Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
Rare 3.0/3.5 dragons? 
18th-Sep-2005 05:22 pm
Did WotC ever release info for the less common dragons, like the Brown, Yellow, Mercury, Mist, Cloud, and so on? I have the Draconomicon, and I know the neutral gem dragons are in one of the Psionics books, but I can't seem to find some of the more obscure dragons. I always liked the Mercury, Mist, and Cloud dragons in my 2e campaigns, and I want to use them again in my 3.5e.

18th-Sep-2005 09:41 pm (UTC)
There are a bunch of 2e monsters I'd like to use in my game. I was afraid I was going to have to convert them all, then I found this link"


Hope it helps.
18th-Sep-2005 09:51 pm (UTC)
That site rules.
19th-Sep-2005 01:52 am (UTC)
Holy crap! I forgot all about that resource!

Thanks for reminding me, 'tis exactly what I need.
19th-Sep-2005 01:48 am (UTC)
I thought the gem dragons were in Monster Manual II...?
19th-Sep-2005 01:51 am (UTC)
You know, you're absolutely right. I always get that mixed up, for in my mind, it would make sense for the Gem Dragons to be in the Psionics handbook. I hardly ever use the Gem Dragons anyway...
19th-Sep-2005 01:53 am (UTC) - edit
...or Psionics.
19th-Sep-2005 01:54 am (UTC) - Re: edit
See, I personally LOVE psionics. XD I'm all about adding that extra element to the scheme of things.
19th-Sep-2005 01:58 am (UTC) - Re: edit
I like the game flavor and mechanics of Psionics, but to me it feels like too much of an "add-on". Core classes don't seem to mesh as well with Psionic classes, especially when it comes to PrC-ing. Maybe if Psionics were included in the core books, instead of being a seperate book...

I think I just dislike carrying a bunch of books around. Heh.
19th-Sep-2005 02:02 am (UTC) - Re: edit
I will admit, there really aren't that many psionic-based prestige classes. You're generally screwed with making them. Although the Mind's Eye released a lot of 3.0 ones that work great with just a little tweaking, on Wizard's website.
19th-Sep-2005 01:53 am (UTC)
I thought they had some psionic equivalent in the Expanded Psionics Handbook or touched on it, but I can't be sure. I know there's a psionic couatl in there.

But the gem dragons first made their appearance in MM2.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
19th-Sep-2005 09:18 pm (UTC)
Not a big deal, they actually alternate between the two titles in the book anyway.
19th-Sep-2005 07:43 pm (UTC)
Are you saying more than one player needs to use psionics?

I only have one psionic PC in my game, and it seems to work out just fine.
19th-Sep-2005 08:49 pm (UTC)
In the prep work I did for my current campaign, I had a PC that wanted to play a psionic character. I told him that that was perfectly alright, as long as he supplied the book.

He moved away before I got the ball rolling, and although I wish he had stuck around to play, I'm glad I didn't have to incorporate psionics into my campaign. He would have played a Sorceror or a Barbarian, had I vetoed the psionics idea, but I like to stick to my guns when it comes to things I tell my PCs.

The problem with psionics is that it feels like you have to custom tailor certain things in order for them to make sense in a campaign arc. While this is true with nearly any aspect of D&D, outside of published adventures (and even that is debateable), with psionics I found I had to bounce back and forth between two seperate sets of magical item creation tables, and I had to find ways to justify psionic crystal weapons' presence in areas where they would not ordinarily be encountered.

The world I play in is one of my own devising: it's been around since 2e, and I didn't use psionics then, mostly due to being a school kid and not having the time or money to pick up/learn another book.

So it felt like I was "tacking on" a set of rules, creatures, items, and lore that had no historical base in my campaign world. I even tried to take that into account: "Psionics are new and rare", which made them too powerful. "Psionics are ancient, and just recently rediscovered", which ended up being too difficult to incorporate without a lot of "That doesn't make any sense", "How come no one has ever heard of Eldenser before if he's supposedly an umpty-ump years old psionic dragon?", etc, etc...

Long story short, I dig the flavor and mechanics of psionics, but short of making an entirely different world, I couldn't have them make any sort of logistical sense in my campaign. And I've put probably hundreds of hours of work into my campaign world, spread out over eight or so years. Theres no way I'm starting over.

Hopefully that all made sense...
19th-Sep-2005 09:17 pm (UTC)
I can see that. I guess it works out in my campaign because the world I used for 2nd edition that I made, I abandoned with 2nd edition. I had a whole new world I devised for 3rd edition (which my campaign I'm running my players through ends with the destruction of that world, but that's another story), where I incorporated the two things I knew little about--psionics and planar travel. Because I started off from scratch like that, it was easy to make psionics fit into the world, and I'm actually glad there's only one player that has psionics, because that makes him special to the group in that respect, just like how the ranger is special because he's the only one akin to nature in the group, and the cleric is special because he's the only one that has a divine relationship (no paladin or druid in my group). The uniqueness is great. Unfortunately, I have three arcane players (two wizards and a sorcerer), so I can't say so much for them.

But yes, in a world that already had its roots set, they might not have worked as well. The only thing I could have come up with would have been the psion coming from a different plane, and using the rule system "psionics is different," but then ANY discovery of psionic items and any creature having PR would have...well...not made sense, unless they, too, were outsiders.
19th-Sep-2005 09:07 am (UTC)
Monsters of Faerun has Brown Dragons, 3.0. Also listed are Deep Dragons, Fang Dragons, Shadow Dragons, and Song Dragons.
19th-Sep-2005 08:26 pm (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks for the help.
This page was loaded Mar 23rd 2019, 7:28 am GMT.