| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 07 Dec 2012 : 00:11:42
I've been toying with Pathguy's Dragon PC generator and found that I don't know a whole lot about dragons in FR of D&D. I attempted to create a Faerie Dragon PC, but when it came to fluff, I was at a loss.
So, what lore can be said about Faerie Dragons? I've been searching extensively for them and have mostly just come up with monster write ups and those things in the various monster books.
My main questions:
-Which language do Faerie Dragons speak? Sylvan or Draconic?
-Assuming they can take humanoid shape, are they able to grow bigger? That is, into a medium sized faerie or elf type? My Faerie Dragon PC is the size of a large-ish dog, so I was wondering (and hope) that I could change into a medium sized humanoid.
-What prestige classes would work with them?
-Are there any organizations that they frequent? Any settlements they are near (like Evermeet or other Fey or Elvish settlements?)? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 16:20:56
Not sure yet.
I figure if I can "Bring peace on Earth" (through better-gaming), then I should be revered as a savior. Hopefully my theories about godhood pan-out and the act of worship will cause a spontaneous ascendance.
On the other hand, that will then stick me in an even higher planer category and I'll have to do even more work to survive. Maybe I'll just stick to the game-store concept and work on putting Hasbro out of business; there's a worthy goal.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 01:12:50
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Eventually I'd take over the industry, then run for Congress or some such, then President, and eventually be god-emperor of the world.
Let me guess... and you extend your life by merging your human body with sandtrout?  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 17:00:41
LOL!
*edited  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 16:25:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First I'd create a non-profit organization (protecting most of my money, and able to help people I feel really need help). I'd probably pour a lot of it into Habits for humanity, and similar charities.
I think people have enough habits. Habitats, on the other hand... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 15:21:13
Funny - I had thoughts along the same line, also when it got up to 500 mil.
First I'd create a non-profit organization (protecting most of my money, and able to help people I feel really need help). I'd probably pour a lot of it into Habitats for humanity, and similar charities.
Then I'd create the gaming store of my dreams - I already have the whole concept planned-out. Hopefully a chain will grow out of that (unlike current hobby stores, which don't do much to promote the industry in-general), and I could make P&P (and board) gaming more main-stream (entire rooms dedicated to playing games, with staffers to play and tech these games to kids of all ages).
And of course I'd develop my own line of toys and games... small at first. I already have some contacts in that area (mini-scultors, and places in China where I can have pre-painted miniatures produced cheaply). Eventually I'd take over the industry, then run for Congress or some such, then President, and eventually be god-emperor of the world.
I don't dream small.  |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 15:01:41
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Nuts?! Oh, I dunno, I think I might just pay you rent just to be able to stay there- or maybe I'd try to get hired on as a live-in caretaker....
Interesting that you say that. One other thought that came to mind was building a second such place to use as rental property for Weddings and such. I could then allocate an area for the SCA to hold wars and a market area for Renn Fest type sales people to setup shop as well. I just really need to win the lottery when it gets up to $500 million again.... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 24 Dec 2012 : 22:18:05
Nuts?! Oh, I dunno, I think I might just pay you rent just to be able to stay there- or maybe I'd try to get hired on as a live-in caretaker.... |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Dec 2012 : 12:22:46
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
What if it went the other way?
What if Faerie dragons were the 'real' dragons, and Western (D&D) dragons were perversions of those?
In my homebrew lore, I have it where normal dragons were created by breeding linnorms with Celestial dragons, so I wouldn't use that, but its a similar concept. 
Personally, not my cup of tea. I like the western dragons being their own thing and faerie dragons being their own thing. However, I'm not against a few "non-standard" faerie dragons as previously mentioned (i.e. the ones that lost their druidic ability and the ones that "CAN" grow big).... just as I wouldn't be upset by a few "non-standard" western dragons (like brown dragons and purple dragons).
