Talk:Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: What is the point of the HD table? It would be a lot more simple to note the levels of power (from white to gold), and not add useless information that is inexplainable to thse who are not familiar with the system, and trivia for those who are.
:I agree. I'm definitely not against "fancruft", having added a fair bit myself over the years, but that table's a bit much. Not to mention that the stats are version-specific, the second edition's dragons have a very different progression (I just checked the old Monsterous Compendium) and I'm assuming first edition dragons were also different. I'm taking it out. Bryan 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HD Table

message: I added the "Books about dragons" section. Please help expand it. SpectrumDT 15:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books about dragons 

message: I can easily get ahold of illustrations of every major D&D dragon type.  Should I do so, or might WotC decide to take issue with that?  I have a drawing of a silver dragon that isn't in any official books, and I'm going to go ahead and upload that.  Rogue 9 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that image's source? Better a dubiously "fair use" image with a known source than a complete unknown. Bryan 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is a Todd Lockwood oil print seen here and appears to be copyright of Wizards of the Coast. Since its not even being used to represent his work in any way, shouldn't it be removed? Lewis 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being used to represent the object in question (that is to say, a D&D dragon).  This is unquestionably a correct instance of fair use.  Rogue 9 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not being used to illustrate the artists work though, which I guess is why somebody else removed it. It may be useful to upload a book cover of one of the books mentioned, possibly Draconomicon as that will certainly be for the purpose of illustrating the depiction of dragons within Dungeons & Dragons. -- Lewis 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we want pictures for this? 

message: I think that Dragons getting stronger as they get older is based on crocidiles growing until they die should this be mentioned ? Rubedeau 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croc Connection 

message: AD&D Dragons are noteworthy and each major color and metal deserves a page of its own.  Like Red Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) and Green Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons).  Please help to complete a page for each.  - Peregrinefisher 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck no. The last thing we need is more messy, non-notable stub-articles about D&D sprawling across the face of wikipedia. Yes, D&D dragons as a group are noteworthy. No, each individual species is not. Game statistics aren't either. Fortunately, in the four years since you wrote that comment, someone with more sense went ahead and started merging those individual dragon articles. If you really feel the need to write details about every type of dragon, please do so on a dedicated D&D Wikia page.--68.149.127.157 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate Pages

message: Even if the Steel and Mercury dragons aren't considered true 'metallic' dragons, they should at least be on the table. Seems like anything on the table should be any kind of 'true' dragon, that is, ANY dragon with listed age categories in its recent game-stat listings. AFAIK, they've had those in this edition.
Alex 'Leonidus' Krumwiede 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-true dragons? Steel/Mercury versus Purple/Brown? 

message: Please format the following references & remove them from this list when complete.--Robbstrd 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete references

message: Where do Hellfire Wyrms (Monster Manual III, I think, but don't quote me) fit in as far as dragon classification? Or at least, shouldn't they be mentioned somehow? They strike me as much too powerful to not note. Xiphe 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hellfire Wyrm (Monster Manual II) isn't a "standard" dragon (i.e. Gem, Prismatic, or Metallic); I would classify it as a "Lesser Dragon" since it is an "agent of the Nine Hells" (Quoted from MMII). -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should probably be mentioned at List of Planar dragons.  They seem to be as dragon-ish as the planar dragons in the draconomicon.  The MM 2 says they're a "Huge Dragon (Fire)."  I wouldn't say they're a lesser dragon.  They have more hit dice than a gold dragon. - Peregrine Fisher 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellfire Wyrm 

message: I know these guys have been in dnd based novel settings.   I believe you will find one in one of the new year of the dragons Forgotten Realms (Faerûnian) novels  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.196.48 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunwyrm 

message: I don't think adding citations to an article with a heavy in universe perspective will improve it at all. I think that the in universe content, such as the descriptions and statistics should be edited out, and the remaining content converted into a list. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say that the physical description (sans weight, length, shoe size, etc.) should stay, even if stripped to its bare bones; I agree that stats and weight, length, shoe size, etc. are cruft, but disagree that adding citations to the article is an exercise in futility. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How this article can be improved

message: I'm pretty sure that this article is currently miscategorizing some true dragons, listing them with non-true dragons instead of listing them under the true dragons subheading. Also, I think we should include a definition of true dragon, and divide the "types of dragons" section into four subsections: true dragons, lesser dragons, dragonkin and unknown dragon status. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after checking the article history, the existance of a "lesser dragons" section and the article's current definition of true dragons, I have concluded that everything outside the "lesser dragons" section is a true dragon, and the heading levels got messed up due to an editing mistake. I've moved all the other subsections under "true dragons" based on that assumption. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  True dragons and heading levels 

