D&D General can we make better dragons?

[dave2008]

For @Neonchameleon here is what a 5e Ancient red can do if you add lair actions to legendary actions:


On turn:
frightful presence + claw/claw/bite or fire breath or tail attack

Off turn :
Make a perception check
Tail attack
Wing attack, which also allows it to move half its speed (40 ft.)
Magma Eruption: 5ft. radius w/in 120 ft. for 6d6 fire damage
Tremors: 60 ft radius save or knocked prone
Volcanic gasses: 20-ft sphere w/in 120 ft., poisoned and incapacitated

vs 4e red dragon (MM):

On turn:
make 2 claw attacks or bite or immolate foe (fire + ongoing fire damage) or breath weapon or frightful presence

Off turn:
Tail strike (if a creature flanks the dragon)
breath weapon (1 when bloodied)

To me, the 5e version is, with my tweak (but is in the MM), more interesting.

A big issue with the 4e version is that it has so few options in a give round. One or two actions on its turn and then only the possibility of an off turn action. The RAW 5e version can take up to 3 different actions on its turn + it always has the option to take at least two different actions off turn. This means each round the 5e dragon can do up to 5 different actions (and 7 total actions) each round vs only a max of 2 actions, with the possibility of 3 actions for the 4e dragon. I find the more options per round more interesting in play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

OK, that is normally abbreviated as PHB. However, I don't understand the logic of putting monsters in the PHB and not the MM, could you explain further?

A full 36 (!!) of its abilities are in the PH instead of the MM. so the majority of the monster proper (granted, most of which it will never in ten thousand years use and should not have been part of the statblock) are already in the PH, so you might as well put the whole monster there.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

I'm afraid I got half way through that statblock, threw up in my mouth a little, and decided that there wasn't a single chance of me ever using Niv-Mizzet while making it unlikely I'd even look at Ravnica.

The reason's simple. "Niv-Mizzet is a 20th-level Izzet spellcaster. ... He has the following wizard spells prepared..." No. Not only is a long spell list homogenising blandness, frequently overshadowing almost everything else they could do but it's a serious nuisance to prepare as GM and gives me far too much to juggle.

If you want a spellcaster give me a few combat spells - and put the combat effect into their statblock. And that would also allow him e.g. a personalized version of counterspell.

I wholeheartedly agree with this for monsters in general. Official monster stat blocks tend to add in a lot of spells that won't even come into play in 99% of games, and they end up giving the DM way too much to decide upon. If you include, say, fireball in the spell list, that's likely the spell that will be cast most of the time so just create a "fireball" action and be done with it.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

A full 36 (!!) of its abilities are in the PH instead of the MM. so the majority of the monster proper (granted, most of which it will never in ten thousand years use and should not have been part of the statblock) are already in the PH, so you might as well put the whole monster there.

About a third of every single monster stat block — ability scores, hit points, saving throws, skills, languages, etc. — is from the PHB so I guess we should put every single monster in the Player's Handbook?

Better yet, they should have just forgotten about three separate core books and done a single Cyclopedia like they did for Basic!

 

[dave2008]

A full 36 (!!) of its abilities are in the PH instead of the MM. so the majority of the monster proper (granted, most of which it will never in ten thousand years use and should not have been part of the statblock) are already in the PH, so you might as well put the whole monster there.

Ya, that didn't help. I really do not understand your reasoning. One of the big reason monsters are in a different books is so that they aren't available to players. Also, most of a monsters abilities are not in the PHB. In fact none of a standard dragons are. I just don't really understand what your suggesting.

 

[dave2008]

I wholeheartedly agree with this for monsters in general. Official monster stat blocks tend to add in a lot of spells that won't even come into play in 99% of games, and they end up giving the DM way too much to decide upon. If you include, say, fireball in the spell list, that's likely the spell that will be cast most of the time so just create a "fireball" action and be done with it.

I like the having the flavor of the spell lists. The new paradigm is indeed to included one spell in the actions section (usually an at-will spell). I prefer this approach, but for monsters that are primarily spell casters I would included any spell the figures into its CR in its "Actions," while maintaining the full list of possible spells. Some DMs know the spell list forwards and backwards (I am not one of those) and the list gives them everything the need.

 

[Yaarel]

The essence of the reallife archetype of a "dragon" is, it is a kind of snake.

• The "Classical" ancient West Asian dragon is a blend of snake with lion and eagle.
• The British dragon seems to me to be moreso a blend of snake with wolf and bat, fiery venom. (Some include fish.)
• The Norse dragon is the European Adder (silver and black, with female bronzy) with V-horns, with lion and eagle, icy venom.
• The East Asian dragon is a blend of snake and various animals, especially fish, head of camel, and horns of deer.

The western version tend to conflate phobias, such as snakes, predators, fire, and so on.

Snake as a monstrous serpent is the essence.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

This conversation reminds me of the "Mummy Lord" discussion about how clean a monster statblock should be. The picture here is pretty in favor of the 4e style for the amount of page-flipping you have to do to run a monster from the book. Do excuse posting an old Twitter link:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2vXD6vUUAM5yAx?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

 

[Yaarel]

The Norse dragon has two arms, and slithers while upright, and no legs. Rarely, some sprout wings which seem as if evolved legs.
The British dragon includes two arms, two legs, and two wings.
The East Asian dragon is a snake with four legs.
The West Asian dragon is also a snake with four legs. But certain creatures that could be draconic seem like lion with wings.

All of them have scales and serpentine tails. (East Asian is fish scales. The others are snake scales.)

 

[Yaarel]

I'm afraid I got half way through that statblock, threw up in my mouth a little, and decided that there wasn't a single chance of me ever using Niv-Mizzet while making it unlikely I'd even look at Ravnica.

The reason's simple. "Niv-Mizzet is a 20th-level Izzet spellcaster. ... He has the following wizard spells prepared..." No. Not only is a long spell list homogenising blandness, frequently overshadowing almost everything else they could do but it's a serious nuisance to prepare as GM and gives me far too much to juggle.

If you want a spellcaster give me a few combat spells - and put the combat effect into their statblock. And that would also allow him e.g. a personalized version of counterspell.

This simplicity can be done by only listing the "typical" spells that the creature is likely to cast in combat, with the spell descriptions without needing to look up a spell. Only if the DM wants to swap in other spells, the DM can do the reference work.