Spirit dragons, sometimes called song dragons, are powerful dragons whose powers stem from the magic and history of fallen realms.
Some of the changes are good and I do like the Spirit Dragons, but I feel like they missed two of the biggest features of a Song Dragon.
Song Dragon Features old:
metallic Dragons with silver scales and the physical traits of a copper dragon. (theorized they were a mix of copper and silver dragons, also theorized a goddess turned a human women into the first of their kind)
Usually Chaotic Good sometimes Chaotic Nuetral.
Lived in human settlements usually cities
dislikes other dragons
Always human shapedshifted unless some unavoidable forced them to show their true form as a Dragon.
Their human shapeshift was always as a human women.
Mysterious herstory and breeding but had something to do with Moonshae Isles
Protectors of the natural world as well.
True Sight
Electric Gas Breat weapon.
Spirit Dragons:
When a dragon egg is found buried among ancient rubble and given the right conditions, a spirit dragon wyrmling might hatch from the egg. Left to its own devices, a wyrmling wanders the ruins that the dragon originated from.
I think this is a good addition to their lore, keeps the mystery of their origin, also gives us a full range of stats from wyrmling to ancient. also roll a d6 to determin which ancient ruins. Which has a couple options that had settlements around North Faerûn, specifically Netheril, Ostoria, and Myth Drannor (Now Cormyr).
Their lairs also are wierd, but can fit with an urban dragon, musical advantage and long lives for all within a mile of a spirit dragon.
Now for my issues.
Alignment: Neutral
Look:
Green Dragon with mythical elk horns with reddish brown hints and brown wings.
Art: New Spirit aka Song Dragon
Old Song Dragon
Sure the alignment may seem minor, and as I low key hate alignment it's a problem because these are not evil dragons, they are metalic dragons.
Which is why the art is while nice looking is terrible. The color is wrong in a setting where a dragons color means everything.
Also they changed the breath weapon from an electrical gas to necrotic and a time warp.
This may seem a tiny nit pick, but I feel it is off putting as I like the inclusion of my favorite species of Dragon, but it's like they made a dragon and then attached song dragon as an after thought. It's like someone was watch Dungeon Dad and realized they missed a dragon just before publishing so they added a half line to another creature.
I whole heartedly agree with you. This feels like a great dragon, but not like a song dragon. They could have said 'When a song dragon egg is seemingly forgotten to time and left alone in a place where great magic once took place. The egg may hatch, but the dragon that comes from it has been totally changed by its environment..."
And for a normal song dragon to hatch it would need the opposite. Like 'For a healty song dragon to be born from its egg it needs to (directly or indirectly) be surrounded by many humanoids. It's said Song dragons don't just hatch when the time is right. They wait for the right time. For the time their presence might make the biggest impact on the lives of the humanoids it has been hearing for the past months'...
Are you reading an Ed Greenwood book or playing the Dungeons & Dragons 5e 2024 TTRPG?
When is the last time Ed Greenwood ACTIVELY wrote for the games?
Game, 1990s. Fearun and the Forgotten Realms this year he's releasing new books.
Also that's like saying it's ok to rewrite Dune because when was the last time Frank Herbert wrote something.
They rewrote Gygax. They can rewrite Greenwood, Salvatore, Hickman, Weiss, Baker, & all of the others.
Greenwood(& other setting authors) should not have supreme continuity power. This is a longstanding issue I have with the inherited contract from TSR that Hasbro has yet to rectify. He can contradict the games & it leads to people assuming things about the actual game based on things they read in the books.
The situation is like people having expected the Star Wars EU material to have been made into Episode VII because of their parasocial relation with LucasFilm & a ton of authors. There are SO many reasons that doesn't work.
The complaint about the colors and visuals seems contrived to me - and a lot like sticking to a worse version of the past rather than accepting a far superior update. Under the current version, “No two spirit dragons are exactly alike; each individual bears features distinct to the empire from which it hails.”
