Dragonets - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Dragonets

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Dragonhelm
Dec 28, 2003 18:24:13 In the 2e Monstrous Manual, there was a new category of diminuitive dragons known as "dragonets", which lumped together pseudodragons, faerie dragons, and fire drakes. Pseudodragons have found a place in the 3e Monster Manual, faerie dragons are in the Draconomicon, and fire drakes are one of four elemental drakes that also appear in the Draconomicon.

The kodragon discussion got me to thinking back on these tiny dragons. My question for you guys - do "dragonets" have a place in Dragonlance?

What are your thoughts?
#2
ferratus
Dec 28, 2003 19:35:32 Well, it all depends on whether or not we could get ahold of such creatures. None of the dragonets aside from the pseudodragon are open gaming license material, so reprinting them would be problematic. If we can't reprint them, then I wouldn't really worry about fitting them into the setting, but just let the DM's who buy the books featuring those monsters to use them as he sees fit.

Now, if you're talking about thematically... we have shadow dragons, fire dragons, dragon turtles and sea dragons. Why not pseudodragons? If we wanted to do focus just on the big 10, and limit all creatures of the dragon subtype as much as possible, then we shouldn't have introduced all these other dragons in the first modules. The setting was obviously meant to focus on dragons and draconic creatures as a whole, not just the big 10.

So I'd say since the pseudodragon is in the MM and is open game content then we might as well allow them in dragonlance.

For the rest, I say let the mages have their familiars and the other characters have their cohorts and companions. If we have faeries, fairy dragons fit naturally in dragonlance. If we have elemental planes, elemental dragonets fit fine in dragonlance. But it is all a question of getting permission to use them. Should we bend over backwards to do so? Nah, but if we are looking for filler sometime, dragonets would be fine by me.

Heck, we could even use those landwyrms in the various overlord domains.
#3
Granakrs
Dec 28, 2003 21:00:43 well, i say, you can add anything you want, as long as there's a reasonable explaination of why they are there. Afterall, I include Vampiric Kender as creatures you see in Nightlund and Dargaard Keep in my old DL games. Lord Soth started making them.

I think you'll have to explain where these guys were during the Age of might and the return of dragons in the 4th age. Afterall, dragons (and anything related to them) became viewed as childhood myths and legends. The return of anything dragon-like, including draconians was a major shock to people. I'd say during the 3rd and early 4th age, dragonets were hidden for some reason.

I would think you might have hidden, unique dragonets from the greygem and magical experiments, like Cam's Beholder. likewise, you might introduce these creatures as messengers of the gods using the Axiomatic template from the DM screen. Heck, i'd say, after the Chaos War, the chaotic creatures may have come back with the destruction of the greygem, and unleashing of major magic in the world. You might reintroduce these creatures as "aliens" from Malys's native land coming to visit krynn. or, as terry suggests, Dragons especially the dragon overlords created a whole bunch of them.

I
#4
cam_banks
Dec 28, 2003 23:45:56 None of the Krynn-specific monsters are Open Gaming content, either. If you're at all wary of that, I would suggest not doing anything with draconians, skyfishers, sligs and spectral minions, either.

Cheers,
Cam
#5
ferratus
Dec 28, 2003 23:59:41 Well yes, but I was assuming Trampas was talking about officially having these dragonets in the campaign. If Sovereign Press doesn't get permission to reprint monsters outside of the three core rulebooks, we can't assume that people own the stats for these monsters, and thus can't make casual references to them in dragonlance products.

That's what I was referring to.
#6
cam_banks
Dec 29, 2003 0:05:42
Originally posted by ferratus
Well yes, but I was assuming Trampas was talking about officially having these dragonets in the campaign. If Sovereign Press doesn't get permission to reprint monsters outside of the three core rulebooks, we can't assume that people own the stats for these monsters, and thus can't make casual references to them in dragonlance products.

Sovereign Press doesn't work under the Open Game License, it operates under a special license from Wizards of the Coast which allows it greater measures of use of WOTC material (but not independent OGL material, unless approved by WOTC). This is how you can have the shadow dragon reprinted in the Age of Mortals book, when it was previously only in Monsters of Faerun.