You know, oddly, this discussion entered my mind when I was driving today and fantasizing about if I won the huge lottery last month. I know I'd build a home that looks like a castle on the outside (with moat, drawbridge, and portcullis that turns after entry into a garage), and a garden/swimming/picnic area in the center. I'd have horses and special saddles that looked like wings from a distance and bridles that looked like they have unicorn horns. Then on my front gates, I'd have statuary of a pegasus, unicorn, griffin, hippogriff, nightmare, and a wyvern. Then, on the metal fencing, for toppers I'd have metal faerie dragons & pixies with stained glass butterfly/faerie wings. Of course, I'd also have a guard at the front gate in armor. Oh, and if you think all that's nuts.... you should have saw into my head when I was picturing Christmas and Halloween decorations. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Dec 2012 : 15:05:53
What if it went the other way?
What if Faerie dragons were the 'real' dragons, and Western (D&D) dragons were perversions of those?
In my homebrew lore, I have it where normal dragons were created by breeding linnorms with Celestial dragons, so I wouldn't use that, but its a similar concept. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 19 Dec 2012 : 23:57:15
A tie to the feywild would not be enough to make a true dragon into a faerie dragon. Dragons that manage to carve out a lair in the fey realms and really bond there might look slightly more vibrant or shiny and have a more flighty temperament. Unique exceptions would definatly exist though.
I also definately like the ancient shadowmoth dragon being a perverted fearie dragon kind. Its mindset might be very gloomy, its plots very slow moving and deliberate but a magical powerhouse in combat. Such a creature could very well be a powerful political leader of a Unseelie strain of faerie dragons, who hoard souls instead of trinkets, and have necromantic breath weapon attacks that drain levels or the like.
Unseelie faerie dragons are also a scary thought |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Dec 2012 : 20:43:12
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Perhaps they are familiars for certain types of creatures (like dragons and fey), and they therefor take on some of the attributes of their patron (in much the same way the mage gains abilities from his familiar).
Thus, if a brass dragon had a faerie dragon familiar, it would become a brass-faerie dragon. A shadow-fey might have a shadow faerie dragon (which actually sounds kinda cool, now that I mentioned it).
Hmmm, that's an idea, but perhaps a slightly different angle. Perhaps there is a "fey-drake" template that could be added to a true dragon. They perform a ritual and "tie" themselves to the feywild, and this changes their form to having butterfly wings (or maybe some other options). This might change their breath weapon to euphoria gas from its standard. That would open up the option to make the look we're talking about in a big dragon, and it being some special ritual it may be a unique dragon.
As to the shadow faerie dragon idea, it could be interesting if there is a shadow version of the faerie dragon (yes, there is already the shadow dragon, but its huge). I'm picturing something with black moth wings and maybe it breathes out something that dims the senses of sight and sound. Could be natural... could be a perversion of the original faerie dragons... could be through breeding. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 19 Dec 2012 : 17:44:18
Perhaps they are familiars for certain types of creatures (like dragons and fey), and they therefor take on some of the attributes of their patron (in much the same way the mage gains abilities from his familiar).
Thus, if a brass dragon had a faerie dragon familiar, it would become a brass-faerie dragon. A shadow-fey might have a shadow faerie dragon (which actually sounds kinda cool, now that I mentioned it). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Dec 2012 : 16:12:38
I find this discussion on faerie dragon size of interest. I find myself inclined to the idea that faerie dragons should remain relatively small. However, I like the idea as well that there may be some really large faerie dragons (probably due to seeing larger ones in EQ2). Then throw in this idea that faerie dragons are related somehow to pseudodragons. What if there are two different species of faerie dragon now due to some "original" faerie dragons breeding with pseudodragons, and this new race lost the ability to cast druidic spells. Now, lets take a third idea... faerie dragons and brass dragons would get along well... what if an original faerie dragon used his druidic powers to shape change and mate with a brass dragon? Perhaps this offshoot race of faerie dragons actually grows larger with age, but they kept most of the original faerie dragons look (maybe they're shinier). This would serve to keep all things "canon" and allow for different types of play. Maybe these "growing" faerie dragons actually learn another discipline of magic even (maybe they become sorcerors, my preference though would be beguilers so that they focus on enchantment and illusion).