These are not static creatures that look like slightly thin metallic dragons - they are true creatures of spirit, that take on the physical characterization of the very entities they draw a spiritual connection to - their physicality reflects the ancient “song” of the land that they live in and protect, making it more than just a simple connection, but a very part of them. Maybe that is not what you are used to - and you can always use the old lore if you want - but it is a far more interesting, flavorful, and unique design the at really makes these creatures stand out amongst the many other dragon kin in the game.
The complaint about the colors and visuals seems contrived to me - and a lot like sticking to a worse version of the past rather than accepting a far superior update. Under the current version, “No two spirit dragons are exactly alike; each individual bears features distinct to the empire from which it hails.”
These are not static creatures that look like slightly thin metallic dragons - they are true creatures of spirit, that take on the physical characterization of the very entities they draw a spiritual connection to - their physicality reflects the ancient “song” of the land that they live in and protect, making it more than just a simple connection, but a very part of them. Maybe that is not what you are used to - and you can always use the old lore if you want - but it is a far more interesting, flavorful, and unique design the at really makes these creatures stand out amongst the many other dragon kin in the game.
This is why Spirit Dragons are a good addition to the setting and lore, and I love that they created something interesting and new. However them trying to force Song Dragons into that box is a real issue, and a problem. As it disrespects Song Dragons and Spirit Dragons, because Song Dragons are a very differant creature, that did need an honest update.
Things that they should have updated was the biology and the shapeshift of a song dragon, but them being Dragons who lived in major cities living lives as humanoids should remain. Them being a Metalic Dragon likewise should remain.
Spirit Dragons being a truely new fantasy dragon not tied to the old "metal good, chromantic bad" is great, but a song dragon they are not.
Being a Hasbro/WotC appologist doesn't make tying Spirit Dragons to Song Dragons a good choice, it's better to not have added that one line to Spirit Dragons and to never update a Song Dragon in 5th or 5.5 than to make that one change.
But then they probably did it to reasert their copyright on Song Dragons, and not because of a good game design choice.
They rewrote Gygax. They can rewrite Greenwood, Salvatore, Hickman, Weiss, Baker, & all of the others.
Greenwood(& other setting authors) should not have supreme continuity power. This is a longstanding issue I have with the inherited contract from TSR that Hasbro has yet to rectify. He can contradict the games & it leads to people assuming things about the actual game based on things they read in the books.
The situation is like people having expected the Star Wars EU material to have been made into Episode VII because of their parasocial relation with LucasFilm & a ton of authors. There are SO many reasons that doesn't work.
Can and should are two seperate things. You can rewrite anything you own the rights to, however it is not always the best choice to do so. Changing rules based on balance, making updates for the game is great. Changing 30~40 years of lore with a lazily added sentance to something that was well designed and should be allowed to stand on it's own smacks of a corprate choice based on preservering a copyright and not a narrative choice that makes sense.
Lets take Star Wars as this is full of great exampless as to why a Corprate choice can destroy a franchise.
They made all of SWEU legands, that was a good narrative choice, I and many long time Star Wars fans actaully supported. But taking the 3 sequel films, JJ Abrams was a corprate choice, and his film was rehashing Star Wars a New Hope but with more explosions and a bigger Death Star. The Second film was excellently filmed and narratovily bad. The third film JJ again Lets remake Retrurn but with more explosions and more Death Stars and "Somehow Palpatine Returns". The sequal trillogy were terrible films for Star Wars and really show why corprate decisions are bad for a franchise. But wait theirs more... looks at the other corprate choices the New Canon... besides a small handful of things like Season 1&2 of the Mandolorian very little under Disney has been good.
This is how I feel about much of what Hasbro has been doing to D&D since about 2020. Ironically there has been more hits than misses in D&D than Disney with Star Wars, but it feels more like the team at WotC have been really doing a great job, while Hasbro does everything in their power to destroy the Franchise by following the old capitalist forumulas designed for short term high profits with no expectations for long term stability.
