D&D 1E Revised and rebalanced dragons for 1e AD&D

[dave2008]

As for the damage from breath weapons, a huge black dragon great wrym does 10d8+10 acid damage (average 55) with its breath weapon every other round. That's plenty for a 10th or 12th level party.

True, I guess for 1e that is fine damage, though I rather typical dragons get the +damage and Huge dragons get +2 per age or maybe a bigger die (d10 instead of d8). Also, you highlighted another issue that you took away from the 1e breath weapons: that is the exact same damage as a huge red dragon, which, with 24 HD, is about 50% larger than the black dragon!

The white dragon daughter of Tiamat in the example stat block breathes round one for 50d6+50 damage.

That is scary, and it makes me think you should qualify that Tiamat's breath weapons are equal to a Huge great wyrm dragon of each type, otherwise her daughter is going to be showing her up in the breath attack department.

 

[Celebrim]

True, I guess for 1e that is fine damage, though I rather typical dragons get the +damage and Huge dragons get +2 per age or maybe a bigger die (d10 instead of d8). Also, you highlighted another issue that you took away from the 1e breath weapons: that is the exact same damage as a huge red dragon, which, with 24 HD, is about 50% larger than the black dragon!

It is necessary for each of the great wyrms to be scary in their own way. Yes, the potential damage of both dragons is the same, but the red's breath weapon is a cone that is likely to catch the whole party and the red does a ton more damage in melee and has a swallow whole attack at that size. On the other hand, the black has better AC and is as sneaky as a third level thief, and you are likely fighting it in water.

That is scary, and it makes me think you should qualify that Tiamat's breath weapons are equal to a Huge great wyrm dragon of each type, otherwise her daughter is going to be showing her up in the breath attack department.

By about 20 average damage (225 vs 205), yes. Although, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that if you are able to equip yourself with some degree of resistance to cold, it applies to all five breathe weapons whereas only a very high level party with access to the most diverse magic could manage to get resistance to all of Tiamat's breath weapons. You don't think this Tiamat is scary enough? If I upgrade all her breath weapons to huge size, then her expected damage of 255 is nearly as high as her absurd RAW expected damage (328). On the other hand, this Tiamat has 3 times the hit points and is profoundly more durable, living up to Sheila's famous claim: "...you can't fight Tiamat, she's indestructible."

 

[dave2008]

It is necessary for each of the great wyrms to be scary in their own way. Yes, the potential damage of both dragons is the same, but the red's breath weapon is a cone that is likely to catch the whole party and the red does a ton more damage in melee and has a swallow whole attack at that size. On the other hand, the black has better AC and is as sneaky as a third level thief, and you are likely fighting it in water.

From my perspective you're only hurting your case. The fact the red does quite a lot of melee damage is another reason, to me, that it needs to do more fire damage. Obviously do what you want. In general this is great work, but like all rules I would make some tweaks to my liking. One of those tweaks would be to mimic the damage progression of the dragons in 1e.

By about 20 average damage (225 vs 205), yes. Although, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that if you are able to equip yourself with some degree of resistance to cold, it applies to all five breathe weapons whereas only a very high level party with access to the most diverse magic could manage to get resistance to all of Tiamat's breath weapons. You don't think this Tiamat is scary enough? If I upgrade all her breath weapons to huge size, then her expected damage of 255 is nearly as high as her absurd RAW expected damage (328).

Yes I think Tiamat should follow the 1e format where each head does the damage of the largest most powerful version of her chromatic children. It just feels wrong to me other wise. I care less about the damage difference and more about the nostalgia of following the 1e format. That being said, I also think she should do more damage too. Heck, my preference would be 10d6+20/10d6+20/10d8+20. 10d8+20, 10d8+20 for an average of 305!

..., living up to Sheila's famous claim: "...you can't fight Tiamat, she's indestructible."

LOL

 

[Celebrim]

From my perspective you're only hurting your case. The fact the red does quite a lot of melee damage is another reason, to me, that it needs to do more fire damage.

I can't understand why or what you are thinking. Is it just that red is better than black and so it should do more damage? In a sense, the main point of doing this is that the breath weapon damage is poorly designed in the 1e RAW.

Yes I think Tiamat should follow the 1e format where each head does the damage of the largest most powerful version of her chromatic children. It just feels wrong to me other wise. I care less about the damage difference and more about the nostalgia of following the 1e format.