So, in summation, 3 types of faerie dragons
1st - original, fey, tiny, has druidic ability
2nd - pseudodragon-bred, same size, lost druidic ability
3rd - brass dragon-bred, grows, focuses on other arcane talents |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Dec 2012 : 01:16:45
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Somewhat random (buy hey, it's a thread about faerie dragons so it works), but I recently worked on a half-faerie dragon PF supplement for JBE (which was actually the first true 3PP stuff I'd done).
Here it is in case anyone was interested.
I'm intrigued by the "whimsical class options." Sounds like a lot of fun to be had! |
| rjfras |
Posted - 18 Dec 2012 : 23:58:05
They added languages to the monsters in the new playtest bestiary that was part of the playtest packet that came out on 12/17 and kobolds now start out with common and draconic. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2012 : 21:24:57
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I have the Inner Sea Guide and the Rulebook now - the Beastiary is my next purchase (I am actually hoping to get it as a Christmas present). The PF critters are the one thing I am completely in the dark about.
I made my comments based off the Darkmoon Vale material I purchased during the Black Friday super-sale, and I realize now (in hindsight) that its all OGL, which means it was written before Paizo had their own system. Thats probably why the Kobolds in that supplement (Guide to Darkmoon Vale) are described as 'draconic'.
And in that case, then I don't know where I am at - I prefer the humanoid version. I guess thats another point that goes to Paizo's score.
Pathfinder Kobold All rulebooks can be accessed online.
I am slightly confused by your use of "humanoid". Kobolds have been humanoid in all editions, afaik. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Dec 2012 : 15:28:07
quote:
Originally posted by rjfras
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I suppose it makes some sense that Paizo embraced many of the 3e concepts, since their system is built off of it. I am also starting to see PF's weak spots, which are sadly beginning to show now that the 'new shiny' is wearing off. Right now, FR and Golarion are more alike then they are different, and I think if WotC wants to embrace FR as its 5e flagship setting, then I think they need to go 'old school' with everything (including kobolds) and try to differentiate themselves from the pack.
Did you know that in the 5E playtest Bestiary it currently reads as
"Kobold - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
"Kobold Dragonshield - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
"Kobold Trap Lord - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
"Kobold, Winged (Urd) - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
I have the Inner Sea Guide and the Rulebook now - the Beastiary is my next purchase (I am actually hoping to get it as a Christmas present). The PF critters are the one thing I am completely in the dark about.
I made my comments based off the Darkmoon Vale material I purchased during the Black Friday super-sale, and I realize now (in hindsight) that its all OGL, which means it was written before Paizo had their own system. Thats probably why the Kobolds in that supplement (Guide to Darkmoon Vale) are described as 'draconic'.
And in that case, then I don't know where I am at - I prefer the humanoid version. I guess thats another point that goes to Paizo's score. I also noted their worgs are still canines, rather then reptilian (at least in the OGL stuff I have). I have mixed feelings on that one - I like the new 4e Worgs, I just wish they didn't call them worgs (because they are NOT, plain and simple).
Back to Kobolds - I consider them a type of corrupted fey, as I do all goblinoids. I haven't nailed-down precisely who or what they are related to, but I suppose some draconic blood may have found its way into the mix (they could be a degenerate type of goblinoid 'mongrelman'). Personally I would have gone the Tiefling route instead, but thats getting over done as well (Fey'ri, Tannuruks, etc).
