D&D 4E Things wrong with 4e: Dragons

fenriswolf456 said:

I'm not sure what you expect the MM to give you. They present the 'basic' creature. If they're being used for a specific purpose in your campaign that's more specialized, well, the publishers can't anticipate your needs and develop them fully for you. And if they do, then such specialization can then make the creatures harder to use in other ways than the 'generic' version.

Click to expand...

This is a good point.

Stat the basics (with some of the old school flavor like a one liner saying blue dragons are illusionists) but don't go to far with the detail.

Keep it on the inspiration level (which I agree with KM tends to be lacking in comparison with days gone by), anything more than a one or two line inspiration is info that even I, a great traditionalist, may not use, and then ends up wasted space for the DM customizing their world.

This allows the monster blocks to maintain a link to the tradition and history of DnD monsters, which is unique in some cases, but is small enough that it can be disregarded easily by the customizing DM.

Best of both worlds...IMHO.

P.S. my white dragons like to wear and use armor and swords...how weird is that?

herrozerro said:

First of all the kobold allies should be their own entries, under vermin or where ever they would go, their not kobolds and should be referanced by book and page where they are.

Same with the traps, i dont mind if they are in the MM, (id rather them be there then the DMG) but they shouldnt clutter up the entry. Kobolds are far from the only creatures that use traps.

Click to expand...

So we're mostly down to organization. OK, let me explain why I think this is a better way to organize an MM:

Part of this philosophy is to avoid the notion that every monster needs its own entry -- things that lead to 4e's BEAR LORE entry, or 3e's "animals and vermin" appendixes. Some monsters don't have much interesting to contribute on their own outside of being support for some other monster. How much interesting, relevant game material can come from beetles and rats? Not enough, IMO, and there's no reason to force it. Mimics, like above, kind of fall into this camp too. They're fairly simple beasts who generally work better helping out more complex critters than by themselves as the focus of an adventure.

That said, creative DMs who want to focus an adventure on dire rats (or something) might want to just print off the relevant stats from the Monster Tool, confident in their own adventure.

Traps and hazards are kind of the same way (and traps get focused on since kobolds in my mock-up are mostly about traps): better as support than as the focus. A list of traps without context is going to make a newbie's eyes glaze over, and even old hats like me won't always bother with the cross-reference. But if they're right there in the monster entry, they are begging to be used, along with the monster. And, again, creative DMs who feel inspired by one of 'em can remove them from the monster without any problem.

So, in my view, the MM would have several "anchor monsters" that serve as major entries, with the support monsters, traps, and hazards put into the entry of the monster they support.

So you might find skeletons and zombies alongside a vampire necromancer who controls them. And you might find blizzards with the white dragon, and dehydration with the blue dragon -- where they're instantly relevant. And if you wanted to put them in other places by making your own adventure for the session, you're already making your own custom adventure, so looking them up online and printing them out (or sticking post-its in the books on the relevant pages) is rolled into your other prep for the game.

During prep, you assemble your own unique reference list of what you're using.

During play, the book gives you ever-expanding things you can use RIGHT NOW to make whatever monster you're currently on usable in their own right.

I still disagree, it goes back to my point earlier about default fluff and flavor. Cool blue dragons are illusionists. But do they always hang out in deserts with dehydrants? No.

I think 4es sample encounters also lets some iconic creatures hang out with eachother without mashing up entries. Like i said, referance them but keep the entries clean.

I'd think it would get more confusing to send a dm to the kobold entry for whenever you need a trap. Traps are generic enough that kobolds shouldnt have them in their entry.

I want Dragons to be BAD ASS and be spell casters (Not like PCs mind you), and can take full PC classes. I also want back to thm shape shifting into humans.

Illusionist Blue dragons is a gret start. Imagin just giving them 3-5 spells and access to rituels. You can then make them more by adding Sorcerer or wizard levels.

I also want dragon parts to be awsome items. Forge a sword or dagger from claws of a blue dragon should add lightning damage. and if you use the Scale to make armor, it should be huge.

Infact Kamikaze Midget why don't you try to throw togather a PDF like the kobold but for a Big 15th level Blue dragon

Kamikaze Midget said:

things that lead to 4e's BEAR LORE entry, or 3e's "animals and vermin" appendixes.

Click to expand...

I'd just like to chime in that, while the MM's Bear Lore entry was sorely disappointing, there *is* a use for such an entry. Because yeah, we all know what a bear is like or where it lives in the real world. But where does a bear (or tiger, or wolf) fit in the fantasy environment of a D&D world? They're no longer the apex predator, so which creature preys on them? Which races tame bears to use as pets or mounts? Which deity has the bear as its favored animal? Those are the types of questions a "Bear Lore" entry should answer.

And the 4e MM Bear entry had a disconnect with the "Cave Bear", which is not a kodiak-type bear, or a prehistoric bear, but an *Underdark* cousin of the surface bear (hence the darkvision). The art could have reflected that with a truly monstrous, subterranean bear.

Now I am stuck because I really want to get my hands on those D&D Next dragons. So that I may rip them apart and glue them back together in different ways, .

I am thinking that I would like to go with a system of five base kinds of wyrms: drakes (wings and two legs), dragons (wings and four legs), hydras (multiple heads and four legs), linnorms (four legs), ands serpents (no legs), with average size of each type increasing in that order.

herrozerro said:

. Cool blue dragons are illusionists. But do they always hang out in deserts with dehydrants? No.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the desert and the illusion and the lightning breath -- all these things are part of what it means to go up against a blue dragon. A dragon with that context is telling me to use it RIGHT NOW TONIGHT, a dragon without that context is telling me to put it in something later.

herrozerro said:

I'd think it would get more confusing to send a dm to the kobold entry for whenever you need a trap. Traps are generic enough that kobolds shouldnt have them in their entry.

Click to expand...

I think it's key to put generic things into entries where they won't be generic, or there isn't going to be much reason to use them.

As for looking up a trap or monster during play, the main benefit offered of this layout is that you won't need to flip around like that: any traps you need are part of the monster entry. If you're prepping a game early and you need other/different traps, then you can afford to look it up in the Compendium, or suss it out of the individual monster entries. If you are at the table and you suddenly need a trap, though, that's where things like 4e's monster creation system come in handy: it can give you what you need during a "DM's Bathroom Break" if you really need it.

So, in other words, part of what this design tries to solve is the problem of having to flip through random books in the first place. If you need a trap, the traps are right there with the map you're using and the monsters that are there.

Klaus said:

But where does a bear (or tiger, or wolf) fit in the fantasy environment of a D&D world? They're no longer the apex predator, so which creature preys on them? Which races tame bears to use as pets or mounts? Which deity has the bear as its favored animal?

Click to expand...

IMO, there shouldn't be a "bear" entry alone. This is because the races that use them as pets or mounts should have "bear" entries for their pets and mounts, and the deity that favors bears should have "bear" entries for the companions of its priests, and the predator that preys on bears might have "bear" entries for its prey (though that last one doesn't seem incredibly game-useful, typically).

Bears don't earn their own entry, really. They're only interesting by virtue of being associated with more interesting creatures. They're not good "anchors" -- they can't usually hold down an adventure all by themselves. So they should be paired with creatures who can use them. Like, say, werebears.

Mimics fall into a similar camp. They're not good anchors.

But kobolds? Drow? Orcs? Giants? Dragons? Demons? Devils? Yeah, usually those creatures are good anchors.

If 5e is going to have a tighter focus on the adventure, I really think it pays to look at creatures that can inspire an entire adventure as main entries, and include support creatures like bears and mimics (and dire rats and beetles) as creatures that make interesting encounters within those adventure-inspiring main entries.

Kida like my point earlier about default flavor and fluff, as a relatively new player to the game(started in 07). I have the benefit of not coming from a position of nostalgia.
Personally, blue electric dragons in a desert? Dont get it. Brown sand tunneling dragons in a desert? Much more sense to me at least.
Im often glad im not stuck in "this is d&d because its always been." This is probably one of our disconnects as well.
But anyways. I think our views are not that far off. I'd like a little more flavor with my 4e entries but i think the formatting is spot on. And i think that mms should be generic and that in depth fluff should be reserved for in depth books.

Kamikaze Midget said:

IMO, there shouldn't be a "bear" entry alone. This is because the races that use them as pets or mounts should have "bear" entries for their pets and mounts, and the deity that favors bears should have "bear" entries for the companions of its priests, and the predator that preys on bears might have "bear" entries for its prey (though that last one doesn't seem incredibly game-useful, typically).

Bears don't earn their own entry, really. They're only interesting by virtue of being associated with more interesting creatures. They're not good "anchors" -- they can't usually hold down an adventure all by themselves. So they should be paired with creatures who can use them. Like, say, werebears.

Mimics fall into a similar camp. They're not good anchors.

But kobolds? Drow? Orcs? Giants? Dragons? Demons? Devils? Yeah, usually those creatures are good anchors.

If 5e is going to have a tighter focus on the adventure, I really think it pays to look at creatures that can inspire an entire adventure as main entries, and include support creatures like bears and mimics (and dire rats and beetles) as creatures that make interesting encounters within those adventure-inspiring main entries.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Because that makes finding and referencing the appropriate information a pain.

Klaus said:

I disagree. Because that makes finding and referencing the appropriate information a pain.

Click to expand...

Exactly, its exactly like splitting up race entries among the classes because elves are mostly rangers but this feature is on page 102 because it might be good for a wizard while this feat is in the fighter entry because it's applicable to mostly fighters but it can be used by everybody.

Just no... there is a reason why information is segregated.