Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian beasts akin to more powerful dragons. Organization solitary, pair, or flight (3–6) Sting-injury save DC 17 frequency 1/round for 6 rounds effect 1d4 Constitution damage cure 2 consecutive saves. Skills Fly +5, Perception +18, Sense Motive +11, Stealth +7 Racial Modifier +4 Perception Str 19, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 12, Cha 9īase Atk +7 CMB +12 (+16 grapple) CMD 23įeats Flyby Attack, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Skill Focus ( Perception) Special Attack rake (2 talons +10, 1d6+4)
#Agents of shield ghost rider plus#
Melee sting +10 melee (1d6+4 plus poison), bite +10 melee (2d6+4 plus grab), 2 wings +5 (1d6+2) I should probably make an attempt to fix that later.Init +5 Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent Perception +18ĪC 19, touch 10, flat-footed 18 (+1 Dex, +9 natural, –1 size) Although it is a genuinely original albeit bizarre concept, I can't really imagine myself employing many crossbreeds of lion-dragons. Octavirate Presents Vol #4: The Forgotten got the odd idea to invent a "half-dragonne" template as part of an overall "half-dragonkin" template initiative. Unfortunately, it is really boring as far as monsters go unless your DM allows you to take it as a paladin's mount or something. Like a lot of the monsters, it was made up solely for the game.
It appears in heraldry and lacks a mythological underpinning. The lion-dragon is two-thirds of a chimera. That is, a possible crossbreed of a dragon (traditionally brass, but I suppose that's up in the air at this point) and a lion that like many monsters is inexplicably treated as its own species because publishers need something to fill the bestiaries. I can't recall which D&D books the dragonne appears in, but I know it appeared in the Tome of Horrors and a Pathfinder bestiary.Īs I explained in my other post on the dragonne's etymology, it's a simple lion-dragon (or "dracolion" as the traditional D&D naming scheme for hybrids may suggest). (I personally think the chromatic versus metallic distinction, and all the other distinctions made over the decades, are silly and unnecessary.) It's a simple matter of changing the breath weapon and, if necessary, alignment. Pathfinder discarded this distinction and allowed the standard chimera to have a dragon's head in any of the traditional five colors and corresponding breath weapons.Ĭhimeras are traditionally limited to the heads of chromatic dragons, but there's really no reason why they can't have the head of a metallic dragon. Chimeras with heads of other colors and breath weapons are arbitrarily segregated into a separate species called a dracimera (a portmanteau of draconic and chimera), which is the result of crossbreeding between a chimera and a chromatic dragon. Traditionally, D&D maintains that the standard chimera has the head of a red dragon that breathes fire. Given these data points, I will treat the chimera as a dragon. In Greek mythology the chimera was considered a dragon. The chimera was typed as a dragon (or "dragon-kin") by the Rules Cyclopedia, but 3e and 5e have not typed it as a dragon. D&D gets weirdly obsessive over its nonsensical monster ecology.
Or otherwise some obscure branch on the dragon family tree. Prior to 3e's introduction of the half-dragon template, earlier editions of D&D liked to introduced a bunch of monsters whose shtick was that they were half-dragon and half-another monster. In this post, I will concern myself with those monsters traditionally relegated to the bin of "dragon-kin" and/or "half-dragon" (whatever the distinction is by edition). A dragon is whatever the DM wants, and as such I will consider dragons on an individual basis. D&D, Pathfinder and other 3pp have devised a bazillion varieties of dragons that are impossible to keep track of, so I don't bother to try. I prefer to ignore these distinctions because they are arbitrary and unhelpful. D&D traditionally divides dragons into a variety of categories such as "true dragon," "false dragon," "greater dragon," "lesser dragon," "drake," "dragon-kin," and so forth.