Which edition had the best dragons?

[AverageMojito]

That's because dragons in 4e were designed to be uniquely different from one another. Plus, its easy to lift specific actions or traits from one to another. Behold

View attachment 152768

Not quite a lurker though. I see no ability to fade out. They are more striker than anything else, with all that ongoing damage and forced vulnerability. But since striker was a PC role, maybe they fit more as artillery?

Regardless, it looks solid. The dragon is throwing acid all around all the time, even when they are being attacked. Cool. And that free charge is great to reach the backliners.

I must admit I lack the energy to run such a heavyweight game as 4e nowadays (high numbers etc.), but the Essentials line seems really elegant. I didn't play it. I stopped at PHB1. A more compact build (much less levels, e.g.) with those abilities and options sounds real nice.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Not quite a lurker though. I see no ability to fade out. They are more striker than anything else, with all that ongoing damage and forced vulnerability. But since striker was a PC role, maybe they fit more as artillery?

It is aquatic and has a high skill modifier in stealth. The dragon would ideally spring out of the water and wreak havoc for a couple rounds, then retreat back into the pool or lake where the party loses sight of it.

Roles for monsters functioned differently than for PCs. They informed the DM how a monster would be most effective in a tactical situation. PC roles were a little more broad, allowing for character options and class abilities to define how characters could perform their role.

I must admit I lack the energy to run such a heavyweight game as 4e nowadays (high numbers etc.), but the Essentials line seems really elegant. I didn't play it. I stopped at PHB1. A more compact build (much less levels, e.g.) with those abilities and options sounds real nice.

Essentials really did a great job of paring things down into a clean and easy version of the game. This was especially evident in the monster designs that were much more manageable, easier to read and run at the table. It's a shame they didn't gave us a few more products that would have converted some older content to match improved standards, like the original classes and more monsters.

 

[AverageMojito]

It is aquatic and has a high skill modifier in stealth. The dragon would ideally spring out of the water and wreak havoc for a couple rounds, then retreat back into the pool or lake where the party loses sight of it.

Oh, I get that. What I think is missing from its abilities is what could be found in many lower level lurkers. A simple ability (not relying on GM rolling skills) to fade away. Lurkers usually could camouflage themselves among their allies or the batttlefield itself, making it hard to pinpoint them with single target attacks. I suppose with a solo monster, that's a bit harder to do. Still, there could some sort of misdirection there, like a shifting image or whatever.

For clarification, I don't mean the GM shouldn't play a monster smart just because it has no ability X or Y in its stats block. I'm talking strictly about common 4e stat blocks (IME, ofc). Having played (GMed, actually) a bit of 4e, mostly at heroic tier, it immediately caught my eyes that the dragon was "missing" a kind of ability I remembered using a lot with lurkers. It was usually right there, a redirect attack ability, or a free camouflage action, or a quick trick to force PCs away from the monster itself etc.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Essentials really did a great job of paring things down into a clean and easy version of the game. This was especially evident in the monster designs that were much more manageable, easier to read and run at the table. It's a shame they didn't gave us a few more products that would have converted some older content to match improved standards, like the original classes and more monsters.

Have you heard of Orcus the 4e retroclone? Maybe they did the conversion of the older classes?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Have you heard of Orcus the 4e retroclone? Maybe they did the conversion of the older classes?

I can appreciate the amount of work that was put into it, but it doesn't appeal to me. I have other ideas.

 

[Undrave]

I never played 4e so that is quite interesting evolution. While I like the trigger, the fact that it is only using the tail under that scenario seems off.

Note that in 4e, you get a Reaction by TURN and not by ROUND, so that dragon could use it's tail against the whole party if they all moved on their turn.

If the dragon is hitting you 3 squares away making it a claw doesn't make sense without a lot of justification (dragon saw you leaving, pounced over to your position, hit you with one claw, then returned to its original position, without skipping a beat). In any case a claw or a bite would be different damage.

The claws and bites already have a reach of melee 3. Also, 4e doesn't make distinction between mundane damage. A sword, a spear and a hammer just inflict damage.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Oh, I get that. What I think is missing from its abilities is what could be found in many lower level lurkers. A simple ability (not relying on GM rolling skills) to fade away. Lurkers usually could camouflage themselves among their allies or the batttlefield itself, making it hard to pinpoint them with single target attacks. I suppose with a solo monster, that's a bit harder to do. Still, there could some sort of misdirection there, like a shifting image or whatever.

Sure, I can see that. And yeah, it's kind of difficult to pull off a fun encounter against a boss-level monster that just disappears itself every other turn. Lurkers are typically grouped with other monsters that can distract and occupy the PCs during a fight to allow the lurkers to reposition themselves for their next ambush.

As far as a lack of certain powers are concerned, I personally find it refreshing when it isn't always served on a silver platter but the information is right there, hiding in plain sight. Just knowing that the role is "Lurker", I already have an idea what the general strategies of the creature will most likely use during combat. The fact that it has the aquatic trait (which is spelled out in the stat block rather than forcing me to look it up somewhere in another part of the book), has use charge as a free action at the start of its turn, and has a high skill modifier for stealth, all paints a pretty clear picture for me. Monster roles would have been a great benefit to any edition as a DM tool, and something I think many fans miss a lot about 4th Edition.

 

[Undrave]

Oh, I get that. What I think is missing from its abilities is what could be found in many lower level lurkers. A simple ability (not relying on GM rolling skills) to fade away. Lurkers usually could camouflage themselves among their allies or the batttlefield itself, making it hard to pinpoint them with single target attacks. I suppose with a solo monster, that's a bit harder to do. Still, there could some sort of misdirection there, like a shifting image or whatever.

There's the Shroud of Gloom ability that inflicts a penalty to attack. And they can use their free action charge to spring from the cover of water, then slink away on their turn.

 

[Mannahnin]

4E and 2E, for the reasons discussed above.

4E gave them lots of characterful options and (for the first time, I believe) off-turn actions and Reactions.

2E gave them significant buffs over 1E (higher HD and damage), and added wing buffets and tail sweeps and such for the first time (officially, anyway. I think they had been optional rules in Dragon Magazine first). Rather than just claw/bite like so many monsters, with their breath weapon really being the main special feature in OD&D and 1E.

I'll give the edge to 4E because I don't like how first-strike variable dragons are in OD&D & AD&D. When the damage output for their breath weapon can vary from "bearable" to "practically guaranteed TPK" based on who gets initiative, for me that's a bit of a design flaw.

 

[el-remmen]

I'd say 2E. They have the range of use depending on age category for different levels but also got pretty big and scary for high level play. 2E also introduced all the different kinds of attacks I was already using in 1E (tail attack, wing attack, etc. . )