Dragons that are not dragons?

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 114
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Dragons that are not dragons?

  1. #1
    So what's your wish? Yato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Anywhere
    Posts
    6,671
    Blog Entries
    435

    Follow Yato on Tumblr

    Default Dragons that are not dragons?

    There's obviously Gyarados, and Charizard has dragon-like features.

    But they are NOT dragon-types.

    Though, do you think they should? Personally, I think Charizard should be Fire/Dragon and have the ability Levitate. Doesn't that seem better?

  2. #2
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,123
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    The reason why the Magnemite family gained a steel type in G/S/C is because it use to be a mono-type back in R/B/Y, which means Gyarados and Charizard can't change their secondary types now because they have to be a mono type first in their debut appearance.

  3. #3
    Formerly GTT Grass Type Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    2,264
    Blog Entries
    80

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny Queen View Post
    There's obviously Gyarados, and Charizard has dragon-like features.

    But they are NOT dragon-types.

    Though, do you think they should? Personally, I think Charizard should be Fire/Dragon and have the ability Levitate. Doesn't that seem better?
    No. Dragon on any given Starter would put them miles ahead of any of their counterparts, which wouldn't be fair. Blaze is the default Fire Starter ability and, to the best of my knowledge, Levitate is one of the few abilities that can't be obtained via Dream World on any Pokemon.
    Jaden likes this.
    SoulSilver FC: 1334-2716-6164
    Platinum FC: 1591-7683-8872

  4. #4
    A Heart of Steel Torterrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    On the Edge of Glory
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Gyarados deserves better. But Charizard just can't have that as a technicality.

    Making Gyarados Water/Dragon (and bull to all of you haters out there) is what I always thought made the most sense. Please? Thanks.

  5. #5
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,123
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Torterrius View Post
    Gyarados deserves better. But Charizard just can't have that as a technicality.

    Making Gyarados Water/Dragon (and bull to all of you haters out there) is what I always thought made the most sense. Please? Thanks.
    You do realize that it would make him overpowered in R/B/Y due to no dragon moves that could do any SE damage? If Charizard was ever given a dragon typing, at least he'll be still vulnerable to rock and ground moves.

  6. #6
    Registered User Articwolf10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Bramwell, West Virginia
    Posts
    2,205
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Torterrius View Post
    Gyarados deserves better. But Charizard just can't have that as a technicality.

    Making Gyarados Water/Dragon (and bull to all of you haters out there) is what I always thought made the most sense. Please? Thanks.
    You do realize that it would make him overpowered in R/B/Y due to no dragon moves that could do any SE damage? If Charizard was ever given a dragon typing, at least he'll be still vulnerable to rock and ground moves.
    And... considering that Psychic were toally overpowered in Gen I I really don't see a problem with that... Flying makes absolutly no sense with Gyarados he only learns Bounce and he has never shown any Flying characterists he should;ve just been mono-typed instead
    Black: 4727-9836-9051
    White: 3396-7767-9032
    Platinum: 0003-5833-1618
    Soul Silver: 3138-3094-2458

  7. #7
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,123
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Articwolf10 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Torterrius View Post
    Gyarados deserves better. But Charizard just can't have that as a technicality.

    Making Gyarados Water/Dragon (and bull to all of you haters out there) is what I always thought made the most sense. Please? Thanks.
    You do realize that it would make him overpowered in R/B/Y due to no dragon moves that could do any SE damage? If Charizard was ever given a dragon typing, at least he'll be still vulnerable to rock and ground moves.
    And... considering that Psychic were toally overpowered in Gen I I really don't see a problem with that... Flying makes absolutly no sense with Gyarados he only learns Bounce and he has never shown any Flying characterists he should;ve just been mono-typed instead
    The Psychic types were overpowered by accident; there's a difference. Also, it's a tradition for GF to have one Water/Flying type for every gen.

  8. #8
    Bulbapædist Crystal_Talian's Avatar Bulbapedia Staff
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    It's a secret.
    Posts
    104
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    GF needs a break from tradition, there are too many Water and too many Flying types as it is.

    I agree, Gyarados should be Water/Dragon. Overpowered in R/B/Y? Yeah, but this isn't the first generation any more. As for Charizard . . . nah. I like it with Blaze, and I'm fine with it being a Fire/Flying type. Charizard's awesome enough without the Dragon-type.

  9. #9
    From Leyend to Myth Infinity Mk-II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    In the wind
    Posts
    1,383
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    So Charizard and Gyarados have been brought up a billion times... but why isn't Yanmega a Bug/Dragon? It's a prehistoric dragonfly. I know there isn't that association of dragonflies with dragons in Japan, but still. (Unless there IS... then I can just be utterly confused as to why didn't they do it then)

    It's supposed to be powerful and menacing, and it certainly wouldn't be far-fetched. The horrible Bug/Flying typing makes it just a bug.

