D&D (2024) Check Out The New Monster Manual’s Ancient Gold Dragon

Wizards of the Coast has previewed (part of) the stat block for one of its iconic monsters on social media. Take a look!

 

[Sulicius]

Mostly because they prescribe a way the creature has to play. You can only use one per round (which may or may not be an issue) and only one of each per encounter. So if your encounter goes beyond 3 rounds you're screwed. Now can I compensate for these issues - yes, but why? They took legendary actions and just made them worse IME.

Eh, I think you misunderstood. Villain actions can be used multiple times per fight. I thought it would be weaker to only do something off-turn once, but it actually speeds up the game because I interrupt the turn flow less. My players enjoyed that too.
Listen, I don’t like everything about their design either, but they playtested their monsters a lot, and it shows. Even my players enjoyed them more. They keep performing well.

I still don't see how testing the dragon against level 20 PCs helps show that it cannot face level 17 PCs. There seems to be an obvious disconnect with that.

Friend, I am using the encounter building rules from the 2024 DMG to determine that a CR24 solo should be a high challenge encounter for 3 20th level characters. Of course I know better, but I need to test before I can be sure.

Classic? Sure. Have EVER worked well in the past 20 years of the game? Less so.

I know that, you know that, but it’s a new edition-ish and we can’t keep on saying that without testing.

 

[dave2008]

Eh, I think you misunderstood. Villain actions can be used multiple times per fight. I thought it would be weaker to only do something off-turn once, but it actually speeds up the game because I interrupt the turn flow less. My players enjoyed that too.
Listen, I don’t like everything about their design either, but they playtested their monsters a lot, and it shows. Even my players enjoyed them more. They keep performing well.

"Forzaantirilys has three villain actions. She can take each action
once during an encounter after an enemy’s turn. She can take
these actions in any order but can use only one per round."

I think you misunderstood. They can only take each one once per encounter. That is why I said they are screwed if the combat last more than 3 rounds. I know, I have played them RAW and that just doesn't work for how we play at high level. If a solo monster is only lasting 3 rounds at CR 24, then the monster doesn't work IMO.

Now, only having one off turn action actually does have some benefits. However, it has some cons too. I can achieve the same effect with Legendary Actions (a LA costing 3 actions), while offering flexibility of having other options. I think both options have their place, I think the best option is to have different monsters approach it different. That is possible with LA, but not really VA by RAW.

Now do I think WotC uses LA well, not really. However, I think the concept is superior to VA.

 

[Sulicius]

"Forzaantirilys has three villain actions. She can take each action
once during an encounter after an enemy’s turn. She can take
these actions in any order but can use only one per round."

I think you misunderstood. They can only take each one once per encounter. That is why I said they are screwed if the combat last more than 3 rounds. I know, I have played them RAW and that just doesn't work for how we play at high level. If a solo monster is only lasting 3 rounds at CR 24, then the monster doesn't work IMO.

Now, only having one off turn action actually does have some benefits. However, it has some cons too. I can achieve the same effect with Legendary Actions (a LA costing 3 actions), while offering flexibility of having other options. I think both options have their place, I think the best option is to have different monsters approach it different. That is possible with LA, but not really VA by RAW.

Now do I think WotC uses LA well, not really. However, I think the concept is superior to VA.

Whoops. I could have sworn I read otherwise. I just kept cycling through them. Yeah, if they don’t use them more than once, they are lackluster.

I totally agree with you then. Still, their numbers and design works a bit better in some cases. They deal a lot more damage, for a start.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

broom of flying

The dragon has a considerably higher fly speed than the broom, so it could stay out of melee range and snipe with its guiding bolts from 120 ft. Since it's only using legendries, it could even use it's action to dash for even more mobility.

And it could easily escape if seriously threatened.

 

[Sulicius]

The dragon has a considerably higher fly speed than the broom, so it could stay out of melee range and snipe with its guiding bolts from 120 ft. Since it's only using legendries, it could even use it's action to dash for even more mobility.

And it could easily escape if seriously threatened.

Yeah that’s something I could have done, but that would greatly decrease it’s damage per round. Also one of them had an ioun stone of absorption.

And it has word of recall, so I could have left any moment. Even better, I could have it submerged in the lava at the end of its turns.

I decided to fight it out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Also one of them had an ioun stone of absorption.

Did they also have a broom of flying? Even the most basic tactician knows about splitting enemy forces.

that would greatly decrease it’s damage per round.

It doesn't matter how much damage you do, just so long as it's more than the other fella (in relation to hit points).

You say the PCs won easily, but actually the dragon was holding back. It’s not a fair test unless everyone uses every tactic possible.

 

[Sulicius]

Did they also have a broom of flying? Even the most basic tactician knows about splitting enemy forces.