Cheers,
Cam
#7
ferratus
Dec 29, 2003 0:08:55
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Sovereign Press doesn't work under the Open Game License, it operates under a special license from Wizards of the Coast which allows it greater measures of use of WOTC material (but not independent OGL material, unless approved by WOTC). This is how you can have the shadow dragon reprinted in the Age of Mortals book, when it was previously only in Monsters of Faerun.

So how does this work? Does one have to ask before using a particular bit of WoTC material (such as faerie dragons or axiomantic creatures) or does Sovereign Press get to use WoTC materials at their discretion?
#8
cam_banks
Dec 29, 2003 0:15:05
Originally posted by ferratus
So how does this work? Does one have to ask before using a particular bit of WoTC material (such as faerie dragons or axiomantic creatures) or does Sovereign Press get to use WoTC materials at their discretion?

Unofficial fan material not designed for profit and not intended to be used as official material in any sense is usually OK. Many people post all kinds of things online, using stats from various WOTC books such as the Book of Exalted Deeds etc. Folks who write adventures for Dungeon get to work under Paizo's WOTC Licensed Product rules, and thus adventures are printed which feature non-core WOTC monsters such as rilmani and so forth.

The Dragonlance Nexus and Dragonlance.com have their own relationship with Sovereign Press and Wizards of the Coast, the exact details of which I'm in no position to say. It's allowed fans to post whatever materials they like on the unofficial fan sections, including their own WoHS PrCs, their own stats for characters like Verminaard, and their own versions of the Staff of Magius.

The bottom line is, you should feel free to do what you like and write what you like, but you shouldn't expect that it will be considered official, canon, or otherwise accepted by the fanbase except on a case by case basis per individuals who view it. That's more or less the norm for fan sites of any stripe.

I'm not a lawyer though, I'm a library supervisor who does freelance RPG design work on the side, so don't quote me on that.

Cheers,
Cam
#9
Dragonhelm
Dec 29, 2003 0:15:38
Originally posted by ferratus
Well yes, but I was assuming Trampas was talking about officially having these dragonets in the campaign.

I was thinking along unofficial lines, in regards to how people would (or would not) use dragonets in their home games. I wasn't referring to anything official at all.

Sorry about any confusion, there. :embarrass

Originally posted by ferratus
So how does this work? Does one have to ask before using a particular bit of WoTC material (such as faerie dragons or axiomantic creatures) or does Sovereign Press get to use WoTC materials at their discretion?

Sov. Press has to gain permission from WotC. Since the Shadow Dragon was already in the setting, there was no problems using it.
#10
ferratus
Dec 29, 2003 0:21:52 Yeah, again, I figured Trampas was talking about dragonets in the official line, not as fan material.

For fan material, as long as I'm not making a profit, it just isn't worth WoTC's (or Sovereign Press') time to come get me. Besides Fan material and developing online communities is only good for business.

So can Sovereign Press use WoTC material as they wish, or do they have to ask permission for things like axiomantic creatures?

If Sovereign Press can use WoTC material as they wish, I would say there is nothing to keep dragonets out if we have the space for reprinting them. The original modules were designed to showcase the dragons (all of them, which is why we see shadow dragons and dragon turtles) plus a few more draconic creatures that we hadn't seen before such as draconians and sea dragons. 5th Age did this as well (which is why they kept the shadow dragons) and introduced us to the new dragonspawn creature.

So I don't really see a problem with keeping all the old draconic creatures that we had and introducing a couple new ones. As long as those new monsters fit well into the setting.
#11
ferratus
Dec 29, 2003 0:25:38
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
I was thinking along unofficial lines, in regards to how people would (or would not) use dragonets in their home games. I wasn't referring to anything official at all.

Sorry about any confusion, there. :embarrass

Ah. Well then people can use dragonets as they see fit. It is their own home game. What can you really say about that? Now, if you wanted to talk about new breeds of dragonets aside from the kodragon that would fit in dragonlance, or new ideas for a dragonet that would be better than a kodragon, then we'd have something to talk about. ;)

I don't own many optional rulebooks, so I'd probably just use the MM1 pseudodragon, usually as an improved familiar.
#12
cam_banks
Dec 29, 2003 0:27:26 Pseudodragons, wyverns, and other dragonlike creatures exist on Krynn as distant relatives of true dragons, but are not in and of themselves actual dragons (although they have the dragon type). Other similar creatures could easily be worked into the setting, and there are several in the campaign setting unique to Krynn which have appeared in older products.

