Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How many age categories should dragons have?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7104628" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I confess to being a bit surprised about the outcome of the polling thus far. The majority appear to want 5 categories, roughly speaking: small, medium, large, huge and gargantuan. Some want just 4 categories, leaving off the small 'hatchling' category as uninteresting. Some even want 3 categories, typically dropping out either the medium or the large category as well.</p><p></p><p>Looking at my current work, and imagining cutting back to 3-5 categories, the big problem that I see is the gap in challenge gets really large. </p><p></p><p>ccs expressed this problem the best when he wrote: "However you break it down it needs to accommodate my minis - which range from small bases up to that colossal red with the removable fire breath WoTC made back in 3.5" </p><p></p><p>When you get to the tangibles of dragons, small, medium, large, huge, gargantuan, and colossal are all real things of very noticeable difference in size. Looking at my own work thus far, the low end of the range is a reasonable challenge for a 3rd level party, and a difficult challenge for a 1st level party. The high end is a reasonable challenge for a 16th level party, and a difficult challenge for a 14th level party. Fitting just one or two intermediary categories into that means very large gaps in the challenge rating. I'm not seeing that the added complexity of another category adds more problems than the gaps do, at least when the amount of information required to build and record a category is very small. </p><p></p><p>Consider the process of converting my work to 4e. The 'hatchling' category represents CR 1. The largest most legendary dragon represents CR 30. To get to 5 categories, its only necessary to put one dragon at the midway point of each tier - CR 5, CR 15, CR 25. But look at those gaps now between CR 5 and CR 15, and between CR 15 and CR 25. I'd argue that it's pretty obvious even 4e needs 7 categories to have any sort of smooth progression. To argue otherwise feels like arguing to me that PC's only need 3 or 5 levels to represent play. Why then do they have 30?</p><p></p><p>The recording of age category in 1e is very small indeed. It mostly means recording that the hit points per dice are equal to the age category, plus some special powers (like awe) that depend on having age category. The problem IMO is that this convenient means of recording doesn't record enough information (well, technically it's complete, but it results in simplifications that are bizarre). 2e tried to fix this, but in my opinion the 2e version went too far the other way. Recording age category in 2e and 3e requires a relatively large amount of information. In 4e, stat blocks are very disconnected and very large. There is a lot of cost in adding a stat block, and 4e very much deprecates the idea of flexible blocks (stat blocks that are implied or tabulated by the DM) in favor of showing all the rules together. The literal cost of adding age categories to a manual is high, as it eats a page or more. But that doesn't mean say 7 categories wouldn't be useful or that the granularity between them would be trivial. </p><p></p><p>In short, this thread has achieved for me it's primary goal - proving that on the whole, most people wouldn't object to fewer than 12 age categories. My feelings haven't really changed though, that depending on edition, 6-10 age categories have value in the context of that edition. Some in this thread seem to prefer the low end of that spectrum. I tend to lean to the high end of that spectrum. To convince me to adopt the low end of the spectrum, you'd need to convince me that objections like, "You already have a large and a gargantuan option, so you have no need for a huge dragon.", or "You already have a CR 8 and a CR 12 option, so you have no need for a CR 10 option.", are very valid objections.</p><p></p><p>The goal of my project can be thought of as this. Most monsters did not require major redesign between 1e and 3e. There are clear parallels between the stat blocks of most monsters in their 1e, 2e, and 3e versions. To a lesser extent, this is also true of the 1e and 5e stat blocks. Had 1e dragons been designed correctly in the first place, there would have been no need for 2e's large refactoring, and we'd see a clear parallel between the 1e, 2e, and 3e versions as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7104628, member: 4937"] I confess to being a bit surprised about the outcome of the polling thus far. The majority appear to want 5 categories, roughly speaking: small, medium, large, huge and gargantuan. Some want just 4 categories, leaving off the small 'hatchling' category as uninteresting. Some even want 3 categories, typically dropping out either the medium or the large category as well. Looking at my current work, and imagining cutting back to 3-5 categories, the big problem that I see is the gap in challenge gets really large. ccs expressed this problem the best when he wrote: "However you break it down it needs to accommodate my minis - which range from small bases up to that colossal red with the removable fire breath WoTC made back in 3.5" When you get to the tangibles of dragons, small, medium, large, huge, gargantuan, and colossal are all real things of very noticeable difference in size. Looking at my own work thus far, the low end of the range is a reasonable challenge for a 3rd level party, and a difficult challenge for a 1st level party. The high end is a reasonable challenge for a 16th level party, and a difficult challenge for a 14th level party. Fitting just one or two intermediary categories into that means very large gaps in the challenge rating. I'm not seeing that the added complexity of another category adds more problems than the gaps do, at least when the amount of information required to build and record a category is very small. Consider the process of converting my work to 4e. The 'hatchling' category represents CR 1. The largest most legendary dragon represents CR 30. To get to 5 categories, its only necessary to put one dragon at the midway point of each tier - CR 5, CR 15, CR 25. But look at those gaps now between CR 5 and CR 15, and between CR 15 and CR 25. I'd argue that it's pretty obvious even 4e needs 7 categories to have any sort of smooth progression. To argue otherwise feels like arguing to me that PC's only need 3 or 5 levels to represent play. Why then do they have 30? The recording of age category in 1e is very small indeed. It mostly means recording that the hit points per dice are equal to the age category, plus some special powers (like awe) that depend on having age category. The problem IMO is that this convenient means of recording doesn't record enough information (well, technically it's complete, but it results in simplifications that are bizarre). 2e tried to fix this, but in my opinion the 2e version went too far the other way. Recording age category in 2e and 3e requires a relatively large amount of information. In 4e, stat blocks are very disconnected and very large. There is a lot of cost in adding a stat block, and 4e very much deprecates the idea of flexible blocks (stat blocks that are implied or tabulated by the DM) in favor of showing all the rules together. The literal cost of adding age categories to a manual is high, as it eats a page or more. But that doesn't mean say 7 categories wouldn't be useful or that the granularity between them would be trivial. In short, this thread has achieved for me it's primary goal - proving that on the whole, most people wouldn't object to fewer than 12 age categories. My feelings haven't really changed though, that depending on edition, 6-10 age categories have value in the context of that edition. Some in this thread seem to prefer the low end of that spectrum. I tend to lean to the high end of that spectrum. To convince me to adopt the low end of the spectrum, you'd need to convince me that objections like, "You already have a large and a gargantuan option, so you have no need for a huge dragon.", or "You already have a CR 8 and a CR 12 option, so you have no need for a CR 10 option.", are very valid objections. The goal of my project can be thought of as this. Most monsters did not require major redesign between 1e and 3e. There are clear parallels between the stat blocks of most monsters in their 1e, 2e, and 3e versions. To a lesser extent, this is also true of the 1e and 5e stat blocks. Had 1e dragons been designed correctly in the first place, there would have been no need for 2e's large refactoring, and we'd see a clear parallel between the 1e, 2e, and 3e versions as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How many age categories should dragons have?
Top