It doesn't matter how much damage you do, just so long as it's more than the other fella (in relation to hit points).

You say the PCs won easily, but actually the dragon was holding back. It’s not a fair test unless everyone uses every tactic possible.

No-one was using the best tactic possible. The fighter didn’t use maneuvers or even weapon mastery for most of her turns

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No-one was using the best tactic possible. The fighter didn’t use maneuvers or even weapon mastery for most of her turns

Not really a fair test then. But I can't see weapon masteries making much difference if the dragon keeps out of reach of the fighter.

 

[Upper_Krust]

No on both counts.

DC 24 CHA save Banish is broken when the character might very well have a +0 or +1 to that save.

1) If it is the culmination... then they used some of those resources before the fight. Which matters.

You never blow your most powerful abilities/spells until you need to.

2) You keep treating using a powerful high level spell to reverse the damage as equalling that damage being utterly meaningless. If I have forced you to use a 7th or 8th level spell, not to make progress against the dragon, but solely to not lose the fight... then my damage was meaningful, it was something to worry about. Because you used a powerful resource to counter it.

These are the fights you save them for. Epic Tier casters have two 6th and 7th and one 8th and 9th level spell, that's plenty.

"As long as we use some of our most powerful abilities that we've saved throughout this entire adventuring day, there is nothing to worry about" is a pretty blase take. I think maybe you just equate "Worry" with "panick!!!"? That is the only way I can make sense of this.

Backwards thinking. Against a CR 24 monster you will use "most powerful abilities" because the odds are that will be the most powerful monster you battle that day - that's what the most powerful abilities are for.

Adventuring day is some 'meta' nonsense I've never heard at the table. The players are there to win the encounter, but they'll know to save their best until the "Boss" makes an appearance.

So... what? Every monster should be designed to drop at least one PC to zero hp as the first and only encounter of the day, ignoring how people actually run the game? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

You are missing the obvious. This is a CR 24 monster. It represents ON ITS OWN a Highly Difficult encounter for:

5 x L17 PCs
4 x L18 PCs
4 x L19 PCs (in its lair)
3 x L20 PCs (in its lair)

CR 24 (and higher) is the definition of a Solo monster (for the epic tier).

A solo monster that represents a "Highly Difficult" challenge for an epic tier Party needs to be able to drop one per round to stand a fighting chance.

I'd probably say a CR 20 monster should be able to drop one Level 12-13 PC per round, I'd probably say a CR 16 monster should be able to drop a Level 6-7 PC per round.

CR 24 should be able to bring an epic tier PC to 0 hp in one turn. CR 28-30 should be able to drop almost two epic tier PCs every round.

It is literally the only thing you think is any challenge at all, and you want to "fix it" so that it isn't a challenge. Sure.

Broken rules should be fixed first, then you address the design issues to make encounters more fun.

I already posted a vastly superior (IMHO) design for a CR 24 dragon.

This doesn't address the point at all.

Again I disagree. Its basic math.

The XP budget for the Dragon allows for 3 Level 20 PCs in its lair. If the dragon can casually remove one of those PCs from the battle with virtually no chance of saving (without prep) then the XP Budget is WAAAAY off.

Absolutely not. Like, I'm stunned you even think this, I think it would be a hard fight, but occassionally taking the fighter out for a round or two is not going to turn this into an occasionally TPK.

The 'Tank' of the group is there to take the hits the others can't and keep fighting.

Yes, 100-20 is 80, that is how math works. But if you lose 20% of your health on a successful save, and you can face multiple attacks of the same damage a turn... that is something to be worried about, not scoffed at like you are literally immortal.

You need to play more Epic Tier.

Epic Tier PCs laughed at the 2014 Monster Manual monsters and on the basis of this preview (Broken Banish aside) they will be laughing at these Monsters as well.

So your argument just continually boils down to "only the fighter matters to this fight, no other character is capable of doing anything meaningful. Which.. is a take.

No, I am saying:

1. If you can auto-remove one character (likely before they can even act) the XP Budget is wonky.
2. The 'Tank' of the group (in a classic spread of classes) is there to take the hits the others cannot - by removing that character* you disproportionately reduce the overall party Hit Points AND take away the character with the best AC as well.

*Which we now realise with the Fighter they cannot because of the 2024 Indomitable change.

 

[Upper_Krust]

It seems particularly contained to dragons too. It feels like WotC did it in the 2014 MM (for some unknown reason) and everyone just decided to copy it. Whenever I look at monster book, I check out the dragons and I know they have phoned it in if they copy this type of damage.

Yes its extremely disappointing...we will see if the 'mighty' Tarrasque suffers the same fate in a few weeks.