That just gave me an idea... what if dragons are a corrupted version of something else? (playing on 'the serpent' angle of fiendish origins). If a dragon is a 'thing' with a fiendish template, what sort of 'thing' was it to begin with? I'm thinking this may only apply to the chromatic ones (the metallic ones may be a type of Assimar). |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 18 Dec 2012 : 08:45:16
Somewhat random (buy hey, it's a thread about faerie dragons so it works), but I recently worked on a half-faerie dragon PF supplement for JBE (which was actually the first true 3PP stuff I'd done).
Here it is in case anyone was interested.
As far as faerie dragons in 3.x and the size issues, I would assume it was either a mistake or an editing error that would ever make for a huge size faerie dragon (I would have issues with them ever getting larger than small sized really). All my faerie dragons will have Wish, and usually use them on something profoundly useless each day. ;)
And despite my shameless adoration of them, my attempts to include a faerie dragon demigod in Golarion canon didn't make it to print. :)
Mod Edit: Corrected problematic URL coding. |
| rjfras |
Posted - 18 Dec 2012 : 01:15:25
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I suppose it makes some sense that Paizo embraced many of the 3e concepts, since their system is built off of it. I am also starting to see PF's weak spots, which are sadly beginning to show now that the 'new shiny' is wearing off. Right now, FR and Golarion are more alike then they are different, and I think if WotC wants to embrace FR as its 5e flagship setting, then I think they need to go 'old school' with everything (including kobolds) and try to differentiate themselves from the pack.
Did you know that in the 5E playtest Bestiary it currently reads as
"Kobold - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
"Kobold Dragonshield - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
"Kobold Trap Lord - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
"Kobold, Winged (Urd) - Small Humanoid (Kobold)"
|
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 17 Dec 2012 : 23:15:31
Which brings me to a thought I had last night whilst in the shower. (Okay, I admit it's a little strange to say that, but that's where I do a LOT of my best thinking.) At one time- and I don't recall exactly where it was- I remember reading something about the branches of the draconic family tree, that had clear distinctions between "true" dragons (the fifteen species of archtypical dragons that includes the metallic, gem, and chromatic varieties) and the "lesser" dragons.
The true dragons originally were comprised of only the five races of each of the three main types- gem, metallic, and chromatic. This was later expanded to include Steel, Mercury, Electrum, Jacinth, Pearl, Fang, Shadow, Song, Deep, and Yellow dragons. The lesser dragons were basically all the others, including the Oriental dragons, Cloud and Mist dragons, Jade dragons (apparently unrelated to the other gem types), Dragon turtles, Dragonnes, Pseudodragons, Fairie dragons, Linnorms(of Norse myth origin), Land Wyrms (these are different from the Linnorms, all of them having legs, while many Linnorms do not), Dragonnels, Dragon horses, Dracolisks and Dracohydras (both of which are hybrids that might be classed as half-dragons, though the latter term is more properly used only for humanoid hybrids), Drakes(all types, including those from the Dragon magazine #260 article on new drakes), Fire Dragonets, and Brown dragons(wingless, unlike all other chromatics), as well as Dragon-kin (the 2nd ed creature, not the 3.5 PrC), and anything else with draconic origins or blood. (Though Half-dragons might be considered both, as they are not true dragons, but were born from unions with one.)
The point of all the above is that there are apparently two main branches of dracoforms- those of the iconic western variety, complete with wings, very large size, usually high intelligence, and various breath weapons; and anything of draconic type that doesn't fit that mold, mainly Norse variants and all the permutations thereof, the iconic Oriental types (Lungs and so-forth), drakes(which may have the basic weatern shape and breath weapon, but are much smaller and generally much less intelligent), or anything remotely considered draconic(this is where all those oddball species fit in).
