True Dragons

[Angelalex242]

That...actually...could be adventure hooks.

The 4 Dwarven Rings of power supposedly consumed by dragon fire. Maybe they weren't.

Maybe the dragon simply ate the owner (and the dwarven ring) and crapped it out the other end when they were done, then they lay there, forgotten, in the beds of the dragons who ate the owner...

[Elmoth]

Yup. Nice hooks there

And I agree about Smaug being Papa Dragon of the 3rd age, but not being the only one. Dragons constantly grow, so by the 4th age there might be dragons that develop to become larger than Smaug. Him not being like dragons of old follows the same romantic idea of an amazing past never to return found in other areas of the works of Tolkien, so no surprises here.

Xavi

[Angelalex242]

Of course, the next topic of conversation is...

We need to stat up Smaug (or equivalent beings).

Then we need to stat up exactly what the dwarven rings of power do if a dwarf wears one.

We know they 'breed gold if you have gold to work with.' So if a Dwarven PC gets one of the missing 4 Dwarven Rings and a few treasure points, does that mean he can buy his way clear to standing 6 in Erebor in short order?

[Yusei]

Why do we need to do all that?

I'm writing adventures that involve dwarves, rings and dragons, but I'm not particularly interested in what the rings do, or how strong the dragons are. I'm interested in what the rings don't do (so that I don't stupidly have a dwarf turning invisible when he shouldn't) and in the facts that no group should be able to kill a dragon by simply hitting it with blunt objects.

By all means, stat anything you want, but my point is that by having detailed stats for exceptional stuff, you're removing options and mystery.

[Sprigg]

When it comes to fantastic, unique creatures like that I've never statted them out; the situation plays until something sufficiently awesome happens. However, I would be curious what rules-legal (ish) dragon would look like. The cold drakes are awesome enough, but a full-on dragon? That may be a lot even for a seasoned fellowship.

I feel like it would definitely force corruption checks if surrounded by gold, and possibly incur a penalty to treasure-hunters on that front.

[Angelalex242]

Cause that's how I roll.

I want numbers for everything a fellowship goes up against.

For if you stat something, no matter how powerfully, the fact remains your PCs can probably devise a way to kill it. Watching them do so is much of the fun.

"Yeah, it was the 6 of us against a dragon that had roasted hundreds of dwarves and eaten hundreds more. Let me tell you how we killed him..."

[Stormcrow]

Attributes range from 1 to 12. Smaug would have a 12. You could say that the 1–12 range is appropriate for the late Third Age; for the First Age attributes could go higher.

There's also the theory that dragons were created by imprisoning spirits (Maiar, if you like) in reptiles and turning them into giant beasts. This makes them rather similar in nature to Istari, as odd as that sounds.

[Angelalex242]

Eeehhh. If it's a Maiar in there, Smaug would be on par with the Balrog, and Dragon vs. Balrog usually ends in favor of the Balrog.

I deduce this is because the Balrog's got 50 Hate vs. Smaug's 25.

[Yusei]

Only 50 for a Balrog? I'd say it's OVER NINE THOUSAND!

(Sorry, I had to)

[Scafloc]

Eeehhh. If it's a Maiar in there, Smaug would be on par with the Balrog, and Dragon vs. Balrog usually ends in favor of the Balrog.

I deduce this is because the Balrog's got 50 Hate vs. Smaug's 25.

Have I missed some sort of supplement containing this information? A celebrity deathmatch?