D&D 4E Things wrong with 4e: Dragons

[jadrax]

Personally, blue electric dragons in a desert? Dont get it.

yeah, the ham-fisted attempt to try and limit Dragons to various terrain types is not something I have much time for.

 

[SkidAce]

Bears should have their own entry IMHO because the MM is part of a toolkit to build my world.

Bears may be "window dressing*" in one campaign, and a significant player in another.


*not putting words in mouths or slamming, either usage of bears is up to DM.

 

[steeldragons]

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.

I don't think I've ever, in my gaming life, encountered or used a blue dragon in a desert.

I'm really psyched that you get so psyhed about the fluffy bits and that, apparently blue dragons casting illusions is a pinnavcle example of that.

But I haven't seen it in any of my playing.

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.

I think this is a grand assumption that does not happen to be true in actuality.

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.

So, basically, I get to use everything in the monster manual once? Or is it assumed that every time you encounter a "ghoul warren" or a "kobold mine" they are going to laid out exactly the same? Why not just make a "generic" lair that every single adventure can happen in? blech.

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).

Yyyyyeah. I'm not really likin' this.

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.

Soooo, the only things in the Monster manual should be "anchor monsters", with 6 to 8 pages each entry (?!) around which you can build a whole adventure?

No...No sir. I don't like it.

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.

So every time you encounter a beetle the whole group can moan and groan that "we're gonna fall into another orc den"? I really really think this is a bad idea. I see what it is trying to do...and I can appreciate it. Make a "Book of Lairs" or some supplement-thing like that. But it is NOT what I want to see nor should be how the Monster Manual is laid out.

Just mho.--SD

 

[fenriswolf456]

Now you're starting to see how my issues were linked to the monster philosophy of 4e. Dragons in 4e fail for me because they don't present a multidimensional antagonist. They're not a multidimensional antagonist because 4e decided that the only point of monsters was to fight them.

I'd agree with you to an extent. The focus was shifted towards encounters and combat. But I'd more say that they just didn't want to tell you how to run your non-combat encounters.

4E dragons are as multidimensional as you make them. If you just consider them combat brutes, then that's all they'll be.

That's not true for me.

Creatures in D&D serve only one purpose: to provide the elements of an interesting game.

They can do this by being combat antagonists, but they can also do this by being enigmas, by being potential allies, by being in interesting areas, by being interesting characters, or in a hundred other ways.

Sure, and you don't need stat blocks to tell you how to do this. They could certainly provide some basic generalized/stereotypical information on say personality and such, but really, this should be up to the DM and the story they want to tell.

Want your dragon to be sneaky and conniving, role-play it that way. Want it to be confident and over-bearing ... role-play it that way. 4E just puts it in your hands, rather than telling you that "blue dragons are sneaky and conniving".

Dragons specifically serve a few secondary purposes. For one, they are an iconic representation of the D&D brand -- right in the name. For another, they are quintessential villains. For a third, they are major powers in the worlds they exist in.

In 5e, I'd imagine that a dragon can serve as an antagonist on all 3 pillars. I'd also imagine that WotC could provide me with actual information for using them in ways other than as combat engines.

Combat is not enough for me. I need more. Out of the box. And WotC could provide it.

But you want to do it without doing any prep for it. Which WotC can certainly do ... in the form of modules, or specific books like the Draconomicons.

For myself at least, a Monster Manual is a reference resource, either for modules or my own created encounters. Perhaps, if the online resources become more easily accessible, there won't even be a need for Monster Manuals, and maybe there will be a greater focus on Encounters rather than Monsters.

I've attached a PDF of a quick mock-up Kobold entry that's something vaguely like what I'd like the MM to give me. Add an illustration or two and a lair map, maybe some treasure information, maybe format it in a way that's a little easier to use, but basically, this.

FWIW, that's 11 stat blocks (6 of them traps, but still...) on 6 pages. 7-8 maybe if you add illos and a map. And then you probably wouldn't have separate entries for things like Dire Rats.

The mock-up entry was interesting, and I can see some value in parts of it as part of a MM entry. I can appreciate what you want out of they entry, but I don't believe that it's the place of a compendium of monsters to basically have full blown encounters written up for each creature, mainly because to do so would mean a lot of core books, of which a large section of the community won't use. The issue is space. Your 6-8 pages of Kobolds could be instead 3-4 pages of Kobolds and 3-4 pages for something else. People like options and variety, even if they don't use it all.

The Adventure Hooks work. Allies and Traps should be reference lines to where the items can be found, much like the Encounter Groups in 4E entries. The general information on lairs and attitude work as well.

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.

But you could say the same for the 4E dragon. You've just preferred the illusionist blue dragon over the lightning blue dragon, which is fair enough. But it doesn't make the 4E blue dragon unusable, just that it doesn't invoke in you any ideas of how to use it.

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.

But really, the majority of DMs are likely to have all this prepared beforehand. They've sketched out their dragon lair, put in their traps and minor encounters.

The issue also becomes apparent when creature stat blocks are getting repeated over and over. That takes up space. While it's certainly convenient to have it all right there on one page, when you're looking at production costs and player demand, it makes better sense to give the Dire Rats their own entry (for those who just want to use dire rats), and just list the creature under those that would be associated with the rats (like Kobolds, and Goblins, and Wererats, and whatever else).

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.

But now you're being subjective. Bears aren't interesting to you, but that doesn't mean they're not interesting to others. I have a bear encounter coming up in my campaign. Just bears. A mother and cubs. I want to be able to flip to the Bear page, not scour through trying to remember if they ally with orcs or kobolds, or if its Mielikki or Sylvanus or Malar that is the god that uses them.

It seems like you want the Monster Manual to be your adventure writer, and that's just not the purpose of it.