The spirit dragon shown in the artwork is specifically a spirit dragon that originates from myth drannor. There was a news post about it where the artist discussed that IIRC. They mentioned that spirit dragons look different depending on the civilization they represent
They rewrote Gygax. They can rewrite Greenwood, Salvatore, Hickman, Weiss, Baker, & all of the others.
Greenwood(& other setting authors) should not have supreme continuity power. This is a longstanding issue I have with the inherited contract from TSR that Hasbro has yet to rectify. He can contradict the games & it leads to people assuming things about the actual game based on things they read in the books.
The situation is like people having expected the Star Wars EU material to have been made into Episode VII because of their parasocial relation with LucasFilm & a ton of authors. There are SO many reasons that doesn't work.
Can and should are two seperate things. You can rewrite anything you own the rights to, however it is not always the best choice to do so. Changing rules based on balance, making updates for the game is great. Changing 30~40 years of lore with a lazily added sentance to something that was well designed and should be allowed to stand on it's own smacks of a corprate choice based on preservering a copyright and not a narrative choice that makes sense.
Lets take Star Wars as this is full of great exampless as to why a Corprate choice can destroy a franchise.
They made all of SWEU legands, that was a good narrative choice, I and many long time Star Wars fans actaully supported. But taking the 3 sequel films, JJ Abrams was a corprate choice, and his film was rehashing Star Wars a New Hope but with more explosions and a bigger Death Star. The Second film was excellently filmed and narratovily bad. The third film JJ again Lets remake Retrurn but with more explosions and more Death Stars and "Somehow Palpatine Returns". The sequal trillogy were terrible films for Star Wars and really show why corprate decisions are bad for a franchise. But wait theirs more... looks at the other corprate choices the New Canon... besides a small handful of things like Season 1&2 of the Mandolorian very little under Disney has been good.
This is how I feel about much of what Hasbro has been doing to D&D since about 2020. Ironically there has been more hits than misses in D&D than Disney with Star Wars, but it feels more like the team at WotC have been really doing a great job, while Hasbro does everything in their power to destroy the Franchise by following the old capitalist forumulas designed for short term high profits with no expectations for long term stability.
So you admit you think lore is sacrosanct because it's lore & the author must be respected.
Despite Ed Greenwood having multiple black, First Nations, & Asian critics call his work out for being racist, &, for that matter, George Lucas needing his ex-wife to have script doctored his shitty writing for the initial Star Wars to hell & back, to the point where she basically wrote it & he stole credit.
But you see, it's ALWAYS "corporate" that causes issues, not the rot at the core of the apple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Never known much about Song dragons. As long as it respects its core aspects.
Now the Deep Dragons... good grief.
Now in the Book of Dragons by DK. They are listed as purple dragons. I read it as a sub-species of the actual 3e/ 4e Purple dragons. But WotC seems to be dead set on bury/ ignore potentiale to expand the three main dragon families with +5. A second batch for each family. Some say " dragon bloat " I call massive BS. Why? As long as they are unique and interesting lore and distinct looks its all good! And tgat they follow their own set rule about draconic species body plan.
Dragon? Six limbs. Pair of wings, four legs. The Deep dragon is stretching it.
At least for a start. Bring me the yellow coastal salt dragon, orange jungle sodium dragon, the purple plasma/ energy upper ubderdark/ caves + fields dragons that Richard Alan Lloyd concepted in Dragon Magazine 65 and 248. But the orange and purple dragons DONT have to be cross breeds, due to prinary pigment color theory! Or else the gray, brown and green woyld be too. These lesser known chromatics could easly be retconned as new variants directly from Tiamat, Io or a hidden sibling.