Incidentally, I found an even earleir reference to the faerie dragons in the AD&D Monster Manual II (the 1983 one by Gygax with the giant in the woods on the cover and the orange spine) which says of them: "This chaotic offshoot of the pseudodragon lives in peaceful, tangled forests in all climes, often with a group of sprites or pixies." It also included a table for the 8 age categories (The table lists the ages as starting at red at wyrmling age, progressing through red-orange, orange, yellow, green, blue-green, blue, and purple. There is no black listed here.) This table also gives them druid levels, which appear to be missing from later references. I find that interesting, as having druidic abilities makes sense for a "fey" dragon. But what is most interesting aboutthat entry is that it states definitely that they originated from the pseudodragon. It's the earliest listing I am aware of, but it certainly makes the relationship clear. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Dec 2012 : 16:36:30
I see a lot of 3e concepts (including the kobolds-are-now-dragons one) over in the PF material, and have to wonder - many of the 3e-era designers have gone over to Paizo, and probably took their ideas with them... for better or worse. Paizo's kobolds are the draconic ones. That means that WotC should try to be different by going back to their roots, instead of jumping on the 'changes = better' bandwagon.
I suppose it makes some sense that Paizo embraced many of the 3e concepts, since their system is built off of it. I am also starting to see PF's weak spots, which are sadly beginning to show now that the 'new shiny' is wearing off. Right now, FR and Golarion are more alike then they are different, and I think if WotC wants to embrace FR as its 5e flagship setting, then I think they need to go 'old school' with everything (including kobolds) and try to differentiate themselves from the pack.
You know what I met at Gencon? Young people who have been playing PF for a couple of years now, and know nothing about FR. You want to know somthing about young people (having raised 4 of my own, and been one in primordial times)? They get dissatisfied easily, and are always looking for something new. To them, FR IS new... run with that. Don't try to "do what Paizo does", try to do things different from them, and watch the numbers grow. Everything is cyclic - its time those fans came running back the other way.
At the same time, this isn't 1970. The "its magic!" explanation just doesn't wash anymore. I had a conversation with my bro-in-law the other day (who still hosts a weekly game, except now its for his son and his son's friends) and his main complaint was that "kids are too damn smart now". They want LOGIC, even in a fantasy game. You give them a precise history of the fantasy universe (in other words, embrace the Great Wheel concept and make it even BETTER - marry it to the evolution of species), and you will have them hooked. They want to know all the inter-relationships between creatures, how various government-types operate, how monsters and magic 'work', why things are able to live above magma or why 20-ton reptiles can fly, etc, etc. They ask questions - give them those answers and see what happens. Build a game for the intelligent gamer, and you will have a winner.
I see folks over on the Paizo messageboards questioning things - things that bothered me as well. The cracks are beginning to show. Break out you pry bars and go to work. 
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Dec 2012 : 03:43:59
WotC has a recent, last few years, of reduction of staff. Some I clearly believed are missed (should have been kept) and that maybe a few should have been dismissed. What though were some of the first to disappear was Editors, which based on products released recently clearly are needed.
The biggest lost as to editor of course was continuity editor. Nickles and dimes do matter and the company needs to at least break even, profit expected.
However pushing out a source book or novel that clearly and dramatically changes canon is a problem. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 17 Dec 2012 : 03:08:15
But it doesn't specifically state categorically that they were not originated from the pseudos? The quotes there don't actually tell us much, other than mentioning the theory of their origin. As for tables, pseudos were listed in both dragon mounts and dragon cohorts in the Draconomicon 3.5. Which doesn't mean anything, other than a lumping of dragon types for convenience's sake in the tables. |
| rjfras |
Posted - 17 Dec 2012 : 02:48:48
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
[quote]
The 2nd ed Draconomicon quote appears ambiguous at best, and does not actually say the assumption that they are an offshoot of the pseudodragon is false, just "doubtful", according to what you have quoted. Do you nave any other evidence beyond that quote to prove that it is false? I don't have that book, so can't verify it myself. But it appears to be simply another of those creature origin plot hooks or idea seeds intended to give DMs a way to introduce creatures, explain where they came from, etc. The sourcebooks are full of lore references like that, so I would not count that as proof unless there were otehr canon references to back it up and prove the pseudodragon origin was false without a doubt.
