs, wingless but possessed of an arsenal of eldritch power.

    So while, yes, there's no FORGOTTEN REALMS lore about Draconians specifically - they are, as I said, "generalizing" them for just D&D by using numerous dragons to "create" these Draconians, rather than the ones specifically mentioned in Dragonlance.
    Need a character origin written? Enjoyed what I wrote? How can you help me? Not required, but appreciated! <3

    Check out my 5e The Secret of Havenfall Manor or my character back stories over at DMsGuild.com! (If you check it out - please rate, comment, and tell others!)

    Subscribe to my D&D Channel on Youtube! (Come by and Sub)

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Apart from Sivak, it reads to me like the current crop of developers attempt to carry forward the traditional death throes. It's like looking a them in a funhouse mirror. It's kinda possible to see how they got from the original to the new one, but it still looks mighty weird.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2020

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    The petrification/weapon trapping was terrifying when the Dragonlance modules first came out, in the 80’s.

    It was a great power. I was disappointed that I had to make my own variant rules for it in 5e.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Jun 2017

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by JadedDM View Post
    Because WotC has no respect for Dragonlance's lore whatsoever? I dunno.

    Originally, Baaz turned to stone (trapping your weapon inside if they were piercing or slashing), Bozaks exploded, Kapaks melted into acid puddles, Sivaks transformed into a corpse of whoever killed them, and Auraks went on a berserk rampage and then exploded.
    Sivaks still can shapeshift to sow confusion, they just do it while they're alive now as a sort of kill-and-replace ability that they can use as a reaction. Which honestly seems more useful/practical?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
    Shape Theft. After the draconian kills a Medium or smaller Humanoid, the draconian can magically transform itself to look and feel like that creature while retaining its game statistics (other than its size). This transformation lasts until the draconian dies or uses an action to end it.
    I imagine the designers thought that the corpse shapeshifting lacked mechanical "combat oomph" in comparison with the other death throes, so they changed the death throes into the explosion and moved the shapeshifting to an ability they can use while they're alive.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by gloryblaze View Post
    Sivaks still can shapeshift to sow confusion, they just do it while they're alive now as a sort of kill-and-replace ability that they can use as a reaction. Which honestly seems more useful/practical?



    I imagine the designers thought that the corpse shapeshifting lacked mechanical "combat oomph" in comparison with the other death throes, so they changed the death throes into the explosion and moved the shapeshifting to an ability they can use while they're alive.
    I'm looking through old content and sivaks originally, in AD&D 1987, could shapeshift upon slaying a creature, shapeshift when slain, burst into flames when slain by a larger creature.
    In 3.5 they maintained all three of these properties but would also burst into flames if slain by something other than a humanoid. Interestingly, female sivak would burst into flame when slain regardless of what killed it.

    All in all, 5e dropped the shapeshift when slain. Probably to clean up/ simplify. I still have no idea why they do fire instead of cold. But they're pretty faithful to the original.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    I really personally don’t understand the constant griping about changes to the monsters, races, gods, or settings that each new edition faces. When 3e came out people griped in my local shop, when 4e came out, I griped, myself and then simply didn’t play 4th. Now 5th is enjoying the same thing. Why would you want them to port over the old editions? If you prefer it, just play the old edition…something new is meant to be something new. If you don’t like it on its own merits that’s 100% different but if you don’t like it because it isn’t the same as what was published in the 80s…I don’t understand why you are playing the new system.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by TyGuy View Post
    I'm looking through old content and sivaks originally, in AD&D 1987, could shapeshift upon slaying a creature, shapeshift when slain, burst into flames when slain by a larger creature.
    Huh, I hadn't known that last part about Sivaks. Otoh I read DL more than played it. It was, unfortunately a setting tailored to running rather railroad-y set of adventure path modules with premades and not very well designed for dropping down random groups of new adventurers doing dungeon and wilderness exploration into.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seekergeek View Post
    I really personally don’t understand the constant griping about changes to the monsters, races, gods, or settings that each new edition faces. When 3e came out people griped in my local shop, when 4e came out, I griped, myself and then simply didn’t play 4th. Now 5th is enjoying the same thing. Why would you want them to port over the old editions? If you prefer it, just play the old edition…something new is meant to be something new. If you don’t like it on its own merits that’s 100% different but if you don’t like it because it isn’t the same as what was published in the 80s…I don’t understand why you are playing the new system.
    I find it hard to wrap my mind around the concept that anyone finds it hard to wrap their mind around the concept that people expect "new edition of the same game" to imply rule-based changes ("this is how a baaz draconian's turning to stone on death works in a system where 'successful Dexterity check with a -3 penalty' is incoherent") and not story-based changes ("get that 'baaz' stuff out of here, foot soldier draconians turn into petrification gas when they die"), so I guess we're even there.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    I find it hard to wrap my mind around the concept that anyone finds it hard to wrap their mind around the concept that people expect "new edition of the same game" to imply rule-based changes ("this is how a baaz draconian's turning to stone on death works in a system where 'successful Dexterity check with a -3 penalty' is incoherent") and not story-based changes ("get that 'baaz' stuff out of here, foot soldier draconians turn into petrification gas when they die"), so I guess we're even there.
    Fair. It probably boils down to which aspect of the game you are primarily drawn to, which admittedly is not an angle I had really considered before. It also likely doesn’t help my mindset that my table almost never worries about the published settings’ fluff. My apologies if my previous post was curt.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tawmis View Post
    Except there are - I mean, in Fizban's.
    Draconians - Draconians are bipedal monsters born from dragon eggs that have been corrupted or warped by powerful magic. Most often, this corruption is a deliberate act, the work of an aspiring tyrant seeking to transform stolen eggs into a draconian army. A single corrupted egg yields several draconians of the same kind. A draconian might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings. When draconians die, they do not go quietly. Instead, their lifeless bodies unleash a last act of magical violence.

