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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Things wrong with 4e: Dragons
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="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5897354" data-attributes="member: 6687664"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>4E dragons are as multidimensional as you make them. If you just consider them combat brutes, then that's all they'll be.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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".</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>It seems like you want the Monster Manual to be your adventure writer, and that's just not the purpose of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fenriswolf456, post: 5897354, member: 6687664"] 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Things wrong with 4e: Dragons
Top