I hate when a forum eats a post you've typed up 
The beginning of the Faerie Dragon section is also ambiguous
"Faerie dragons, although many sages trace their descent from the pseudodragon, rather than from the mainstream of eodraco, warrant mention because of their intriguing habits. These creatures are most like the brasses in outlook loving wit and humor, particularly in its most physical form but they don't share their larger relatives short tempers when they prove to be the butt of well-constructed jokes."
but later in the book under "Interspecies Relationships" it says
"The following table shows how the various species of dragons feel about each other. These are only preferences, to be used as guidelines."
and faerie dragons are on the table along with the the other 10 metallic and prismatic dragons. The next section is called "Dragons and Other Dracoforms" and pseudodragons are mentioned there
"In general, dragons react to other dracoforms such as drakes, pseudodragons, and wyverns according to alignment. Conflicting alignments usually incur antipathy at best or hatred at worst. (For example, Chaotic Evil reds won't like Neutral (good) pseudodragons.)" |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 17 Dec 2012 : 01:58:47
quote:
Originally posted by rjfras
If we are talking 3.5 mechanics, an ogre wouldn't get bigger because it's advancement is by character class not by additional HD.
A faerie dragon is a dragon in 3.5 so is a pseudodragon. A base pseudodragon is a tiny dragon but does not advance to a bigger size. A base faerie dragon is small but can get bigger as it advances.
Draconicom 2.0 (the FR version) does not say that they are not dragons, it says they are falsely thought to be a form of pseudodragon:
quote:
(Some apologists for the Club have attempted to add these missing species to the overall structure. According to these worthies, faerie dragons are highly developed offshoots of pseudodragons (the reason for this rather doubtful conclusion seems to be the faerie dragons#146; small size).
MONSTERS BY TYPE (AND SUBTYPE)
(Monster Manual) Dragon: dragons, dragon turtle, pseudodragon , wyvern
(Draconicom) Dragon: battle dragon, chaos dragon, dragonnel, elemental drakes, ethereal dragon, faerie dragon, half-dragon, howling dragon, landwyrms, Oceanus dragon, pyroclastic dragon, radiant dragon, rust dragon, shadow dragon, spiked felldrake, storm drake, Styx dragon, Tarterian dragon.
For a faerie dragon, by 3.5 mechanics, gets bigger as it's HD go up. If the advancement shows a size increase by HD, then it does get bigger. If the creature does not show size increases in the Advancement entry, it does not.
From the 3.5 Monster Manual:
quote:
SIZE INCREASES
A creature may become larger when its Hit Dice are increased (the new size is noted parenthetically in the monster’s Advancement entry).
A size increase affects any special ability the creature has that is affected by size, such as improved grab. Increased size also affects a creature’s ability scores, AC, attack bonuses, and damage values as indicated on Tables 4–2 and 4–3.
quote:
Increased Hit Dice: Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.
In Dragons of Faerun, there is an advanced faerie dragon listed in the Roll Call of Dragons
quote:
Tyssaklera / CR15 / Living / Female advanced 24 HD faerie / Evermeet
The issue here isn't whether a faerie dragon WOULD increase in size, (the HD suggests it does, but there is no table to show its actual measurement increases by age/size category, which all other "true" dragons have.) but whether the sizes listed are accurate. By all other sources, they are NOT. Going by the advancement in the 3.5 Draconomicon, it SHOULD grow to 16-32 ft (giant-size!) when it reaches "huge" size. Clearly, it does not. Its MAX size (according to the original 2nd ed entry) is 1 ft- 1 1/2 ft. According to the size table on pg 314 of the 3.5 MM, that would actually make it tiny! (Which is what it is considered in the 2nd ed entry.) The 3.5 sources do not make any mention of actual length meausres, therefore the 1 ft- 1 1/2 ft length stands. It is canon, and has not been changed, therefore it makes the sizes listed in the 3.5 Drac book erroneous.