Ok, I can see that. Adding 50 to her expected damage per round isn't a big deal considering the high level you are supposed to face her at, and I may do it just to obey the textual precedent. The important point is that as it is, you don't go up against her at all unless you are really prepared for it, because whether it's 200 damage save for half or 250 damage save for half, either way you are screwed without defenses.

That being said, I also think she should do more damage too. Heck, my preference would be 10d6+20/10d6+20/10d8+20. 10d8+20, 10d8+20 for an average of 305!

I just don't get why. The more damage she does with her breath weapons, the less interesting she is as a foe.

 

[dave2008]

I can't understand why or what you are thinking. Is it just that red is better than black and so it should do more damage? In a sense, the main point of doing this is that the breath weapon damage is poorly designed in the 1e RAW.

My thinking is that a bigger dragon should have a more dangerous breath weapon, just like its physical attacks are more dangerous. A huge black dragon gets a more powerful BW attack than a standard black dragon. But the red dragon that is larger than the huge black does less damage? It doesn't fit for me, nor does it fit the 1e precedent of white<black<green<blue<red

Ok, I can see that. Adding 50 to her expected damage per round isn't a big deal considering the high level you are supposed to face her at, and I may do it just to obey the textual precedent. The important point is that as it is, you don't go up against her at all unless you are really prepared for it, because whether it's 200 damage save for half or 250 damage save for half, either way you are screwed without defenses.

Agreed.

I just don't get why. The more damage she does with her breath weapons, the less interesting she is as a foe.

Because I am crazy! And in my mind she is a paper foe, you don't fight Tiamat. There are people all over these forums who so "don't stat gods because they are beyond mortal power." I prefer to stat gods and show you that they are beyond mortal power.

Ultimately, want I when making a creature like Tiamat is make something that makes sense to me first. Does it fit with the fantasy logic of the game world? I want to get that right first as the reality is, IMO, that almost no one should be able to achieve a level when the could fight her.

 

[Celebrim]

My thinking is that a bigger dragon should have a more dangerous breath weapon, just like its physical attacks are more dangerous.

Whereas, I'm thinking that since HD of the PCs is hard capped, that there is a cap on the maximum damage any single attack ought to do, at least in the sense of making for the most satisfying combat is the main reason we have stat blocks. If I scale up attacks too much, all I do is return to the binary non-interactive game that is implied by the stat block I'm trying to replace. You'll notice for example that big dragons can't focus fire all their attacks on a single PC. The rules I wrote prevent them making all their attacks on a single medium sized target. The same concept is involved.

A huge black dragon gets a more powerful BW attack than a standard black dragon. But the red dragon that is larger than the huge black does less damage? It doesn't fit for me, nor does it fit the 1e precedent of white<black<green<blue<red

And in general red > blue > green > black > white. But that's a measure of overall challenge and not every particular detail.

Size is not everything. The intensity of the breathe weapon is only partially dependent on size. Bigger or smaller dragons of a given species don't get more damaging breathe weapons solely because they are bigger but also because the are healthier. Likewise, even if a hypothetical young dragon were bigger than an older smaller dragon, it doesn't necessarily mean that bigger is better. The older dragon is more puissant and mystical. It's breath weapon is primarily an extension of that mystical power.

In my mind Tiamat is not a paper foe. There is a certain level of power where she becomes a valid foe, it's just not the level of power implied by her RAW 0 AC, no magic resistance, and 130ish hit points. That level of power doesn't really last a round against a high level party.

You'll note I didn't stat her up as a deity.

 

[dave2008]

Whereas, I'm thinking that since HD of the PCs is hard capped, that there is a cap on the maximum damage any single attack ought to do, at least in the sense of making for the most satisfying combat is the main reason we have stat blocks. If I scale up attacks too much, all I do is return to the binary non-interactive game that is implied by the stat block I'm trying to replace. You'll notice for example that big dragons can't focus fire all their attacks on a single PC. The rules I wrote prevent them making all their attacks on a single medium sized target. The same concept is involved.

I guess that just feels wrong to me - to each his or her own. I want to design my monsters for the world first and then for the game. If I was design I game I can see where my priorities are should be the opposite, but I am not. These are exercises in world building for me, and your approach doesn't make sense to me in that context. To be clear, I have not issue with what you are doing - it doesn't work for me, but I'm fine with that. I just wanted to voice my opinion, you don't agree and that is all good.

But size is not everything. The intensity of the breathe weapon is only partially dependent on size. Bigger or smaller dragons of a given species don't get more damaging breathe weapons solely because they are bigger but also because the are healthier. Likewise, even if a hypothetical young dragon were bigger than an older smaller dragon, it doesn't necessarily mean that bigger is better. The older dragon is more puissant and mystical. It's breath weapon is primarily an extension of that mystical power.

I prefer my approach, but it is your thread and if that works for you - grand! I just thought I would help with something I thought was an issue. You don't see that and that's gravy! I prefer if it were related to 1e tradition a little more. It doesn't seem like it change balance much, it would relate more to the 1e original, and (for me) make more sense w/ dragon size.

In my mind Tiamat is not a paper foe. There is a certain level of power where she becomes a valid foe, it's just not the level of power implied by her RAW 0 AC, no magic resistance, and 130ish hit points. That level of power doesn't really last a round against a high level party.

You'll note I didn't stat her up as a deity.

In 1e terms she is tougher than any of the gods in Deities in Demigods. More HP, better AC, and better DPR. You gave all her stats like they did in Deities and Demigods (they didn't do that in the MM). You didn't call her a god, but in 1e terms she certainly plays that way (IMO).

We never played high level 1e, I think 9th level was as high as we got, so maybe she is assailable to high level PCs., but any 1e I have ever played this Tiamat (which I generally love by the way) an insta-kill.

 

[Celebrim]

I guess that just feels wrong to me - to each his or her own. I want to design my monsters for the world first and then for the game.

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive.

I prefer if it were related to 1e tradition a little more. It doesn't seem like it change balance much, it would relate more to the 1e original, and (for me) make more sense w/ dragon size.

Staying true to 1e is one of my main goals. But I did say that I would revise and rebalance. Ultimately, your preferences are set by what you are familiar with. My preferences are set by having played enough 1e AD&D that I'm Ok killing a few sacred cows if it makes the game better.

In 1e terms she is tougher than any of the gods in Deities in Demigods. More HP, better AC, and better DPR.

No, she's not. Aside from Tiamat missing things like teleport without error at will and always on true seeing, Thor hits for like 213 physical damage a round, has 20" range on his physical attack, and can throw a 100d6 damage lightning bolt. Odin has 400 hit points and a -6 AC, and can do ranged attacks doing 10d6+60 damage every round, and is both a 30th level M-U and a 30th level Cleric. Zeus is about the same power level. Girru can cast 40d6 damage fireballs, straight through Tiamat's magic resistance and doing enough damage to burn her even if she passes her save. Hades can disintegrate entire mountain ranges. And so forth

She's got more hit points true, in that I've willfully broken the 400hp cap implied by the Deities and Demigods, but she is severely lacking in other areas compared to most of the deities.

Granted, I have tried to make her worthy of being a foe of a deity, but I've been in a party that probably could have killed this Tiamat. There are plenty of ways to get the expected damage of a high level fighter sub-classed or cavalier sub-classed character up into the 80's per round or higher using just the rules in the PH and UA. It's quite possible to take even this Tiamat and ginsu her into little bits in a single round. At high enough level, I fully expect even a non-optimized party to be able to defeat this Tiamat in 3-5 rounds.

Anyway, the feedback is appreciated. When I was researching this project, I asked people how many age categories they preferred, and no one could agree. Answers went from 3 to 12, and the answer I favored (10) was one of the least popular answers. I went with 10 anyway, because I couldn't think of a better approach. The results aren't perfect, but they are proving resilient to change because everything at this point is a trade off. If I change one area to make it more elegant, balanced, or closer to 1e, I seem to end up getting less elegant and balanced in others. I will think about making Tiamat's heads huge versions of the races that they represent, but one trade off I don't like about that is that I kind of liked that her 5 most potent daughters where actually in various narrow ways more dangerous than she was, and so could reasonably plot to replace her. If she's just the sole uber-dragon, the right up of everything that is not the uber-dragon becomes less interesting.

 

[dave2008]

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive.

I agree completely. I even said it was a one then the other situation for me.

Staying true to 1e is one of my main goals. But I did say that I would revise and rebalance. Ultimately, your preferences are set by what you are familiar with. My preferences are set by having played enough 1e AD&D that I'm Ok killing a few sacred cows if it makes the game better.

I wouldn't call it a sacred cow, just a personal preference. I also don't think your approach makes the game better for me, but it works for you and that's great!

No, she's not. Aside from Tiamat missing things like teleport without error at will and always on true seeing, Thor hits for like 213 physical damage a round, has 20" range on his physical attack, and can throw a 100d6 damage lightning bolt. Odin has 400 hit points and a -6 AC, and can do ranged attacks doing 10d6+60 damage every round, and is both a 30th level M-U and a 30th level Cleric. Zeus is about the same power level. Girru can cast 40d6 damage fireballs, straight through Tiamat's magic resistance and doing enough damage to burn her even if she passes her save. Hades can disintegrate entire mountain ranges. And so forth

Other than the salient divine abilities in the front of the book (which I had forgotten about) she is right on par with gods - and I am fine with that. BTW, I noticed you cherry picked from some of the better greater gods there (and she is still on par with them)

She's got more hit points true, in that I've willfully broken the 400hp cap implied by the Deities and Demigods, but she is severely lacking in other areas compared to most of the deities.

I disagree with that assessment, but it doesn't really matter to me either.

Granted, I have tried to make her worthy of being a foe of a deity, but I've been in a party that probably could have killed this Tiamat. There are plenty of ways to get the expected damage of a high level fighter sub-classed or cavalier sub-classed character up into the 80's per round or higher using just the rules in the PH and UA. It's quite possible to take even this Tiamat and ginsu her into little bits in a single round. At high enough level, I fully expect even a non-optimized party to be able to defeat this Tiamat in 3-5 rounds.

Fortunately I have never played 1e that high level (or with UA), that sounds difficult to DM. However, if what you say is true, why are you so concerned about making her stronger? If a non-optimized party can take her down in 3-5 rounds, why all the fuss about taking her BW damage to 300? Or giving her the salient divine abilities? (she became officially a god as soon as 2e, if not sooner)

Anyway, the feedback is appreciated.

Your welcome, and it is just feedback. I think is work of your is great! No real need to change anything. Just different preferences and that is what rpgs are all about.

When I was researching this project, I asked people how many age categories they preferred, and no one could agree. Answers went from 3 to 12, and the answer I favored (10) was one of the least popular answers. I went with 10 anyway, because I couldn't think of a better approach. The results aren't perfect, but they are proving resilient to change because everything at this point is a trade off. If I change one area to make it more elegant, balanced, or closer to 1e, I seem to end up getting less elegant and balanced in others.

That is very true, design is full of trade-offs. Just realize any time "balance" is a question you have to frame it around what are you balancing against (what size, level, composition of party). Once you stray from those assumptions it becomes less balanced, and that is OK.

I will think about making Tiamat's heads huge versions of the races that they represent, but one trade off I don't like about that is that I kind of liked that her 5 most potent daughters where actually in various narrow ways more dangerous than she was, and so could reasonably plot to replace her. If she's just the sole uber-dragon, the right up of everything that is not the uber-dragon becomes less interesting.

Nah, they just have to scheme better - strike at the right moment as it were. Ever seen "Chronicles of Riddick"? It's all in the timing.

 

[Celebrim]

I wouldn't call it a sacred cow, just a personal preference.

I would tend to think of the 1e approach to breath weapons of them doing damage equal to the hit points of the dragon a 'sacred cow', because for the longest time that is just how it was and people didn't really question it. And departing from it is more than a personal preference. Indeed, you could say that part of the reason that I'm comfortable slaying this sacred cow, is that pretty much everyone that has seriously considered this question has realized you had to depart from it and we are comfortable with butchering that cow because we've since realized that it wasn't good for the game.

I also don't think your approach makes the game better for me, but it works for you and that's great!

Here you are suggesting that this is all entirely subjective, and I don't agree. There might not be 'one true way', but there are definitely things that make the game better. When you say this or that "works for you", are you really thinking how it will work for you when you are a 9th level cleric in a real and tangible PC party, having played your character for three years of blood, sweat, tears and laughter? Or is this all abstract and a feeling about what you would like that is untested against the reality of actually playing a game?

Fortunately I have never played 1e that high level (or with UA), that sounds difficult to DM.