And no to the 2e yellow sand dragon unless rename it to beige. We got the brown filling that biome skirmishing with the blues, brasses etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A quote from the new book:
Some of the changes are good and I do like the Spirit Dragons, but I feel like they missed two of the biggest features of a Song Dragon.
Song Dragon Features old:
Spirit Dragons:
I think this is a good addition to their lore, keeps the mystery of their origin, also gives us a full range of stats from wyrmling to ancient. also roll a d6 to determin which ancient ruins. Which has a couple options that had settlements around North Faerûn, specifically Netheril, Ostoria, and Myth Drannor (Now Cormyr).
Their lairs also are wierd, but can fit with an urban dragon, musical advantage and long lives for all within a mile of a spirit dragon.
Now for my issues.
Alignment: Neutral
Look:
Green Dragon with mythical elk horns with reddish brown hints and brown wings.
Art: New Spirit aka Song Dragon
Old Song Dragon
Sure the alignment may seem minor, and as I low key hate alignment it's a problem because these are not evil dragons, they are metalic dragons.
Which is why the art is while nice looking is terrible. The color is wrong in a setting where a dragons color means everything.
Also they changed the breath weapon from an electrical gas to necrotic and a time warp.
This may seem a tiny nit pick, but I feel it is off putting as I like the inclusion of my favorite species of Dragon, but it's like they made a dragon and then attached song dragon as an after thought. It's like someone was watch Dungeon Dad and realized they missed a dragon just before publishing so they added a half line to another creature.
Also no true sight...
I whole heartedly agree with you. This feels like a great dragon, but not like a song dragon. They could have said 'When a song dragon egg is seemingly forgotten to time and left alone in a place where great magic once took place. The egg may hatch, but the dragon that comes from it has been totally changed by its environment..."
And for a normal song dragon to hatch it would need the opposite. Like 'For a healty song dragon to be born from its egg it needs to (directly or indirectly) be surrounded by many humanoids. It's said Song dragons don't just hatch when the time is right. They wait for the right time. For the time their presence might make the biggest impact on the lives of the humanoids it has been hearing for the past months'...
Are you reading an Ed Greenwood book or playing the Dungeons & Dragons 5e 2024 TTRPG?
When is the last time Ed Greenwood ACTIVELY wrote for the games?
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Personally, I like the new art, but I don't have any experience with the old lore.
Game, 1990s. Fearun and the Forgotten Realms this year he's releasing new books.
Also that's like saying it's ok to rewrite Dune because when was the last time Frank Herbert wrote something.
They rewrote Gygax. They can rewrite Greenwood, Salvatore, Hickman, Weiss, Baker, & all of the others.
Greenwood(& other setting authors) should not have supreme continuity power. This is a longstanding issue I have with the inherited contract from TSR that Hasbro has yet to rectify. He can contradict the games & it leads to people assuming things about the actual game based on things they read in the books.
The situation is like people having expected the Star Wars EU material to have been made into Episode VII because of their parasocial relation with LucasFilm & a ton of authors. There are SO many reasons that doesn't work.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
The complaint about the colors and visuals seems contrived to me - and a lot like sticking to a worse version of the past rather than accepting a far superior update. Under the current version, “No two spirit dragons are exactly alike; each individual bears features distinct to the empire from which it hails.”
These are not static creatures that look like slightly thin metallic dragons - they are true creatures of spirit, that take on the physical characterization of the very entities they draw a spiritual connection to - their physicality reflects the ancient “song” of the land that they live in and protect, making it more than just a simple connection, but a very part of them. Maybe that is not what you are used to - and you can always use the old lore if you want - but it is a far more interesting, flavorful, and unique design the at really makes these creatures stand out amongst the many other dragon kin in the game.
This is why Spirit Dragons are a good addition to the setting and lore, and I love that they created something interesting and new. However them trying to force Song Dragons into that box is a real issue, and a problem. As it disrespects Song Dragons and Spirit Dragons, because Song Dragons are a very differant creature, that did need an honest update.