    [/overexposition]

  10. #10
    Registered User Articwolf10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Bramwell, West Virginia
    Posts
    2,205
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinity Mk-II View Post
    So Charizard and Gyarados have been brought up a billion times... but why isn't Yanmega a Bug/Dragon? It's a prehistoric dragonfly. I know there isn't that association of dragonflies with dragons in Japan, but still. (Unless there IS... then I can just be utterly confused as to why didn't they do it then)

    It's supposed to be powerful and menacing, and it certainly wouldn't be far-fetched. The horrible Bug/Flying typing makes it just a bug.
    Yeah it should've been part Dragon hell his name even means Dragonfly (Yanma is japanese for it) plus he's way to epic for that shitty typing Bug/flying is okay for Butterfree but not for Yanmega the coolest bug ever
    Black: 4727-9836-9051
    White: 3396-7767-9032
    Platinum: 0003-5833-1618
    Soul Silver: 3138-3094-2458

  11. #11
    Fruit of Prosperity Pomegranate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    163

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinity Mk-II View Post
    So Charizard and Gyarados have been brought up a billion times... but why isn't Yanmega a Bug/Dragon? It's a prehistoric dragonfly. I know there isn't that association of dragonflies with dragons in Japan, but still. (Unless there IS... then I can just be utterly confused as to why didn't they do it then)

    It's supposed to be powerful and menacing, and it certainly wouldn't be far-fetched. The horrible Bug/Flying typing makes it just a bug.
    I'm no Japanese expert, but "tonbo" means dragonfly and "ryuu" means dragon so I'm pretty sure they're not related.

    On the flip side, I feel like Altaria shouldn't be a dragon. I guess it is one because it's based on something that's partially a dragon, but based on its movesets it would be fine (if boring) as a Normal/Flying.
    "Let us go early to the vineyards to see if the pomegranates are in bloom - there I will give you my love."

  12. #12
    Registered User Saiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    582

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pomegranate View Post

    I feel like Altaria shouldn't be a dragon. I guess it is one because it's based on something that's partially a dragon, but based on its movesets it would be fine (if boring) as a Normal/Flying.
    I couldn't agree more with you there. To me, Altaria doesn't deserve a dragon typing if something like Gyarados doesn't get it.

    Starters of choice.
    Claimed Volcarona on 03/04/12.

  13. #13
    smile Enzap's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Making Gotham City Grin
    Posts
    6,801
    Blog Entries
    35

    Follow Enzap on Tumblr

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis View Post
    The Psychic types were overpowered by accident; there's a difference. Also, it's a tradition for GF to have one Water/Flying type for every gen.
    It wasn't a tradition at the time of Gen 1. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, they didn't have a Water/Flying in Gen IV. So I wouldn't exactly call it a tradition. More like a... recurring theme of sorts.

    While Dragons were considered incredibly powerful back in Gen I, there's really not much about them today that makes them all that special. They hit next to nothing super effectively. I really don't think changing either Gyarados or Charizard to Dragon would make them overpowered.

    I actually don't think that they will change them, nor do I think they should. Charizard is one of the most beloved Pokemon in the series and Gyarados is a classic "What the..." kind of Pokemon. I think they should stay as they are, but Dragon typing does make a lot more sense.

  14. #14
    追放されたバカ
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,123
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Enzap View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis View Post
    The Psychic types were overpowered by accident; there's a difference. Also, it's a tradition for GF to have one Water/Flying type for every gen.
    It wasn't a tradition at the time of Gen 1. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, they didn't have a Water/Flying in Gen IV. So I wouldn't exactly call it a tradition. More like a... recurring theme of sorts.
    You forgot Gen IV has Mantyke, so it still counts as a tradition.

  15. #15
    A Heart of Steel Torterrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    On the Edge of Glory
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Dragons that are not dragons?

    Tradition or no tradition isn't the point. Back in R/B/Y, there was no such thing as tradition. It began there. You could argue that we should be retconning one Pokemon every Gen with a single-type that deserves another type as was done with Magnemite and Magneton, if you follow that logic.

    Which is exactly why Gyarados should be part Dragon. It's defensiveness against Ice does not change, and same with Grass. The extra Dragon-typing fits its design, as well as its typical nature, and its preferred choice of moveset. Flying is just ridiculous, considering only Bounce is there for it.

    And I feel giving Yanmega a Dragon-typing would be silly. It just seems too, well, basic to be given the typing like that. It belongs as a Bug/Flying-type. A Pokemon I do feel needs a Dragon-typing though, would be Aggron. It looks Dragon-y, and acts Dragon-y. Remove it's Rock-type, and make it Steel/Dragon.
    Last edited by Torterrius; 29th January 2012 at 02:52 PM.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •