Are demons/devils/dragons too complex?

Derren said:
As You see without spellcasting dragons are much weaker than in 3.X unless you simply say they can do all the above mentioned out of combat things without explanation which is in my opinion extremely lame.
People always say they want more options but removing spellcasting from dragons takes away a large amount of options and no number of SLAs can fix that.

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that preferences regarding dragons tend to be both very diverse and strongly held.

With demons/devils, it is not difficult to justify a menagerie that accommodates many styles.

There is resistance to the idea of having multiple distinct kinds of dragons, so we are constantly on this grail quest to find that One Iconic Dragon to please all fans. From a design perspective, this is a foolish sacred cow.

Instead of having only one type of dragon with several different paint jobs, lets actually have 4 or 5 kinds of dragons. Allow the DM to decide which one (or ones) to put in her campaign world.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Derren said:
First people complain that Devils have too many SLAs and then they propose that dragon spellcasting is replaced by dozends of SLAs (Which are needed to give dragons the same amount of utility it has with spellcasting)...
Do you have to stat out a demon every time you use one? No.

Demons come 'pre-built' with billions of SLA's. Dragons, OTOH, have to be specially statted by the DM, which includes giving feats, skills, AND pick spells for. Dragons are already a workload to deal with and one easy way to work this out is, instead of having the DM go through lists of spells and pick them for the dragon, just give it access to a list of abilities that it can use 1/day, 3/day, and at will.

A dragon that can scry at will, greater dispel 3/day and, say, mordenkainen's disjunction 1/day (or something else appropriately high level) has enough tricks up its sleeve that can help counteract or at least, curb the abilities of players. Besides, SLA's, IMO, speak more to the magic in the blood of dragons than sorcery levels.

Also, since a DM could pick from a list, it allows dragons to have different effects that keep the players on their toes (a la spellcasting). I've statted up enough dragons for 3.x that I've just officially gotten sick of picking spells for them.

YMMV of course, but I don't buy that spellcasting is the only thing that makes dragons a threat.

You are mistaken.
Perhaps.

Dragons without spellcasting are unable to defend themselves against many things adventurers can do. Without spellcasting dragons can't seal their lair against scrying and teleportation, can't prepare their defenses to counteract the PCs plan, can't scry on the party or otherwise detect where they are (alarm spells). They also can't shape their lair into a defensible fortress but have to rely on natural caves instead and are unable to do any form of intrigue because without illusions, polymorph or messaging spells they can't intaract with other creatures without revealing their identity.
And when the adventurers prepared themselves, for example with the appropriate energy protection dragons are hosed as they can neither dispel them or use a different energy to attack them. And when they are loosing they can't flee their lair because they lack teleportation spells so they are trapped.

As you see without spellcasting dragons are much weaker than in 3.X unless you simply say they can do all the above mentioned out of combat things without explanation which is in my opinion extremely lame.
All good points, but, see above.

People always say they want more options but removing spellcasting from dragons takes away a large amount of options and no number of SLAs can fix that.
Players usually want more options, DM's have billions (exaggeration) available to them.
 

I'd rather have a non-spellcasting dragon and be given the option of adding sorceror levels is I want it to cast spells.
 

I posted in response to this on the Wizards boards about three months ago to the designers blog response forums. Judging from the feedback in the october? podcast (monsters x3), there will be mastermind monster archetypes. I take this to be like those I asked about: Monsters with a lot of power and great guile who could face the PCs several times, adjusting their power preperation and combat strategies before each fight to take greater advantage of the PCs weaknesses. That's what lots of magic powers in the hands of demonlords meant to me anyways. I think they'll keep such for the big, bad demons / devils / dragons who deserve to have a vast array of options.

So, no, I don't think they are too tough.
3e 20th level wizards with every spell in the PHB for potential prep? Yeah.
 
Last edited:

Klaus said:
I'd rather have a non-spellcasting dragon and be given the option of adding sorceror levels is I want it to cast spells.
This.

Plus, what's keeping dragons from hiring spellcasters? I wouldn't be surprised if they also had a quite a few powerful magical trinkets in their hoards which they could use.

So, if a particular dragon absolutely has to have access to spells, there's lots of ways to achieve it whithout requiring every dragon to be a spellcaster.


As a comment about the more general topic of this thread:
I wouldn't mind if monsters had a separate paragraph detailing some out-of-combat abilities. Then again, I don't absolutely need that kind of thing. If I want a monster to have a certain ability or be able to do something specific, it will have it / be able to do so.
 

So every older dragon will have to put up "Spellcaster Wanted" signs out of his lair to be really competitive. Thats also not really a "classical" dragon isn't it?

But why not turn your argument around? When a dragon absolutely has to lack any form of spellcasting there are many ways to achieve that. Why remove spellcasting from every dragon especially when it is so handy and even essential for BBEG style monsters.
 
Last edited:

Derren said:
So every older dragon will have to put up "Spellcaster Wanted" signs out of his lair to be really competitive. Thats also not really a "classical" dragon isn't it?

But why not turn your argument around? When a dragon absolutely has to lack any form of spellcasting there are many ways to achieve that. Why remove spellcasting from every dragon especially when it is so handy and even essential for BBEG style monsters.
The dragon can trick a spellcaster into doing his work.

The dragon could have a "skinwalker" feat that allows it to take Humanoid Form and hire a spellcaster.

The dragon could have some sort of "Magical Affinity" feat to get Use Magic Device and use the items in its hoard.

The dragon could, if strictly necessary, take sorcerer levels (and then the DM could give them an innate ability that boosts their caster level for sorcerer spells).

The dragon could have a dragonkith spellcaster (Draconomicon).

Etc...
 

Derren said:
Why remove spellcasting from every dragon especially when it is so handy and even essential for BBEG style monsters.
Because, at least as things currently stand, there are no rules for determining the new, lowered CR of a dragon if you take out its spellcasting, but there are rules for determining the new CR of a dragon if you add sorcerer levels.
 

Dalamar said:
Because, at least as things currently stand, there are no rules for determining the new, lowered CR of a dragon if you take out its spellcasting, but there are rules for determining the new CR of a dragon if you add sorcerer levels.

And those rules aren't very accurate in practice. A young adult white dragon with 16 levels of rogue is the same CR as a 16th level human rogue. I don't know that there's any rule that could be very accurate in practice.

If you want a rule for the reverse, how about this: If you take out a dragon's spellcasting, subtract half its spellcaster level from the dragon's CR, rounded up.
 


Remove ads

Top