How to kill a blue dragon?

[Plane Sailing]

@Plane Sailing
Just a note, using Phantom Chasm on the Young Blue Dragon does work.

Not in my book! I'm happy to give latitude in allowing a spell to do something which is thematically appropriate for it, but I don't allow someone to effectively redefine a spell. After all, if you allowed that you'd end up with any spell doing anything < / hyperbole >

It is interesting that so many people would allow it. I consider it a poorly thought through and poorly developed spell from Dragon and probably wouldn't allow it anyway.

if there is a spell that creates generic illusions to do something, fine - make an illusion of a net. A spell that creates an illusory chasm though... as a DM I'd not allow it, and all of my players would have the sense to not attempt it (if anyone did, all the other players would laugh at him first).

Cheers

 

[Engilbrand]

Shenanigans. The books say numerous times that you can flavor things any way that you wish. Most things in the books really are just mechanics. Sure, they give you a default flavor and a default setting, but you don't need to use those.
How does Phantom Chasm make sense at all? Why wouldn't most enemies just laugh at it? If they don't start falling, they know that it's fake. The key to the power is that it is an illusion that effects the mind. True, it's not a fear effect, but it does make the target sense something that isn't there.
Plane Sailing, if you want to houserule things to screw over players, that's fine. But don't just laugh at it and insinuate that it's ridiculous and stupid. You wonder why most of use would allow it? It's because we've read the books and subscribe to the ideas of 4th edition. Other than "Say Yes." there's an inherent idea that DMs shouldn't be out to screw players.
Also, if you're going to houserule something like this, I would hope that you would tell your players. Actually, I hope that you tell all of your players all of your houserules for powers. Because I know that if I do something by the rules when I'm playing, and the DM laughs at me and says, "No. That's not the way that it works." I get pissed.
It's no different than telling the Ranger that his arrow didn't hit because there's a lot of wind that you didn't tell him about. Or the Fighter can't hit the monster because it's wearing armor. If that's the case, what's the point of playing?

 

[Doctor Proctor]

This thread was once about combat options for players vs a dragon.
It has now turned into discussions about what type of game people prefer and there is no longer any answer or point.

Etc....

Actually, we already did a pretty good job of discussing the PC's options. The reason why we stopped, was because there were no options left. Anyone without a decent ranged 20 attack would've been left out right off the bat with the way the Dragon was fighting. Additionally, if we were to use the whole "Burst 2 power should extend the Dragon's range to 22 squares" thing, then it would've gotten even worse. Magic Missile would no longer reach him, and even some of the ranged weapons wouldn't. It would be basically be the Archer Ranger (if he didn't go TWF) versus the Dragon, mostly relying on At-Wills because his Encounter and Daily powers will run out in the first few rounds. And he'll be at long range.

That about covers the combat options. What's to discuss? We also discussed running and hiding, but a lot of people felt that this wasn't an option since the DM obviously wasn't really trying to be fair if he has a Dragon flying at 22 sqaures pelting them from out of range.

I mean, if we're going for unfair, why not just do it right and have them fight Orcus? Scaled down of course...as I'm sure that aura surrounding him will work out lovely when players only have 50 hit points.

The fact is, not all things are really fair to players at low levels. There are a lot of abilities that they're lacking, they don't have a lot of encounter/daily powers to fall back on, and magic weapons aren't a ton of help since they can only use 1 per day. Throwing something at them that just automatically invalidates 4 out of 5 party members is not something a DM should be doing. It doesn't mean he can't have danger, it's just that he's being cruel when he's creating a situation where only one character can even fight the level 6 solo. Heck, even if the Ranger manages to beat him, was it an exciting fight? Personally, since I'm the party Fighter and couldn't do anything here, I would've just said "Okay, I'm going out for a smoke and to make some phone calls. Assume I just use Total Defense every round or something. See ya in like 20 minutes."

Now, the only other option that I see would be to simply play the Dragon such that he occasionally comes lower and engages the players more directly. This gives them a chance to do something to get him down on the ground where the rest of the players can do something.

And the monster in that case will be using the full extent of its powers the best way it can (subject to roleplaying its personality).

If it's flying at 22 squares it's not. It's personality block specifically talks about using it's breath weapon (first target must be within 10 squares) and frightful presense, which is a close burst 5. So according to the MM, any DM that's only flying at 22 squares and using the lightning burst has already thrown RPing the Dragon out the window.

Now, if you want to talk about a party fighting a Dragon that is dipping down within 5 and 10 squares of the PC's every couple of rounds, we can do that...and that would be useful too, since you could actually involve all the party members in such a fight. That's not what we've been talking about so far though.

 

[Lacyon]

"I want to make the chasm appear around the dragon and make things look like it's about to run into a wall."