Things that they should have updated was the biology and the shapeshift of a song dragon, but them being Dragons who lived in major cities living lives as humanoids should remain. Them being a Metalic Dragon likewise should remain.
Spirit Dragons being a truely new fantasy dragon not tied to the old "metal good, chromantic bad" is great, but a song dragon they are not.
Being a Hasbro/WotC appologist doesn't make tying Spirit Dragons to Song Dragons a good choice, it's better to not have added that one line to Spirit Dragons and to never update a Song Dragon in 5th or 5.5 than to make that one change.
But then they probably did it to reasert their copyright on Song Dragons, and not because of a good game design choice.
Can and should are two seperate things. You can rewrite anything you own the rights to, however it is not always the best choice to do so. Changing rules based on balance, making updates for the game is great. Changing 30~40 years of lore with a lazily added sentance to something that was well designed and should be allowed to stand on it's own smacks of a corprate choice based on preservering a copyright and not a narrative choice that makes sense.
Lets take Star Wars as this is full of great exampless as to why a Corprate choice can destroy a franchise.
They made all of SWEU legands, that was a good narrative choice, I and many long time Star Wars fans actaully supported. But taking the 3 sequel films, JJ Abrams was a corprate choice, and his film was rehashing Star Wars a New Hope but with more explosions and a bigger Death Star. The Second film was excellently filmed and narratovily bad. The third film JJ again Lets remake Retrurn but with more explosions and more Death Stars and "Somehow Palpatine Returns". The sequal trillogy were terrible films for Star Wars and really show why corprate decisions are bad for a franchise. But wait theirs more... looks at the other corprate choices the New Canon... besides a small handful of things like Season 1&2 of the Mandolorian very little under Disney has been good.
This is how I feel about much of what Hasbro has been doing to D&D since about 2020. Ironically there has been more hits than misses in D&D than Disney with Star Wars, but it feels more like the team at WotC have been really doing a great job, while Hasbro does everything in their power to destroy the Franchise by following the old capitalist forumulas designed for short term high profits with no expectations for long term stability.
The spirit dragon shown in the artwork is specifically a spirit dragon that originates from myth drannor. There was a news post about it where the artist discussed that IIRC. They mentioned that spirit dragons look different depending on the civilization they represent
So you admit you think lore is sacrosanct because it's lore & the author must be respected.
Despite Ed Greenwood having multiple black, First Nations, & Asian critics call his work out for being racist, &, for that matter, George Lucas needing his ex-wife to have script doctored his shitty writing for the initial Star Wars to hell & back, to the point where she basically wrote it & he stole credit.
But you see, it's ALWAYS "corporate" that causes issues, not the rot at the core of the apple.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Never known much about Song dragons. As long as it respects its core aspects.
Now the Deep Dragons... good grief.
Now in the Book of Dragons by DK. They are listed as purple dragons. I read it as a sub-species of the actual 3e/ 4e Purple dragons. But WotC seems to be dead set on bury/ ignore potentiale to expand the three main dragon families with +5. A second batch for each family. Some say " dragon bloat " I call massive BS. Why? As long as they are unique and interesting lore and distinct looks its all good! And tgat they follow their own set rule about draconic species body plan.
Dragon? Six limbs. Pair of wings, four legs. The Deep dragon is stretching it.
At least for a start. Bring me the yellow coastal salt dragon, orange jungle sodium dragon, the purple plasma/ energy upper ubderdark/ caves + fields dragons that Richard Alan Lloyd concepted in Dragon Magazine 65 and 248. But the orange and purple dragons DONT have to be cross breeds, due to prinary pigment color theory! Or else the gray, brown and green woyld be too. These lesser known chromatics could easly be retconned as new variants directly from Tiamat, Io or a hidden sibling.
And no to the 2e yellow sand dragon unless rename it to beige. We got the brown filling that biome skirmishing with the blues, brasses etc