Anyone else think dragons are too powerful?

[ruleslawyer]

Isn't there a dragon in every single 3.0 AP module?

i don't know now, but back in the days there used to be an article in dragon magazine EVERY BLOODY MONTH detailing a dragon from the realms. in the beginning it was cool. after 12+ months it started to feel like postmodernism gone wrong...

Wow; I guess tastes just differ. The "Wyrms of the North" series was one of my absolute favorites. Fully-detailed, singular, powerful dragons with vast domains and bajillions of adventure hooks, new magic items, spells, and related organizations was about the best treatment of dragons I could imagine (plus, IMHO, they're very well written).

I tend to like the image of (elder) dragons as potentially world-shattering creatures, but that's because my own fantasy inspirations (the Hobbit, Earthsea, etc.) portray them at the top of the food chain, meaning that they have to be even more so in a D&D universe, since the power levels are so ratcheted up. That said, I do agree with S'mon that it's lamentable that 3e dragons are practically as notable for their magical might than their physical power. I'd rather a monster with even better physical attacks at the top end, coupled with a highly streamlined set of spell-like abilities in place of spellcasting levels; I can always slap those on if I want a more "wizard-y" dragon.

 

[kenobi65]

Spoiler for the Sunless Citadel
[sblock]What was the name of Meepo's juvenile white dragon in the Sunless Citadel?[/sblock]

[sblock]Calcryx![/sblock]

 

[Aus_Snow]

I agree.

I dislike D&D-style dragons, quite a bit. So I just don't use them.

FWIW, I've found that certain psionics (or, more to the point, psychic abilities of another kind) can suit some dragon archetypes rather well.

 

[S'mon]

That said, I do agree with S'mon that it's lamentable that 3e dragons are practically as notable for their magical might than their physical power. I'd rather a monster with even better physical attacks at the top end, coupled with a highly streamlined set of spell-like abilities in place of spellcasting levels; I can always slap those on if I want a more "wizard-y" dragon.

Yup, me too. I'm fine with top end dragons being eg CR 20, but I don't want it being because they're 18th level spellcasters!

 

[frankthedm]

One "core" example: in "The Sunless Citadel"...[sblock]the party has to fight or capture an immature white dragon.[/sblock]And that's a module for 1st-3rd level PCs.

Well, if one includes babykilling, then yes, PCs can fight dragons at low level.

EDIT: Not saying those babies are helpless, in fact they are tough customers, but beating up a 6 hit die toddler is not that satisfying.

 

[A'koss]

Yeah, the ungainly stat abominations that are the HL 3e dragons have bugged me for a variety of reasons.

Many of them are like wizards trapped in giant lizard bodies. Take the classic red for example - here you have a near perfectly crafted engine of rampaging destruction… and then you give it an intelligence and wisdom so high that it virtually begs to be run contrary to its design. Where's the "monster" under those spell lists, magic items, spell-like abilities, power-up suites and demigod-like faculties?

I can see some individual dragons as spellcasters, but entire species with innate spellcasting power? IMO it dilutes what the dragon should be about - being the iconic monster.

 

[Sigdel]

As I've said before, I don't game.

Wait, when did you say that?

And I was asking this as much as an inquiry to see if anyone else felt this way.

Wait, if you don't game, what does it matter?

And it's interesting to note-how often in modules or other official products, are the dragons featured less than Adult in age? I myself can't recall ever seeing one like that, although to be fair I haven't read as many game products as other posters probably have.

But thats all just moot anyway because you don't game.... right?

Also, I have taken steps to make dragons weaker. In my "On the Dragons of the Flanaess: History, Culture and Nation" article on Canonfire,

I'm going to interrupt you here to point out that despite that fact that you don't game, you write articles for Canonfire. Does this strike anyone else as just a wee bit odd? Anywho, continue, please...

I specifically mention that not all dragons can speak or use magic-some of them really are those not-too-smart beasts that are content to laze around on their hordes and only venture out to snack on the odd maiden, although some of them certainly are the big, dangerous creations they have the potential to be.
I've just never seen a dragon that didn't require a high-level party to fight it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Here are some dragons for you:

Unknown: CR 2; Tiny Dragon (Cold); HD 3d12+3 (Dragon) ; hp 22; Init +0; Spd 60, Swim 60, Burrow 30, Fly, Average 150; AC:14 (Flatfooted:14 Touch:12); Atk +5 base melee, +5 base ranged; +5/+0 (1d4, Bite; 1d3, 2 Claw); +5 (1d6, Breath Weapon); SA: Breath Weapon (Su) , Breath Weapon Type: 15 ft. Cone of Cold ; SQ: Immunity: Sleep Effects (Ex), Immunity: Paralysis (Ex), Immunity: Cold (Ex), Keen Senses (Ex), Subtype: Cold, Icewalking (Ex), Blindsense (Ex): 60 ft., Darkvision (Ex): 120 ft., Low-light Vision (Ex); AL CE; SV Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +3; STR 11, DEX 10, CON 13, INT 6, WIS 11, CHA 6.
Skills: Hide +8, Jump +12.

Unknown: CR 3; Tiny Dragon (Water); HD 4d12+4 (Dragon) ; hp 30; Init +0; Spd 60, Swim 60, Fly, Average 100; AC:15 (Flatfooted:15 Touch:12); Atk +6 base melee, +6 base ranged; +6/+1 (1d4, Bite; 1d3, 2 Claw); +6 (2d4, Breath Weapon); SA: Breath Weapon (Su) , Breath Weapon DC: 13 , Breath Weapon Type: 30 ft. Line of Acid ; SQ: Immunity: Acid (Ex), Water Breathing (Ex), Immunity: Paralysis (Ex), Immunity: Sleep Effects (Ex), Keen Senses (Ex), Blindsense (Ex): 60 ft., Darkvision (Ex): 120 ft., Low-light Vision (Ex); AL CE; SV Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +4; STR 11, DEX 10, CON 13, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 8.
Skills: Hide +8, Jump +12.

Unknown: CR 3; Small Dragon (Air); HD 5d12+5 (Dragon) ; hp 37; Init +0; Spd 40, Swim 40, Fly, Average 100; AC:15 (Flatfooted:15 Touch:11); Atk +7 base melee, +6 base ranged; +7/+2 (1d6+1, Bite; 1d4, 2 Claw); +7 (2d6, Breath Weapon); SA: Breath Weapon (Su) , Breath Weapon DC: 13 , Breath Weapon Type: 20 ft. Cone of Corrosive Gas ; SQ: Keen Senses (Ex), Immunity: Paralysis (Ex), Immunity: Sleep Effects (Ex), Immunity: Acid (Ex), Water Breathing (Ex), Darkvision (Ex): 120 ft., Low-light Vision (Ex); AL LE; SV Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +4; STR 13, DEX 10, CON 13, INT 10, WIS 11, CHA 10.
Skills: Hide +4, Jump +5.

Here you are. Three dragons each suitable for first level party to take on. Millions of gamers have. Don't get me wrong, all three are tough encounters. But I wouldn't worry my 16th level PC over some ill-mannered lizards.
But than again, I game.

 

[Spell]

Wow; I guess tastes just differ. The "Wyrms of the North" series was one of my absolute favorites. Fully-detailed, singular, powerful dragons with vast domains and bajillions of adventure hooks, new magic items, spells, and related organizations was about the best treatment of dragons I could imagine (plus, IMHO, they're very well written).

oh, don't get me wrong. as i said, i loved it in the beginning. but then, i started asking myself just how many dragons i could put in my game world. since, as i said, i don't like the proliferation of dragons, the answer was "not many". it went all downhill from there.

it would be extremely nice if they did the same thing for the 4e setting, but detailing 6 dragons, 6 liches, 6 aboleths, 6 vampires, 6 orc tribes, and so on.
else, dragons get all the spotlight!

 

[Maldor]

the thing that bugs me about dragons is the way they just randomly seemed to tack on abilities that do not make much sense to me like high sense movtive and deplomacy do you think that that dragons spant much time learning the ways of lesser creatures what their body langage is like and why does a bulky non dexertress creature have a good reflex save.

 

[Derren]

Many of them are like wizards trapped in giant lizard bodies. Take the classic red for example - here you have a near perfectly crafted engine of rampaging destruction… and then you give it an intelligence and wisdom so high that it virtually begs to be run contrary to its design. Where's the "monster" under those spell lists, magic items, spell-like abilities, power-up suites and demigod-like faculties?

Thats because in 3E magic simply was more (too?) powerful. If you want to be a "engine of rampaging destruction" you needed to have spells because just melee is simply too weak.
Same with intelligence. A stupid melee monster is no serious threat in D&D unless it has extreme, nearly godlike power. The for example Tarrasque is only a real threat because a wish is required to kill it. Without this it would be a 10th level encounter.


No intelligence and no magic means that you suck in 3rd Edition. And that is certainly not appropriate for iconic creatures like dragons.