That's what I'd do, too.

 

[MrMyth]

Plane Sailing, if you want to houserule things to screw over players, that's fine. But don't just laugh at it and insinuate that it's ridiculous and stupid.

Yeah, this is really the issue. By all means, feel free to disallow it in your home campaign - a DM is free to do whatever they like, and different DMs have different priorities in what works and what doesn't. I might not agree with it, but it isn't my job to run your table!

But... in every mention of this, you haven't just said you wouldn't allow it, you've gone out of your way to explain how it would be laughed at and mocked - implying you are doing the same to all the others in this thread supporting it.

It might not be a direct insult, but I'd say it is coming pretty close - and probably why people are responding so directly, with such thorough disagreement.

 

[Plane Sailing]

But... in every mention of this, you haven't just said you wouldn't allow it, you've gone out of your way to explain how it would be laughed at and mocked - implying you are doing the same to all the others in this thread supporting it.

Definitely not my intention to mock those who think it is OK - I do apologise to anyone who has taken it that way.

However, I am surprised at how far some people are prepared to take the 'say yes' principle. I'm a very 'say yes' kind of guy except when I think people are attempting to bend the rules to their advantage. In earlier editions it was widely considered 'munchkin' behaviour.

In 3e there are numerous places where people are told they can theme their spells as they see fit (e.g. making magic missiles appear like flaming skulls - which made it strange that one supplement introduced spell theming feats, but that is by the by).

To me, it seems that there is a difference between theming a power so it looks somewhat different and fit a personal style, to allowing a power to appear dramatically different and have an effect on creatures which logically does not appear to be within the remit of that power.

I'm seeing a couple of very different styles emerging in the way I see people report playing of 4e. Some people (like me) seem to play it in a more (for the sake of a word) traditional form. Others seem to play it in a more free-form manner. I don't think either is right or wrong per se. However, some people will prefer one form and other people will prefer the other (and some don't mind which they play).

Does that make my position more transparent?

Cheers

 

[Doctor Proctor]

I think you're just coming from a different place when reading that power. A lot of the people are just seeing a power that knocks someone prone though the use of an illusion, and therefore don't see the illusion presented in the flavor text as being the only way this could happen. It also doesn't make any mention of flying enemies being immune.

You see it as a power that opens a chasm beneath them, which wouldn't work on a flying enemy. The ones who disagree with are simply of the mind that the flavor doesn't dictate what the power does, the mechanics do. And the mechanics say it knocks creatures prone.

 

[Jhaelen]

It is interesting that so many people would allow it.

Yep. I'm pretty baffled by some of the reactions here.

I consider it a poorly thought through and poorly developed spell from Dragon and probably wouldn't allow it anyway.

I agree. Obviously the designer didn't think this one through. Actually, I'm a bit wary about all the material from Dragon. I don't think it's seen enough playtesting.

if there is a spell that creates generic illusions to do something, fine - make an illusion of a net. A spell that creates an illusory chasm though... as a DM I'd not allow it, and all of my players would have the sense to not attempt it (if anyone did, all the other players would laugh at him first).

...and this is exactly what would happen in my group.

I really like 4E and think it is mostly an improvement on 3E but 'saying yes' to everything, regardless how silly is about as stupid as trying to judge every situation purely by RAW. I mean, how many Pun-Puns did you have in your games?!

 

[Praesul]

It's a difference of approaching the mechanics of a spell. Plane Sailing takes the "look at the flavor text then the rules" method while some others of us take the "mechanics first, flavor second" approach.

The bottom line is that Plane Sailing is putting additional reasoning into his interpretation of the power. Interpretation which is not deemed necessary by the books but is necessary in his opinion. I think adding that additional step is *really* dangerous though when you start trying to think logically about how fantasy spells, powers, and items work.

I really don't think this is a question of the "say yes" mentality. Looking at this spell usage in reference to the rules there's no question that it would function on flying creatures. You have simply decided that, in your mind, that's not how it's supposed to work so you've made a DM caveat decision. I do think you made a rather mocking tone towards people who didn't see the "brilliance of your wisdom" and instead decided to make a more PC friendly adjustment. That's unfair and uncalled for.

Equusasinus, To imply that allowing this one spell to affect flying creatures means we're all playing Carebare D&D is also rather ridiculous. Get off your high horses please, it's rather embarrassing especially coming from moderation.

 

[DracoSuave]

Snipped for brevity.

How to defeat that monster: Head for nearest cover. Run if you must. Force it into situations where its flying is no advantage. From cover and concealment, have ranged attacker take potshots. Your fighters and paladins should have them, it's called a bow. Every character should have a ranged attack, even if it's 'suboptimal.' Having NO ranged attack is truly suboptimal, because of situations like this. Force the dragon to fight on -your- terms.