So long as you don't suddenly introduce a swarm of thousands of dragonkin without any plot or story element to explain them, such creatures don't present any real obstacle to a Dragonlance campaign. Such is the case for most D&D monsters - see the DM's Screen for further details.

Cheers,
Cam
#13
ferratus
Dec 29, 2003 0:34:34
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Pseudodragons, wyverns, and other dragonlike creatures exist on Krynn as distant relatives of true dragons, but are not in and of themselves actual dragons (although they have the dragon type).

Right, so during the ages of Might and Darkness, they'd look at those creatures the way we'd look at komodo dragons. Similar looking to the creatures of myth, but not those creatures. Lizards breathing fire out of their mouths is just silly.

Of course, given that we have magical creatures on Krynn, that doesn't really hold up. Unless of course mythical creatures (those with spells and spell-like abilities) tend to disappear when the wild magic dries up. I'd be in favour of that. It would emphasize the grit of a low-magic Age of Darkness campaign. I don't know about the rest of you, but when you're on a search for lost arcane spellbooks and true healing, I don't want to see pixies and leprecauns gambooling about. ;)

Oh, and I don't really want to buy the DM's screen. Will we get the rundown on proper dragonlance monsters in the beastiary?
#14
ferratus
Dec 29, 2003 0:38:11 Hit quote instead of edit, please delete.
#15
cam_banks
Dec 30, 2003 0:03:28
Originally posted by ferratus
Oh, and I don't really want to buy the DM's screen. Will we get the rundown on proper dragonlance monsters in the beastiary?

At this stage, I don't know if it will be or not. I haven't seen the final draft, and I can't tell you what's in the book even if I did know. I do think you might be doing yourself a favor if you pick up the Screen, though - it has a lot of supplementary material you might find useful, including pregenerated stock NPCs, 20-level NPC charts for the mariner, mystic and noble, starting steel for the new classes, height and weight charts, the aforementioned guide to using monsters in Dragonlance, and racial weapons. That, and the DM Screen has the XP charts on it, which is a very useful thing indeed.