    Draconian Dreadnought - The largest of the draconians are the dreadnoughts, who are born from the eggs of silver, blue, or sapphire dragons.
    Draconian Foot Soldier - The most numerous draconians are the foot soldiers, who are born from brass, white, or crystal dragon eggs.
    Draconian Infiltrator - Copper, black, and topaz dragon eggs yield these sly and stealthy draconians, who often serve their creators as scouts and spies.
    Draconian Mage - Draconians born from the eggs of bronze, green, and emerald dragons have some ability to wield magic.
    Draconian Mastermind - The rarest and most powerful of the draconians are the masterminds—spellcasters and strategists who most often serve as military commanders or as advisors to those who created them. They emerge from gold, red, or amethyst dragon eggs, wingless but possessed of an arsenal of eldritch power.

    So while, yes, there's no FORGOTTEN REALMS lore about Draconians specifically - they are, as I said, "generalizing" them for just D&D by using numerous dragons to "create" these Draconians, rather than the ones specifically mentioned in Dragonlance.
    You're missing my point.

    Why is this FTD choice "more generic" or "generalized" in a way that necessitates changing what the Dragonlance source material said? If you want to include more dragon types, that's fine and dandy; you still should make sure that the Dragonlance source lore is consistent with it. If, for example, the Dragonlance Source Lore says that a Draconian made from a Gold Dragon has the midas touch (I know it doesn't say that, but bear with me), then when you make it more general to include additioanl dragon types, you retain the "petrifying touch" draconian type, and specify that it comes from gold dragons plus whatever others you group with it that aren't present in Dragonlance's lore. Maybe with some special text that the petrification takes the form of the dragon's associated material.

    That way, you have no "wait, what?" questions about why gold draconians no longer have the midas touch. In this example.

    To "generalize" something in a way that breaks the original, less general lore, requires that there be something in extrinsic lore you need to find a way to reconcile. You might drop some overly-specific things that don't work in general, but you shouldn't just make up new stuff that breaks with existing source material for no reason and then say, "Generaization!" as your excuse.

    What makes the new stuff "more general" than the old stuff in a way that requires the old lore be broken to accommodate it? Why couldn't the old lore have been used to make the basis of the more general lore, such that backwards compatibility is maintained?

    "It's more general" is actually a false statement, because nothing about the new abilities is somehow more general, except by declaring it to apply to non-Dragonlance draconians. It could have been equally general if it were the exact same abilities as Dragonlance draconians...unless I'm missing something. (I confess to not being well-versed in Dragonlance lore. I am only reacting to how poor I find the argument of, "It's more general!" to be in this case.)

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tawmis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    You're missing my point.
    Why is this FTD choice "more generic" or "generalized" in a way that necessitates changing what the Dragonlance source material said? If you want to include more dragon types, that's fine and dandy; you still should make sure that the Dragonlance source lore is consistent with it. If, for example, the Dragonlance Source Lore says that a Draconian made from a Gold Dragon has the midas touch (I know it doesn't say that, but bear with me), then when you make it more general to include additioanl dragon types, you retain the "petrifying touch" draconian type, and specify that it comes from gold dragons plus whatever others you group with it that aren't present in Dragonlance's lore. Maybe with some special text that the petrification takes the form of the dragon's associated material.
    That way, you have no "wait, what?" questions about why gold draconians no longer have the midas touch. In this example.
    To "generalize" something in a way that breaks the original, less general lore, requires that there be something in extrinsic lore you need to find a way to reconcile. You might drop some overly-specific things that don't work in general, but you shouldn't just make up new stuff that breaks with existing source material for no reason and then say, "Generaization!" as your excuse.
    What makes the new stuff "more general" than the old stuff in a way that requires the old lore be broken to accommodate it? Why couldn't the old lore have been used to make the basis of the more general lore, such that backwards compatibility is maintained?
    "It's more general" is actually a false statement, because nothing about the new abilities is somehow more general, except by declaring it to apply to non-Dragonlance draconians. It could have been equally general if it were the exact same abilities as Dragonlance draconians...unless I'm missing something. (I confess to not being well-versed in Dragonlance lore. I am only reacting to how poor I find the argument of, "It's more general!" to be in this case.)
    I am a huge Dragonlance fan (got about 80 DL books sitting behind me).
    As for more than "to make it more general" - I was indicating that because more than one type of dragon makes a specific draconian (where as in DL, one type of dragon made each kind (for example: Kapak draconians are the result of corrupting the eggs of copper dragons) - and with these Draconians, they didn't limit it to the Metallic Dragons (which Dragonlance did). This included all the existing dragons and the types of Draconians they'd make. So I feel like, as a result, because it's not just one BASE Dragon making a Draconian, they changed things around. As for changing it, yes, there's a whole novel series - but Draconians in D&D, haven't existed since 2nd Edition. So by adding other dragons to it, and making these changes, did not bother me. If I need a replica of the Dragonlance ones, I at least have a BASE Draconian to base it off - and just make the death throw change. If I need it to be petrification - I do that - make it a Dexterity Save to pull your weapon free, before it turns to stone, or whatever.