The 2nd ed Draconomicon quote appears ambiguous at best, and does not actually say the assumption that they are an offshoot of the pseudodragon is false, just "doubtful", according to what you have quoted. Do you nave any other evidence beyond that quote to prove that it is false? I don't have that book, so can't verify it myself. But it appears to be simply another of those creature origin plot hooks or idea seeds intended to give DMs a way to introduce creatures, explain where they came from, etc. The sourcebooks are full of lore references like that, so I would not count that as proof unless there were otehr canon references to back it up and prove the pseudodragon origin was false without a doubt.
For a different perspective, a wolf that is notably larger than most other wolves might be called "huge" in relation to other wolves, but would STILL be the same size category as all wolves. Large, Huge, or Medium are relative terms, and general ones at that. They do not accurately describe a creature's size (the 3.5 MM even states that an ogre and horse are both large, even though they are of very different sizes and weights. They are large relative to a human.) Does this mean that a huge faerie dragon is the size of a giant? Since they obviously cannot grow to that size, then the answer is NO. The 3.5 Draconomicon does not even list them in the draconic mount table- even for fine or diminutive riders- simply because they do not grow large enough to carry a rider, even of tiny, fine, or diminutive size! They cannot carry a rider AT ALL. The ONLY "small" dragon listed in the mount table is the pseudodragon. This supports the logic that a faerie dragon cannot grow tot he sizes listed in the HD advancement.
Logically, a huge faerie dragon would loose all of its AC, Dex, and initiative bonuses if it grew to huge size, as well as its use of Weapon Finesse, as it relies mainly on its small size and agility to avoid being hit. According to the section on increasing monster sizes on pg 294 in the 3.5 MM, it would loose any benefits of increased HD, so the sizes for the HD advancement in its entry in the 3.5 Drac book makes NO sense. Its reach is also that of a very small creature. (Though a dedium creature also has the same reach.) EVERY other source contradicts that size increase in the entry, therefore, it must be in error.
I had more to say on this subject, but my PC decided to go back a page while I was in the middle of typing this, so I lost it. But my main points are there. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 16 Dec 2012 : 22:03:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Kobolds are a cowardly, sadistic race of short humanoids
Copyright 1996 TSR, Inc.
Yes, humanoids. But obviously of draconic origin:
quote:
TSR continues:... kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white.
A leap of logic I would say. MerFolk have scales as do many monsters, are they all Dragon - kin?
Anyway to try to end this side discussion I offer in B, 1st and 2nd they Spoke the Kobold language, that in 3rd they all of a sudden spoke Draconic apparently forgetting the language they used to speak for in several editions.
Also in 3rd it first appears they receive Reptilian subtype quote:
Reptilian Subtype
These creatures are scaly and usually coldblooded. The reptilian subtype is only used to describe a set of humanoid races, not all animals and monsters that are truly reptiles.
If this does not change your mind, clearly we are at the point of disagree about Kobold being changed in third (agree to disagree?) and let us return to the regular program about how how Faerie Dragons changed. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 16 Dec 2012 : 22:02:29
Didn't we have a scroll here that has this discussion already? (IIRC) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Dec 2012 : 21:20:32
A duck-billed platypus has a bill but that doesn't make it a duck.
What is obvious to me is that they are humanoids that look a little reptilian, and have horns.
Tieflings have horns... perhaps in 5e we will find out they were really half-dragons all along?
Obviously I am not a fan of the lore that states they are related to dragons in any way. Then again, I avoid nearly any splat with the word 'dragon' in it (except in the logo... D&D... lol). |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 16 Dec 2012 : 20:43:05
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Kobolds are a cowardly, sadistic race of short humanoids
Copyright 1996 TSR, Inc.
Yes, humanoids. But obviously of draconic origin:
quote:
TSR continues:... kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Dec 2012 : 17:46:32
If you go by folklore, they are very much like mean little gnomes. |
|
|