message: Having examined the sources, as far as I can tell, these terms were introducted in the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual. The 1974 white box, and the first D&D basic set which drew directly upon the original, didn't even have all of the "Advanced" dragon types. The word "metallic", again to the best of my knowledge, isn't even used in either edition, and the word "Chromatic" is used only as an honorific title to describe Tiamat herself and not her children (it can be assumed, fairly enough, that later writers co-opted the term to describe the dragon types). The first edition Monster Manual also drew directly upon original D&D, and added additional types so that both the good and evil dragons now stood at five each. They were not grouped into categories as such, and each type was listed alphabetically (black first, then blue, brass, bronze, copper, gold, green...), and in early second edition the Monstrous Compendium did not innovate on this approach. As far as I can tell, the Monstrous Manual was the first book to explicitly use the terms "chromatic" and "metallic" to describe the two types, and to group them into categories. I think it's dipping a little into original research to start describing them using these terms in older editions, when the books themselves did not use these terms. I'll concede that using the word "dragon dragon dragon" over and over is probably excessive, but if we want to trim words the better way to do that is to just say "the black, white, red, and gold dragon" rather than try to lump them into categories which weren't invented for another nearly 20 years. I can re-examine the sources and report back exactly what I find, if that would help. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating dragon names over and over makes this section into one long eye-glaze inducing wall of text and does a poor job of presenting the information in an accessible manner.  Using established terminology from the primary sources for sets of five that appear repeatedly makes it much easier to parse, even if the terminology wasn't introduced until some of the groupings had already been in use for a while.  In my edit I even make sure to point out that the grouping names were not official until later. — Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at rewriting the publication history, which will hopefully address your concerns. I'd like to leave the 1974 boxed set info as it is here, naked and without assumption (note that the alignments weren't even given as "evil" at the time - merely "chaotic"). Anyone looking at that set for the first time expecting to see the word "chromatic" is going to be confused to find that it only applies to Tiamat (who wasn't even called Tiamat at the time, just "The Chromatic Dragon"). Therefore, I figure it is more appropriate to identify them as chaotic-aligned and explain the changes later, rather than try to explain early on what changes were coming. I also did some revision for the first edition MM, as your rewrite didn't imply strongly enough that the creatures actually appeared in the book, just that they were given pseudoscientific names. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromatic dragons and metallic dragons 

message: In 3.5 they do not have it. Can anyone check in 4 and all historical ones? Adding scent to the mix is common houserule here, but it's just that. 195.22.117.118 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scent 

message: Considering how all other D&D dragons are treated and the scant info on the Shadow Dragon stub, should it be merged into this page? mattpersons 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow Dragon merge 

message: In the biology section of the article, it mentions that a humanoid creature breeding with a dragon will produce a “Half dragon”, which just sounds like a Dragonborn. I would add a link to the Dragonborn article but I don’t know how to do it AmazingFerret (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, this would work by replacing the first instance of the term half-dragon with half-dragon, resulting in this link: half-dragon. I would ask you to not do that, however, as half-dragons and dragonborn are similar but not identical in the game. Actually, the concept of half-dragons has been around longer. Also, dragonborn don't yet have an article on Wikipedia, only a paragraph within Reptilian humanoid. So I think so far we are better off treating half-dragons within this article here. Daranios (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article for Dragonborn, there just isn't one currently. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half dragons? 

message: Name           	Kind            	Age         	Sex	Area(s)                                           	Status	As of
Amaeraszantha  	Amethyst        	Great wyrm  	F  	Tempus's Tears                                    	Living	1374 DR
Amrennathed
"Queen of the Mountain"	Amethyst        	Great wyrm  	F  	Alaoreum, Turmish                                 	Dead  	1367 DR
Astanalan      	Emerald         	Adult       	M  	Murghôm                                           	Living	1479 DR
Behrshimmer    	Emerald         	Wyrm        	F  	Lake of Snows, Giant's Run Mountain               	Living	1374 DR
Bleucorundum
"The Sapphire Sentinel"	Sapphire        	Very old    	M  	Halls of the Sleeping Legion, Omlarandin Mountains	Living	1374 DR
Domborcojh     	Sapphire        	Adult       	M  	Murghôm                                           	Living	1479 DR
Eldenser
"The Worm Who Hides in Blades"	Amethyst (brass)	Great wyrm  	M  	—                                                 	Living	1374 DR
Esmerandanna   	Emerald         	Great wyrm  	F  	Peaks of Flame, Chult                             	Living	1374 DR
Felrivenser
"Gembright"	Amethyst        	Ancient     	F  	Channel Lock, Narrow Sea                          	Dead  	1374 DR
(-645 DR)
Iltharagh
"Golden Night"	Topaz
(dracolich)	Very old    	M  	Ice Floe                                          	Undead	1374 DR
Kisonraathiisar	Topaz           	Wyrm        	M  	Westgate                                          	Dead  	-349 DR
Klaruuotur     	Crystal         	Ancient     	M  	Forest of Mir                                     	Living	1374 DR
Kraxx          	Topaz           	Mature adult	F  	Wild Coast, Chult                                 	Living	1374 DR
Krustalanos    	Crystal         	Very old    	M  	Northwest Faerûn                                  	Dead  	1374 DR
Llemgradac     	Emerald         	—           	M  	Murghôm                                           	Dead  	1479 DR
Malaeragoth
"The Dragon Unseen"	Sapphire        	Very old    	M  	Underdark beneath Graypeak Mountains              	Living	1374 DR
Nolalothcaragascint
"Nolaloth"	Crystal         	Great wyrm  	M  	Sword Coast North                                 	Dead  	1374 DR
Raulothim
"The Silent Shadow"
"Wyrm of Axard"	Emerald         	Great wyrm  	M  	Axard, Ruathym                                    	Living	1374 DR
Saryndalaghlothtor
"Lady Gemcloak"	Crystal         	Adult       	F  	Crags, Mirabar                                    	Living	1374 DR
Sh'derra D'zeer	Amethyst        	Young       	F  	Highstar Lake                                     	Living	1374 DR
Vercevoran     	Emerald         	Very old    	M  	Moonsea
Dalelands                                 	Living	1374 DR
Yiarni         	Crystal         	Adult       	F  	Thunder Peaks                                     	Living	1374 DR
Just removed the above table. It is entirely focused on the gem dragons of a single setting (Forgotten Realms) & not dragons across D&D. I don't think we need this table in the article since it lacks secondary sources indicating why these dragons standout more than other named dragons across D&D. Sariel Xilo (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this would be better included in a D&D-focused wiki as it is just too much detail to include here. BOZ (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Named dragons list