Cheers,
Cam

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Dragonhelm Dec 28, 2003 18:24:13	In the 2e Monstrous Manual, there was a new category of diminuitive dragons known as "dragonets", which lumped together pseudodragons, faerie dragons, and fire drakes. Pseudodragons have found a place in the 3e Monster Manual, faerie dragons are in the Draconomicon, and fire drakes are one of four elemental drakes that also appear in the Draconomicon. The kodragon discussion got me to thinking back on these tiny dragons. My question for you guys - do "dragonets" have a place in Dragonlance? What are your thoughts?
#2 ferratus Dec 28, 2003 19:35:32	Well, it all depends on whether or not we could get ahold of such creatures. None of the dragonets aside from the pseudodragon are open gaming license material, so reprinting them would be problematic. If we can't reprint them, then I wouldn't really worry about fitting them into the setting, but just let the DM's who buy the books featuring those monsters to use them as he sees fit. Now, if you're talking about thematically... we have shadow dragons, fire dragons, dragon turtles and sea dragons. Why not pseudodragons? If we wanted to do focus just on the big 10, and limit all creatures of the dragon subtype as much as possible, then we shouldn't have introduced all these other dragons in the first modules. The setting was obviously meant to focus on dragons and draconic creatures as a whole, not just the big 10. So I'd say since the pseudodragon is in the MM and is open game content then we might as well allow them in dragonlance. For the rest, I say let the mages have their familiars and the other characters have their cohorts and companions. If we have faeries, fairy dragons fit naturally in dragonlance. If we have elemental planes, elemental dragonets fit fine in dragonlance. But it is all a question of getting permission to use them. Should we bend over backwards to do so? Nah, but if we are looking for filler sometime, dragonets would be fine by me. Heck, we could even use those landwyrms in the various overlord domains.
#3 Granakrs Dec 28, 2003 21:00:43	well, i say, you can add anything you want, as long as there's a reasonable explaination of why they are there. Afterall, I include Vampiric Kender as creatures you see in Nightlund and Dargaard Keep in my old DL games. Lord Soth started making them. I think you'll have to explain where these guys were during the Age of might and the return of dragons in the 4th age. Afterall, dragons (and anything related to them) became viewed as childhood myths and legends. The return of anything dragon-like, including draconians was a major shock to people. I'd say during the 3rd and early 4th age, dragonets were hidden for some reason. I would think you might have hidden, unique dragonets from the greygem and magical experiments, like Cam's Beholder. likewise, you might introduce these creatures as messengers of the gods using the Axiomatic template from the DM screen. Heck, i'd say, after the Chaos War, the chaotic creatures may have come back with the destruction of the greygem, and unleashing of major magic in the world. You might reintroduce these creatures as "aliens" from Malys's native land coming to visit krynn. or, as terry suggests, Dragons especially the dragon overlords created a whole bunch of them. I
#4 cam_banks Dec 28, 2003 23:45:56	None of the Krynn-specific monsters are Open Gaming content, either. If you're at all wary of that, I would suggest not doing anything with draconians, skyfishers, sligs and spectral minions, either. Cheers, Cam
#5 ferratus Dec 28, 2003 23:59:41	Well yes, but I was assuming Trampas was talking about officially having these dragonets in the campaign. If Sovereign Press doesn't get permission to reprint monsters outside of the three core rulebooks, we can't assume that people own the stats for these monsters, and thus can't make casual references to them in dragonlance products. That's what I was referring to.
#6 cam_banks Dec 29, 2003 0:05:42	Originally posted by ferratus Well yes, but I was assuming Trampas was talking about officially having these dragonets in the campaign. If Sovereign Press doesn't get permission to reprint monsters outside of the three core rulebooks, we can't assume that people own the stats for these monsters, and thus can't make casual references to them in dragonlance products. Sovereign Press doesn't work under the Open Game License, it operates under a special license from Wizards of the Coast which allows it greater measures of use of WOTC material (but not independent OGL material, unless approved by WOTC). This is how you can have the shadow dragon reprinted in the Age of Mortals book, when it was previously only in Monsters of Faerun. Cheers, Cam
#7 ferratus Dec 29, 2003 0:08:55	Originally posted by Cam Banks Sovereign Press doesn't work under the Open Game License, it operates under a special license from Wizards of the Coast which allows it greater measures of use of WOTC material (but not independent OGL material, unless approved by WOTC). This is how you can have the shadow dragon reprinted in the Age of Mortals book, when it was previously only in Monsters of Faerun. So how does this work? Does one have to ask before using a particular bit of WoTC material (such as faerie dragons or axiomantic creatures) or does Sovereign Press get to use WoTC materials at their discretion?