    I see it because they may not expect people to play "true Dragonlance" - for example, someone in my "Need a character background" thread asked me to write an Aasimar Beserker for a Dragonlance campaign - and my head was spinning on how to make that work, because there are no Aasimar in Dragonlance (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...&postcount=990). Or Tieflings. But people are probably going to want to play them in the Dragonlance setting. So there are going to be changes to - sorry, to say it again - "generalize" things. And that will include making changes to monsters, races (for example, I doubt Kender will be 100% immune to all forms of fear, as they are written).

    So by adding a mixed stew of all these different dragons, that create each of these specific Draconians, I didn't mind.

    The names are also different than they are from Dragonlance.

    Maybe that's intentional. Maybe the Dragonlance campaign will have versions of Draconians that are more aligned to the Dragonlance campaign (Sivaks, Kapal, Baaz, etc). Maybe they won't - and in the campaign stuff - it will be Draconian Dreadnaughts, or whatever.

    I, personally, don't see the big issue, myself.

    And I am a Dragonlance fan. As I said before.

    If others are bothered, at least there's a base for each Draconian for which you can customize if you want (if the Dragonlance doesn't provide "true" Draconians).
    Need a character origin written? Enjoyed what I wrote? How can you help me? Not required, but appreciated! <3

    Check out my 5e The Secret of Havenfall Manor or my character back stories over at DMsGuild.com! (If you check it out - please rate, comment, and tell others!)

    Subscribe to my D&D Channel on Youtube! (Come by and Sub)

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    All I am saying is that I can understand why people might be annoyed, and find "generalization" to be a poor justification for removing the existing Draconians.

    Nothing about the existing Draconians was Dragonlance-specific, save the concept itself. If you're expanding it to be a monster type available everywhere, you don't need to remove anything to generalize it to other settings, because nothing in them was rooted in mechanics or concepts that also only exist/make sense in Dragonlance.

    The rule for generalizing something is to remove only that which makes it impossible to use elsewhere. Adding the otehr dragon kinds in is as easy as expanding the list of what dragons make what sort of draconian, or adding new draconian types. But pulling the original draconians' progenitor dragons to new draconian types is needless. And isn't "generalizing." It's "changing for the sake of change."

    Now, this specific thing? Doesn't bother me because I didn't even notice. But the general kind? Annoys the heck out of me. If you're going to make up your own stuff, why do you need to take the names and concepts of something else and overwrite it? You don't make "new classics" by taking literally the original Mona Lisa and painting over it, claiming that what you've made is still the Mona Lisa. And yet, that's what a lot of modern remakes seem to seek to do: steal the name and legacy of old, beloved things, and then make up something new - often of lower quality - and slap on the name of the thing being overwritten.

    Sure, "But the originals are still out there," is a valid point. But that doesn't change that, if you're going to make something new, make something new. Your medieval fantasy series about a young wizard hiding his wizardry from an anti-wizard king even as he befriends the young heir to the throne doesn't need to pretend it's a retelling of the Arthurian myth by having literally the only thing that is still the same be the names of the characters, who may or may not have similar relationships to what their legacy characters had. (Sorry, that one bugs me enough to be a good example of what I'm getting at, so I'm using it here.)

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

    I am more weirded out that the new draconians trend towards boring. Baaz is the most prominent for me, turning to stone and trapping the weapons that killed them was scary and weird, requiring players to rethink equipment. I remember the DOS computer games and just getting in the habit of carrying two primary weapons for every character because of the dang things. The petrifying gas, Is both more frustrating and less interesting.
    I think Bozak used to do fire damage on their boom, I think they came out the best of the new ones.
    The mind**** of Shivak being lost is a shame, I think the 3rd edition one had a will save to avoid a short term stun due to mental trauma of watching yourself die.
    Kapak is fine, the puddle not being a persistent terrain effect was a loss though.
    Aurak I think is actually the same as it was or at least close, I think the energy ray was a fire attack, and I think the death throes lasted longer and could chase people (I might have done fire damage too).
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •