Answering Questions about Draconomicon: Metallic Dragons (was: Primal Power Preview)

[Peraion Graufalke]

Derren like a couple others carry an edition war banner and fly it high with every post. I consider that dismissive in an ongoing fashion.

Well, there's always the option to put him on the ignore list.

On the other hand, maybe one the mods could have a word with him?

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, there's always the option to put him on the ignore list.

Well, he's on my ignore list since the 3E days (even back then, he was dismissing everyone's opinions about anything related to dragons).

So, everything would be fine - if people stopped quoting the guy all the time!

 

[ferratus]

His bodyguards should not simply be an encounter power of Bahamut himself, but separate creatures which can be encountered with him (then the players are in trouble) or alone.

You can't find stats for a Gold Dragon? The whole point of the stat block is that represents a time when Bahamut is surrounded by his Gold Dragon Emissaries. If you want to play a cat and mouse game in which you pick off the gold dragons one by one, just pick up the MM2 or use the Rules Compendium.

You really don't get that 4e mechanics are supposed to be what happens in a scenario, not the complete mechanics of what characters/monsters are able to do at any given moment. I don't understand why you can't understand this, as it has been explained countless times.

 

[MrMyth]

No, not really. The one-use great wyrm items are so far away from the stats of real dragons that there is no way to hide the silliness of this mechanic.

There is no way 'for you' to hide the silliness of this mechanic. Clearly, many other DMs feel differently, and feel they are entirely capable of doing so, and you really aren't in a position to speak on their behalf. Or to imply that it only works if their players are drunk.

I mean, I genuinely am sorry that you don't feel you are a capable enough DM to pull this off. But one of the best parts of 4E has been given the DM the ability to weave together imagination, description and powers into a seamless whole. I admit some situations are more challenging than others, but it clearly is doable, and claiming otherwise is simply a dismissal of the accomplishments of a lot of skilled DMs out there.

His bodyguards should not simply be an encounter power of Bahamut himself, but separate creatures which can be encountered with him (then the players are in trouble) or alone. That way the players have to figure out how to separate Bahamut from his bodyguards. Tiamats consort is also not just another one use power in her statblock.
Would you make an army an encounter power for a BBEG so that the PCs don't have to think of a way to get the BBEG without his men supporting him?

Yeah, uh... you are aware that you can, in fact, run the dragons precisely that way. Have the PCs fight them one at a time. But I'm guessing they feel that fighting a bunch of gold dragons in a row wouldn't be very good game design, and so didn't go that route. That doesn't mean you can't if you want to. But establishing that as the default - that Bahamut always has these allies, and that either the PCs fight them as a group (a terrible, terrible idea) or that they have to lure them away (removing them as a part of the encounter anyway)... yeah, that's just a bad idea, and bad design, no matter how you look at it.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

happy for seeing the canaries back in the game

 

[Garthanos]

Pointless post removed.

 

[Rechan]

Can we get back to the book and away from dragonhate?

 

[Derren]

he's dismissing a DM's ability to take the mechanic and make it as epic and cinematic as they want.

No. "Epic" and "Cinematic" has nothing to do with something being silly or not (Not completely correct. "Cinematic" and "Silly" very often go hand in hand). DMs making a combat with a deity cinematic should be pretty normal. That still doesn't change that the one use canaries are silly when you assume that thos canaries are his bodyguards (which is heavily implied).

I mean, I genuinely am sorry that you don't feel you are a capable enough DM to pull this off. But one of the best parts of 4E has been given the DM the ability to weave together imagination, description and powers into a seamless whole. I admit some situations are more challenging than others, but it clearly is doable, and claiming otherwise is simply a dismissal of the accomplishments of a lot of skilled DMs out there.

Only when the players don't look close enough. If they don't then 4e can of course be used to creating cinematic scenes, likely better than in previous editions. But when they start to look behind the cinematic effects they fill find silly mechanics. Some players care and some don't. I do care, not by choice, but because thats simply how I work. And thus I have a hard time understanding why someone would defend such a silly mechanic.

Yeah, uh... you are aware that you can, in fact, run the dragons precisely that way. Have the PCs fight them one at a time. But I'm guessing they feel that fighting a bunch of gold dragons in a row wouldn't be very good game design, and so didn't go that route. That doesn't mean you can't if you want to. But establishing that as the default - that Bahamut always has these allies, and that either the PCs fight them as a group (a terrible, terrible idea) or that they have to lure them away (removing them as a part of the encounter anyway)... yeah, that's just a bad idea, and bad design, no matter how you look at it.

Except thats exactly what they did. Bahamut does always have this allies as default. Its just that their power varies considerably, depending on if they are encountered with Bahamut or alone.
In my eyes that is bad mechanic.

To make it make sense you either have to alter Bahamut or alter the fluff text of the bodyguards (the likely route to go). But as written by WotC its just silly.

And to try to get this thing semi on topic again. Subdual encounters look ok. Nice to see this implemented as more of a code of honour than a hard mechanic.

 

[vagabundo]

Only when the players don't look close enough. If they don't then 4e can of course be used to creating cinematic scenes, likely better than in previous editions. But when they start to look behind the cinematic effects they fill find silly mechanics. Some players care and some don't. I do care, not by choice, but because thats simply how I work. And thus I have a hard time understanding why someone would defend such a silly mechanic..

You're wrong; it is an awesome mechanic. I don't have any problems with this mechanic, it is awesome to me and not in the slightest bit silly.

 

[MrMyth]

Only when the players don't look close enough. If they don't then 4e can of course be used to creating cinematic scenes, likely better than in previous editions. But when they start to look behind the cinematic effects they fill find silly mechanics. Some players care and some don't. I do care, not by choice, but because thats simply how I work. And thus I have a hard time understanding why someone would defend such a silly mechanic.

Here is the main problem with your viewpoint - it isn't that some players recognize silly mechanics and don't care. It is that some players (read: many players) don't believe that those mechanics are silly. You do. I disagree. Clearly others in this thread do so. Most of the players I know do so. I am perfectly fine with you feeling otherwise. I am less fine with you stating that the reason for my belief is that I am too blind to recognize the 'truth' of the mechanics... or that I'm drunk or otherwise deluded. That's offensive.

And that's why you have a hard time understanding why someone would defend it. You are literally unwilling to even concede that the opposing viewpoint exists, let alone that there might any merit in it. And I guess there isn't much I can say to change your mind - not when people are coming forward, and saying they don't find this mechanic silly, and you genuinely feel they are lying about what they believe...