Anyone else think dragons are too powerful?

[A'koss]

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.

I beg to differ. Simply by playing to the dragon's "natural" strengths you can make it a plently formidable & interesting challenge, you don't need extensive spell lists, magic items, power-up suites, etc.. Heightened senses, fast flight, great big wings to scatter foes and creating blinding debris clouds, breath weapons that could potentially make hazardous terrrain (fire melting stone into weak lava & superheated areas, acid leaving dangerous pools on the ground, lingering & concealing clouds of poison, etc.), throw/kick/stomp/sweep/pin foes with it's bulk, highly spell resistant, etc.

There are plenty of monsters in the ELH that don't have extensive spell lists and just a few special abilities.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Wait, when did you say that?

In other threads I've contributed to.

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

Because I use D&D and its tropes as a basis for narrative fiction, not gaming. For whatever reason, plain vanilla D&D stimulates my imagination more than most other fictional settings.

I don't game, but I do like my fiction to at least somewhat resemble the actual game itself. I'll take liberties with mechanics and things like that, but otherwise it should be a recognizable match.

As such, the nuances of dragons are important.

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...

Not in the least. If you read my Canonfire articles, you'll see that they're all fluff-no crunchy bits whatsoever. I go into the history, background, and details of the setting, fleshing it out, filling in gaps, writing source material that can fit comfortably into any system. What I write, DMs can use as fodder for their campaigns or simply to get their own creative engines running. They can take some of the thumbnail material I write and run with it-Newly Discovered Dungeons, for example, are only summarized in a paragraph or two, and individual DMs can design the actual dungeons as they see fit.

Since there are no stats or rules, DMs can use it for any edition, or any system, really-there's nothing preventing them from using SAGA, RuneQuest, KABAL, Dragonsword, or any other RPG system, if they're so inclined. There are no official stats or crunchy bits-I don't do prestige classes or anything like that-so individual DMs and players can make up their own rules bits to suit themselves.

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.

It's funny sometimes how, on message boards, the people who respond sometimes nail exactly what the OP was getting at, even if he didn't quite nail it down in the first post.

This is exactly what I mean.

 

[Sigdel]

CSL:
But since you are using D&D as fluff material, and thats great and all, but you are making a broad statement in describing all the D&D dragons with what you said in your OP. And what some of us are trying to say is that not all dragons are the super smart, shape shifting, BBEG's that you are making them out to be. Something I pointed out in the end of my last post, you know, the part you chose not to reply to. The one that points out that you broad statements are not well informed. So I reposted it.

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.

I got a bit snarky at the end of that post, for that I apologize. But I give to you again three dragons that you dont have to be a "high-level party" to beat.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

CSL:
But since you are using D&D as fluff material, and thats great and all, but you are making a broad statement in describing all the D&D dragons with what you said in your OP. And what some of us are trying to say is that not all dragons are the super smart, shape shifting, BBEG's that you are making them out to be. Something I pointed out in the end of my last post, you know, the part you chose not to reply to. The one that points out that you broad statements are not well informed. So I reposted it.

I got a bit snarky at the end of that post, for that I apologize. But I give to you again three dragons that you dont have to be a "high-level party" to beat.

And they are well-taken. I think I made the mistake of judging the dragons I've actually seen statted out in game products-most of which are in that stereotype I mention and that others picked up on-and basing it on all that.

The problem may be less with dragons than the way they're presented by a lot of D&D writers. :\

 

[Aramax]

By "too powerful", I mean that they ALL have the ability to speak, use magic, transform into humanoid creatures, and everything in between. In 1E, it wasn't always so simple-some dragons had only a certain percentage chance to speak or be able to use magic.

To me, it just seems like if you've seen one dragon, you've seen them all; they're all hyper-intelligent, extremely wise, given a wide array of spells and powers, and they automatically know how to react in a given situation.

This syndrome seems to stem from Dragonlance, where the dragons really are the uber-beings of the setting; but in other settings, I don't think dragons should be "all that", so to speak.

I personally like the notion of some dragons being cowardly despite their size, or of being stupid, raving creatures that can't talk or use magic and are only focussed on their next meal, in short that some of them are not the uber-monsters of D&D.

Don't get me wrong-dragons can be BBEGs, terrifying creatures of legend, or what have you. But for every single one to have all those powers kind of strikes me as boring, even trite. Dragons can't be the raving beasts terrifying the village-they're practically gods unto themselves, able to destroy most mortals on a whim. Why then, are they not ruling the world, if they're all so powerful?

I agree totally and thus a while ago on these forums I created D.AD.(dragons are disposable)

 

[CruelSummerLord]

I agree totally and thus a while ago on these forums I created D.AD.(dragons are disposable)

Got any links to follow?

 

[elswyyr]

I like dragons, and i think they are supposed to be mighty creatures. Something has to be!

 

[frankthedm]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=198541

 

[Elf Witch]

In the game I run there are a lot of dragons because there is a dragon war going on between Bahumt and Tiamat.

I look at dragons as indivuals some are really smart and can plan and plot others are dumb all they care about is eating , their hoard of treasure and they can't cast spells bacause they don't have the intellegence to do so.

I did away with the notion that just because you are a red dragon you are evil ,dragons being sentient are able to choose how they want to behave.

I also give my dragons class levels so that changes how and what they do.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=198541

Count me in!