#8 cam_banks Dec 29, 2003 0:15:05	Originally posted by ferratus So how does this work? Does one have to ask before using a particular bit of WoTC material (such as faerie dragons or axiomantic creatures) or does Sovereign Press get to use WoTC materials at their discretion? Unofficial fan material not designed for profit and not intended to be used as official material in any sense is usually OK. Many people post all kinds of things online, using stats from various WOTC books such as the Book of Exalted Deeds etc. Folks who write adventures for Dungeon get to work under Paizo's WOTC Licensed Product rules, and thus adventures are printed which feature non-core WOTC monsters such as rilmani and so forth. The Dragonlance Nexus and Dragonlance.com have their own relationship with Sovereign Press and Wizards of the Coast, the exact details of which I'm in no position to say. It's allowed fans to post whatever materials they like on the unofficial fan sections, including their own WoHS PrCs, their own stats for characters like Verminaard, and their own versions of the Staff of Magius. The bottom line is, you should feel free to do what you like and write what you like, but you shouldn't expect that it will be considered official, canon, or otherwise accepted by the fanbase except on a case by case basis per individuals who view it. That's more or less the norm for fan sites of any stripe. I'm not a lawyer though, I'm a library supervisor who does freelance RPG design work on the side, so don't quote me on that. Cheers, Cam
#9 Dragonhelm Dec 29, 2003 0:15:38	Originally posted by ferratus Well yes, but I was assuming Trampas was talking about officially having these dragonets in the campaign. I was thinking along unofficial lines, in regards to how people would (or would not) use dragonets in their home games. I wasn't referring to anything official at all. Sorry about any confusion, there. :embarrass Originally posted by ferratus So how does this work? Does one have to ask before using a particular bit of WoTC material (such as faerie dragons or axiomantic creatures) or does Sovereign Press get to use WoTC materials at their discretion? Sov. Press has to gain permission from WotC. Since the Shadow Dragon was already in the setting, there was no problems using it.
#10 ferratus Dec 29, 2003 0:21:52	Yeah, again, I figured Trampas was talking about dragonets in the official line, not as fan material. For fan material, as long as I'm not making a profit, it just isn't worth WoTC's (or Sovereign Press') time to come get me. Besides Fan material and developing online communities is only good for business. So can Sovereign Press use WoTC material as they wish, or do they have to ask permission for things like axiomantic creatures? If Sovereign Press can use WoTC material as they wish, I would say there is nothing to keep dragonets out if we have the space for reprinting them. The original modules were designed to showcase the dragons (all of them, which is why we see shadow dragons and dragon turtles) plus a few more draconic creatures that we hadn't seen before such as draconians and sea dragons. 5th Age did this as well (which is why they kept the shadow dragons) and introduced us to the new dragonspawn creature. So I don't really see a problem with keeping all the old draconic creatures that we had and introducing a couple new ones. As long as those new monsters fit well into the setting.
#11 ferratus Dec 29, 2003 0:25:38	Originally posted by Dragonhelm I was thinking along unofficial lines, in regards to how people would (or would not) use dragonets in their home games. I wasn't referring to anything official at all. Sorry about any confusion, there. :embarrass Ah. Well then people can use dragonets as they see fit. It is their own home game. What can you really say about that? Now, if you wanted to talk about new breeds of dragonets aside from the kodragon that would fit in dragonlance, or new ideas for a dragonet that would be better than a kodragon, then we'd have something to talk about. ;) I don't own many optional rulebooks, so I'd probably just use the MM1 pseudodragon, usually as an improved familiar.
#12 cam_banks Dec 29, 2003 0:27:26	Pseudodragons, wyverns, and other dragonlike creatures exist on Krynn as distant relatives of true dragons, but are not in and of themselves actual dragons (although they have the dragon type). Other similar creatures could easily be worked into the setting, and there are several in the campaign setting unique to Krynn which have appeared in older products. So long as you don't suddenly introduce a swarm of thousands of dragonkin without any plot or story element to explain them, such creatures don't present any real obstacle to a Dragonlance campaign. Such is the case for most D&D monsters - see the DM's Screen for further details. Cheers, Cam
#13 ferratus Dec 29, 2003 0:34:34	Originally posted by Cam Banks Pseudodragons, wyverns, and other dragonlike creatures exist on Krynn as distant relatives of true dragons, but are not in and of themselves actual dragons (although they have the dragon type). Right, so during the ages of Might and Darkness, they'd look at those creatures the way we'd look at komodo dragons. Similar looking to the creatures of myth, but not those creatures. Lizards breathing fire out of their mouths is just silly. Of course, given that we have magical creatures on Krynn, that doesn't really hold up. Unless of course mythical creatures (those with spells and spell-like abilities) tend to disappear when the wild magic dries up. I'd be in favour of that. It would emphasize the grit of a low-magic Age of Darkness campaign. I don't know about the rest of you, but when you're on a search for lost arcane spellbooks and true healing, I don't want to see pixies and leprecauns gambooling about. ;) Oh, and I don't really want to buy the DM's screen. Will we get the rundown on proper dragonlance monsters in the beastiary?
#14 ferratus Dec 29, 2003 0:38:11	Hit quote instead of edit, please delete.
#15 cam_banks Dec 30, 2003 0:03:28	Originally posted by ferratus Oh, and I don't really want to buy the DM's screen. Will we get the rundown on proper dragonlance monsters in the beastiary? At this stage, I don't know if it will be or not. I haven't seen the final draft, and I can't tell you what's in the book even if I did know. I do think you might be doing yourself a favor if you pick up the Screen, though - it has a lot of supplementary material you might find useful, including pregenerated stock NPCs, 20-level NPC charts for the mariner, mystic and noble, starting steel for the new classes, height and weight charts, the aforementioned guide to using monsters in Dragonlance, and racial weapons. That, and the DM Screen has the XP charts on it, which is a very useful thing indeed. Cheers, Cam