Yes. Hence the reason I've been in several threads looking back and trying put forward a theory based on what I knew then, and what I've learned since them. I'm on the edge of running high level 3e play, and I'm looking at 3e and wondering what it might be like had 1e been written better in the first place and had 3e been trying to invent high level play from a better place than it started. At the same time, I'm thinking about both what I did write 30 years ago, and what I just didn't understand. So these are the dragons I wish I had had, and which I wish would have been the templates for dragons going forward into new editions so that we would always have had dragons 'right' and they could have been a bigger or better part of our play of a game that has them right in the title.

However, if what you say is true, why are you so concerned about making her stronger? If a non-optimized party can take her down in 3-5 rounds, why all the fuss about taking her BW damage to 300? Or giving her the salient divine abilities? (she became officially a god as soon as 2e, if not sooner)

Because theory crafting at least, I think she's pretty well balanced as is and I don't need to inflate her further to try to impress anyone. The point of her numbers is not chiefly to produce an effect on you when you read the stat block, but to produce an effect on play. And I've said repeatedly that what I'm trying to get away from is the over reliance on offensive punch that inflicts and infects so many 1e AD&D designs, and too many D&D designs period. And I happen to think that that problem in part comes from a conscious or unconscious tendency to want to impress and that typically it is offense and not defense that we deem the more impressive and first reach toward when imagining spectacle because it is the more active and obvious component of play.

The more her damage increases, the more any encounter with Tiamat depends entirely on the circumstances of it and the more binary the outcomes are likely to be. The 1e Tiamat is the poster child of that, with a creature whose breath weapons would threaten many gods, but which can be easily permanently slain by a not too optimized party of 6th or 7th level characters. Who goes firsts and under what circumstances is the entirety of the fight, and it all depends on what you call "scheming better", which is really just applying your system mastery against a DM that allows monsters to be passive foes - often because he wants to remove the possibility that he's using his out of game knowledge against the PCs (in that he knows their scheme). When an encounter depends entirely on a scheme, it is ultimately cinematically and narratively unsatisfying, and the soul satisfaction (if there is any) is in the self-satisfaction you have in the scheme. But honestly, after 10 years of that sort of play, even that wears on you, because it's not actually all that clever. It's just applying the gaps in the rules, and the sort of leverage you can get from using ill-thought out mechanics to gain an absolute advantage in a particular situation. After a while, it's sort of like the experience I had playing Half-life II. At first you think you are being clever. But then you realize that all the clever things you are doing are simply what the designers intended you to do and its all a bit of an illusion.

If I up the damage on the dragon breath weapons too much, all the implication of that is simply, "Don't fight dragons on fair terms. Figure out a way to win where the dragon can't meaningfully interact with you, because you don't dare interact with it." If the dragon breath weapon does so much damage it might as well be infinite, which is the obvious implication of a question like "why all the fuss about taking her BW damage to 300" (If 300, why not 360? Why not 400? Why not 500?), then the result isn't more of a fight but less of one. The PC's will simply find some advantage that they have over Tiamat which is so great that it might as well be infinite and exploit that.

But the ultimate thing that makes that uninteresting is not merely that it isn't as clever as a typical player thinks it is, but that an decent GM holds back from responding in kind. No GM that wants to keep his players plays the game with as ruthless bloody mindedness as his players, because the GM has infinite resources. If you make the way to play what you call "timing", then you as a GM must give up using that "timing" yourself. After all, any DM can arrange to kill a sleeping PC with the greatest ease, yet DMs almost never are ruthless in exploiting the PC's vulnerabilities simply because they can't be. At some point making the game all about commando strikes either excludes the DM from playing the game he is running, or forces the game to depend on illusionism where the DM eases up when he's winning. The drow commandos smashing through the windows of the inn, only to become mysterious bumblers and unruthless if the dice go their way sort of thing.

I guess what I'm saying, and this probably is arrogant, is that I've played this game at high level and you haven't and I don't really believe you know what "works for you". Someone like Lanefan on the other hand, has been there, and while his answers are different ones than mine, at least I can understand why he's giving them. Where as your critique seems to be something like, "But red dragon breath weapons being bigger than black dragon breath weapons is a sacred cow! It's always been that way. It doesn't need a reason beyond that." Yes, I know that. But I'm saying that's not necessarily the best design.