Are demons/devils/dragons too complex?

[pogre]

No I don't think devils/demons and dragons are too complex. Sure they require more time to prepare/learn to run than a level 1 orc but that is to be expected from high powered opponents. Some DMs apparently want to not prepare anymore but instead want to run every monster directly out of the book. To me this is simply lazy.

I'm lazy - I want to just run the game and have fun. Spending time poring over monster abilities is not part of my fun. I'm very lazy in that regard. I would much rather spend my time working on creating plots, maps, props, and other things that make my game fun.

 

[frankthedm]

- If your going to assume a dragon always has Shield and Mage Armour cast, why not just give it 8 more AC?

Because then the melee characters will simply have a far worse time. The way it is now, the caster of the party simply needs to lead out with a dispel to bring down the dragon's buffs. If instead the caster acts without forthough and blasts the dragon directly, hoping for the 5% to 10% chance of one shotting the dragon, the frontline's attacks are far less effective. This also burns up valuable caster actions, just like how the Frontliners have to burn up actions getting to the dragon.

- Given the Breath weapon, a Dragon should not need blasting spells

No, but there does need to be ways to put the PCs on the recieving end of questionably low level splatbook spells.

"A massive dragon really ought to be using its teeth, claws, and breath weapon to kill the players, not a Finger of Death or Disintegrate spell".

Give the dragon a mix of fitting spell like abilities, and remove the need for buffing effects by making them a basic part of the package. Give it enough that it can still be a 'solo' monster, and your set.

Now that the casters are getting nerfed something fierce in 4th, this can work.

 

[Derren]

The example from a few months ago of a massive red dragon fighting a typical party sounded pretty good to me. While I do like the out of combat flexibility that spell casting can give a dragon, I really do think that once combat hits, you should not especially need to use them. As it was said in one of the wizard blog entries "A massive dragon really ought to be using its teeth, claws, and breath weapon to kill the players, not a Finger of Death or Disintegrate spell".

The problem is that without spellcasting dragons are too predictable to be good BBEGs. Red dragon? Protection from Fire/Elemental immunity Fire and you just neutralized the majority of the dragons offensive potential. That dragons were better off to use magic as offensive weapon was because in 3Ed magic was simply the better choice. Make magic more balanced and you will see that dragons will use bite and claw more often.

Without spellcasting dragons simply lack utility. They can't reasonably prepare their lair (alarm spell? How?), prepare themselves for battle (How do I cover my elemental weakness?), spy and otherwise do an intrigue (Whats going on there, I can't scry or contact my agents), etc.
And you can bet that in 4E there will somehow be a "Save or Neutralize" ability and without magic dragons will likely have no defense against it (See Force Cage etc. No Dimension Door? You lost!).

And without spellcasting and fixed statblocks dragons will loose their "teeth" very fast when new splatbooks with more powerful stuff come out and dragons (and all other monsters) can't benefit from it because they only have fixed special abilities.

 

[frankthedm]

And without spellcasting and fixed statblocks dragons will loose their "teeth" very fast when new splatbooks with more powerful stuff come out and dragons (and all other monsters) can't benefit from it because they only have fixed special abilities.

Ever seen how fast player types change their tune when they find out the splat material they asked for will be used against them?

Yay, PC with Wraithstike!
:\

Boo, dragon with wraithstrike!

No I don't think devils/demons and dragons are too complex. Sure they require more time to prepare/learn to run than a level 1 orc but that is to be expected from high powered opponents. Some DMs apparently want to not prepare anymore but instead want to run every monster directly out of the book. To me this is simply lazy.

I'm lazy - I want to just run the game and have fun. Spending time poring over monster abilities is not part of my fun. I'm very lazy in that regard. I would much rather spend my time working on creating plots, maps, props, and other things that make my game fun.

Being a lazy person who makes a hobby of advancing monsters, I'll say the rules are too complex. for some monsters. Dragons get a too complex vote, demons and devils have the “player read the Monster Manual” problem. Right now, outsiders have too many abilities accessible by Planar Ally/Binding spells. Conjure one up and all of a sudden the powergamer has access to abilities outside what he should have. Strip those abilities off and any DM who wants them on a given fiend can still give that fiend the ability in question, but the finagling player can no longer get a hold of them just by summoning an off the rack fiend..

