So, I'm kinda just bringing this up being a fairly big lore monkey when it comes to dragons and draconic lore. But I'm just curious about certain types of half-dragons/dragon disciples that draw from certain non-True dragon types, and their validity with the lore.
Now, by this I mean certain dragons that carry no ability, whether through spell or natural power, to take any form that a humanoid could even... do it with. Almost all true dragons can naturally change their shape to anything they wish, and those that can't (like the white dragon) can do so through spells they naturally acquire. However, the same can not be said about most non-True dragon varieties. Some can, but most can't. Dragons like Chaos, Pyroclastic, Styx, Ethereal, Tarterian, and a number of others have no abilities or spells like that, to take such a form. But then others like Fang and Shadow dragons can.
I suppose the point of this thread is more to get my head around how a lot of these sorts of half-dragons/dragon disciples can even exist, really. I also think to taking actually spellcaster classes for such things, but at the same time, that could easily be copped out to make pretty much... any type of half-something in existence, which doesn't really happen at all. The dragon lore monkey in me just finds a lot of this to be really weird when I see it, really.
But yeah! This is also meant as a discussion, of course. ^_^
From what I read, and this is a guess, it is based on the natural area the dragon is native to. Toril dragons, I am guessing, are closing tied to the weave which allows them to easily cast such a transmutation on themselves. These other dragons though, I am guessing, are not native to the plane they call home, even if they have been twisted into its image, which does not give them the power to command that planes weave without study of it.
_________________ "A master role player is one who is willing and able to bend their character concept to make the game more enjoyable for all involved. To assist the DM in making the game fun, and not to show discord."
Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Location: In my own little world.
Just on a humorous note, now that that book has been brought up... I DMed a PnP game once where i made the mistake of allowing rules from that book to be used. For the fun of it we all rolled for the sizes of our endowments... the one in the group playing a young true dragon of white scale rolled the smallest he could have had, which i believe was one full size category smaller than himself. Then in the course of events in the game he got cursed to be another size category smaller. Was too funny not to roll with. Physically he was the right size to mate with beings otherwise impossible without shape-shifting of some sort. But everyone and everything he tried with just pointed and laughed at his pathetic endowment. short lived campaign but worth every laugh.
On a more serious note, i have never been satisfied with the overly simplistic answer of "magic" when explaining this kind of stuff. If any being would normally be too large for copulation and there is no shape-shifting, enlarging/reducing, or other magical tampering of any kind involved I have always been skeptical about the creation of such a creature. If magic is involved I make my player explain which spells were used. I don't make them explain the copulation itself, simply what made it possible. The most creative answer i have gotten so far was that dragonic males endowment was more akin to a ducks in how it adapts to the biology of the female to be impregnated. There is no lore to back it up but it was damned creative of them to think up and depended on biology rather than magic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
