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!

 

[Upper_Krust]

I am pretty confident the damage will be bigger than the dragon, but still to low. The 2014 could make 8 attacks in a round. Each attack can't do enough damage, IMO, if you are dividing its DPR by 8.

CR 30 DPR should be around 325 ish in my opinion. Off the top of my head...

Actions (Bite + Claw + Tail)
Bite: 210 (20d10 + 10 maximised) slashing + sharpness (on a 20) + swallow or toss 100 ft. vs. Huge size or smaller target (50% chance of either).
Claw: 80 (20d6 + 10) slashing.
Tail: 100 (20d8 + 10) bludgeoning + CON save or be stunned

I'll keep the Ranged attack to myself since I have the Tarrasque in my book - albeit not at CR 30.

Reactions:
Legendary Resistance: 3/day
Roar (Recharge 5-6): WIS save all targets in a mile or be Frightened, fail by 5 and also weakened (save ends)
Rush: Moves its speed trampling all targets in its path 55 (10d8 + 10) bludgeoning + prone

Bite 120 (before maximised* ) + 80 + 100 + 55 = 355...close enough.

*I'd consider a special ability that applies after the target DPR.

Would be in that sort of neighbourhood.

Edit: Maybe throw in a Gore attack against similarly sized monsters. The Gore would deal Bleeding damage.

 

[Upper_Krust]

The trouble with monsters that hit like a brick outhouse is that if the party lose initiative that's one PC dead, even if they eventually win.

1. Statistically speaking unless you give a monster a ridiculous Initiative Bonus its very unlikely it will win against all the party.
2. Dropping an Epic Tier PC to 0 HP is unlikely to be the last we see of them in the fight...and that's why the monsters need to hit hard.
3. High damage is one thing, but in this scenario the monster still needs to hit with its attacks and likely all against one character to drop them.

The banish thing is intended to take a party member out without actually killing them.

Yes its very annoying.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes its very annoying.

Why? Characters dying as a result of a bad dice roll really isn't fun. If they die it should be the result of a tactical blunder.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Perhaps on the monster design side, but not on character design side. Characters had a lot of powers that required several foes to be used or at least to be effective. And as every power was independent instead of using some shared pool of uses, if you had many of such powers and faced a solo foe your "power budget" for the encounter was cut significantly.

Maybe because its been 10 years since I played 4E, I am losing the gist of your point here amigo...

Are you saying 4E Solo monsters were less effective vs. the Party or more effective?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe because its been 10 years since I played 4E, I am losing the gist of your point here amigo...

Are you saying 4E Solo monsters were less effective vs. the Party or more effective?

It depended entirely whether the party had single target powers or multi target powers. And in the latter case not being to use most of your powers is not a fun sort of difficult as a player.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Why? Characters dying as a result of a bad dice roll really isn't fun.

If the monster should do 'x' damage to meet its DPR target then I don't consider a PC dying because the monster dealt a lot of damage "bad dice rolls".

Statistically it might be "unlucky" for all the monster's attacks to land, or maybe it gets one big crit in.

But I think in terms of a "Highly Difficult" encounter a solo monster DPR target should be dropping the average PC if everything lands. Hence the reason the more fragile PCs (like Wizards) usually 'stand at the back'.

If they die it should be the result of a tactical blunder.

...or they chose to stand and fight a monster that outclasses them instead of retreat.

 

[Upper_Krust]

It depended entirely whether the party had single target powers or multi target powers. And in the latter case not being to use most of your powers is not a fun sort of difficult as a player.

Surely the onus was on the player to pick their Class (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker) and choose powers appropriately.

Obviously a mix of classes are better 'all round' whereas 4 Strikers maybe make mince meat of a Solo monster but struggle against larger groups.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Surely the onus was on the player to pick their Class (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker) and choose powers appropriately.

Obviously a mix of classes are better 'all round' whereas 4 Strikers maybe make mince meat of a Solo monster but struggle against larger groups.

I just think it is bad design. It was long time ago, but I think I played a whirlwind barbarian. A lot "hit one enemy, move, hit another enemy" type of powers. And whilst fighting solos, most of my encounter stuff did nothing. It was boring, unfun. I just think design where there is a shared pool (spell slots, superiority dice etc) that the powers use and can be used multiple times if needed is far better system. Then if you have at least one power that is usable in the situation you're not locked out of most of your power budget.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I just think it is bad design. It was long time ago, but I think I played a whirlwind barbarian. A lot "hit one enemy, move, hit another enemy" type of powers. And whilst fighting solos, most of my encounter stuff did nothing. It was boring, unfun. I just think design where there is a shared pool (spell slots, superiority dice etc) that the powers use and can be used multiple times if needed is far better system. Then if you have at least one power that is usable in the situation you're not locked out of most of your power budget.

It sounds a lot like the class you were playing was not for you. If you weren't having fun with that class and the other players were having fun with theirs, maybe it just wasn't the class for you.

I loved playing my Ranger in 4E...played it all the way to Level 30. I had powers for Crowd Control and powers for bigger Solo targets. I never felt less effective against one or the other.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

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.


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.

I don't care if you have them, or you saved them for the occasion. "I needed to use an 8th level spell to keep my party from dying" =/= "That attack was utterly trivial and no threat to the party". If it was no threat, why did you need a powerful spell to counter it?

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.

No, it shouldn't. Heck, check out MonsterEnvy's test: D&D (2024) - Testing against the Gold Dragon

PCs aren't doing so great, and yet not a single one of them has been dropped yet. The idea that a CR 30 should almost drop 2 PCs a turn is absurd, because most tables have only 4 PCs. That means that you are saying that the Tarrasque or Titan monsters should WIN against a level 20 party in two turns. That's not fun for anyone. Especially since you mean that they should be able to do so WHILE overcoming the counter-abilities from the party, because if the Cleric can heal the party up from that damage then it doesn't count.

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.

But the DC 24 Fire Breath isn't broken, despite having the same high DC. In fact, you believe the Fire Breath to be weak and trivial.

So it isn't the DC that is the problem...

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

... is that it? That's your entire argument for why removing one PC makes the fight a guaranteed TPK? Because tanks are meant to take hits?

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.

They laughed because

1) Feats and Magic Items were not accounted for
2) People kept trying to have solo fights without strong lieutenants and minion.

And you are missing a LOT of design if you think PCs are going to be laughing at the new monsters. These things are going to be wrecking house.

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.

Remove temporarily. They can remove a character from the fight TEMPORARILY. The fighter keeps showing back up after being banished. So you still have to defeat them. You aren't banishing them and then they are gone forever. It is a delay tactic.