Another problem is any ability that can take someone out of combat with a failed save is going to be a problem. Not when the critter is the BBEG, since that is to be expected in most cases, no, the real problem is when that demon is now one of many minions. Now that low chance to be taken out directly is being applied over and over and over by critters that are not even the boss!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I don't think they are too complex - and I regret the simplifying process that went on for demons and devils between 3e and 3.5e.

Why?

Because I don't think every ability has to be used in every encounter. I liked having devils that could be planar bound on one occasion to use as a mobile striker/attacker, but in a different adventure the very same devil could be planar bound by the NPC to provide unlimited Animate Dead, so that the wizard could fill his cavern with the zombie bodies of hundreds of slain villagers.

I think that any design decisions which are made on the basis of "this creature can't use all its cool abilities in the 3-5 rounds of combat it survives" are probably poor decisions.

I agree with delericho about dragons though - spot on there. It would have been much better to give one standard set of dragon statistics, and then provide simple flavour templates for the chromatic dragons (not that I'd be unhappy to see chromatic and metallic dragons disappear for ever, but that's another story). Also, if they were going to give dragons magic spells it might have made sense to fill their slots as far as possible with quickened spells so that they can zap them off in combat without affecting their other choices.

In agreement with all point.

 

[Arnwyn]

I don't think they are too complex - and I regret the simplifying process that went on for demons and devils between 3e and 3.5e.

Why?

Because I don't think every ability has to be used in every encounter. I liked having devils that could be planar bound on one occasion to use as a mobile striker/attacker, but in a different adventure the very same devil could be planar bound by the NPC to provide unlimited Animate Dead, so that the wizard could fill his cavern with the zombie bodies of hundreds of slain villagers.

I think that any design decisions which are made on the basis of "this creature can't use all its cool abilities in the 3-5 rounds of combat it survives" are probably poor decisions.

Exactly so, for me. I was about to type up my opinion, but there it is above, all nice and done for me already.

AFAIC, the demons and devils of 3e need more of their previous edition abilities - I absolutely disagree in every possible way on the concept that all a creature's abilities must only be useful for a straight-up fight against a group of PCs. I like that there are other abilities that can be used against commoners and the townsfolk and the like to further add to an adventure's possibilities.

 

[Shade]

Q: Are demons/devils/dragons too complex?
A: No, no, and somewhat

Since dragons can't be played "out of the box", they are bit complex.

Still, I'd rather use any of these three creature types than any of the others in the Monster Manual because of their versatility.

The "one-trick pony" approach for 4e is one of the many reasons I'm staying behind.

 

[Psion]

I think that any design decisions which are made on the basis of "this creature can't use all its cool abilities in the 3-5 rounds of combat it survives" are probably poor decisions.

Yep. That seems another consequence/instance of taking the "the game does not exist outside of combat" philosophy of game design too far.

 

[Psion]

On a side note, shade, that ripping sound you here is me ripping off part of your sig for use elsewhere.

"Save the succubus, save the Wheel!"

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The problem is that without spellcasting dragons are too predictable to be good BBEGs.

I will halfway concede this point. However, Dragons have Hordes, possibly with things like Crystal Balls in them. Alot of the general utility abilities of a BBEG can be moved to magic items for the dragon. This does introduce the risk of figuring out what happens when your players kill the dragon and take its stuff, however.

And without spellcasting and fixed statblocks dragons will loose their "teeth" very fast when new splatbooks with more powerful stuff come out and dragons (and all other monsters) can't benefit from it because they only have fixed special abilities.

I will also concede that with the way 3rd edition works right now, this is the case. However, I do not think that the ideal solution to a power creep problem with respect to Splat Creep is to pretend that your Dragon is a Wizard / Cleric.

The Red dragon battle example did not some alternate uses for the Breath weapon, which I think is the right way to go for Dragons.

I also think that for 'villain capable' monsters, there should be some mechanism to allow for customization of the monster, trading one power or ability for another.

END COMMUNICATION