D&D 5E What belongs in a $50 PHB?

[DMZ2112]

Problem is that without spells dragons have hardly much ability to affect the world except for the BBEG approach of sitting in a place and attacking anyone who comes close. It also makes them more like sitting ducks for well prepared adventurers if you run combat as war.

As I said before I'm torn on this point... on the one hand, I think dragons ought to be able to do whatever the dungeon master needs them to do, but on the other I fully acknowledge that's stepping into "you're dead because I said so" territory.

Not that there's anything wrong with dungeon master fiat, but it's just so much more satisfying to crush players' dreams with the RAW.

 

[Derren]

I don't know, being the most powerful, fearsome and intelligent being around should give you the ability to affect the world. A random list of wizard spells x/day doesn't do that.


This more an issue of 'economy of actions' rather than the lack of spells. Dragons that can't do lots of stuff on their turn (and not on their turn ) are going to get slaughtered.

Raw strength only get you so far.
And its not about direct combat. Spells are not needed for that, but about indirect warfare. Poisoning nearby water sources, spreading disease among the animals, blocking the lair exits with magic (directly or indirectly by causing landslides, etc.). The dragon either needs a massive network of underlings to deal with that, having the danger of making the dragon into a glorified guard dog for the real masters, or magic.

 

[Mistwell]

I prefer dragons have some spells. Fortunately, all you need to do is just give them spells. I'll probably toss my players some extra xp when they defeat such a dragon. Done and done.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Raw strength only get you so far.
And its not about direct combat. Spells are not needed for that, but about indirect warfare. Poisoning nearby water sources, spreading disease among the animals, blocking the lair exits with magic (directly or indirectly by causing landslides, etc.). The dragon either needs a massive network of underlings to deal with that, having the danger of making the dragon into a glorified guard dog for the real masters, or magic.

Well yes, but this is just playing a dragon intelligently, rather than wasting it as just a another monster to kill.
I suppose a dragons' spell-like abilities are a nudge to get DMs to play dragons smarter - but in every past edition (except maybe 4th) Dragons have been too weak as written and too easily nullified by action-denial.

 

[pemerton]

Problem is that without spells dragons have hardly much ability to affect the world except for the BBEG approach of sitting in a place and attacking anyone who comes close. It also makes them more like sitting ducks for well prepared adventurers if you run combat as war.

The dragon either needs a massive network of underlings <snip> having the danger of making the dragon into a glorified guard dog for the real masters, or magic.

Does this generalise to all non-casters?

its not about direct combat. Spells are not needed for that, but about indirect warfare. Poisoning nearby water sources, spreading disease among the animals, blocking the lair exits with magic (directly or indirectly by causing landslides, etc.).

Where is this conception of dragons coming from? When I think "dragon" I think Smaug, or Glaurung, or St George. Not spreading disease among animals and casting Wall of Force on their lair exits.

Ah, guess that can't cheer Derren up about 5E, then.

You seem to have been correct about this.

 

[Derren]

Does this generalise to all non-casters?

Most other casters have the added benefit of tools, usable (social) skills and a society where they can use them in order to tackle this problems. Most dragons do not. It is even arguable if they have opposable thumbs for very simple manipulation.[/quote]

Where is this conception of dragons coming from? When I think "dragon" I think Smaug, or Glaurung, or St George. Not spreading disease among animals and casting Wall of Force on their lair exits.

It is your choice when you play your characters "stupid" by attacking the strong points of your enemies instead of their weaknesses. But don't assume everyone does that.

 

[pemerton]

Where is this conception of dragons coming from? When I think "dragon" I think Smaug, or Glaurung, or St George. Not spreading disease among animals and casting Wall of Force on their lair exits.

It is your choice when you play your characters "stupid" by attacking the strong points of your enemies instead of their weaknesses. But don't assume everyone does that.

You didn't actually answer my question. Where is this conception of dragon's coming from? (It seems to have little in common with Tolkien's dragons, or Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea dragons, or European fairy tale dragons.)

 

[Derren]

You didn't actually answer my question. Where is this conception of dragon's coming from? (It seems to have little in common with Tolkien's dragons, or Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea dragons, or European fairy tale dragons.)

What concept do you mean exactly? "Non tool using dragon without minions"? You already mentioned Smaug and all the other "European fairy tale dragons" would also fit.

 

[howandwhy99]

A $20 store credit coupon?

 

[pemerton]

What concept do you mean exactly?

The conception of dragons that you are espousing: that dragons must be spell users who engage in "indirect warfare. Poisoning nearby water sources, spreading disease among the animals, blocking the lair exits with magic (directly or indirectly by causing landslides, etc.)."