Design & Dev: Monsters (DRAGONS!)

[Keefe the Thief]

Probably some form of ability such that, when you score a critical hit while using a particular ability (Holy Strike?), you can heal an ally for a given amount.

Or they are going the way of the Dark Eye: if you get an excellent success on an action, you can keep your action for this round. Having a crit would mean that the cleric just burned a free action and can take another standard action to heal somebody.

 

[Korgoth]

I want to know exactly how PCs will handle the dragon's output at the appropriate level. We don't see enough here.

However, I do agree that they keep trying to upgrade dragons more and more. This reads to me like they really want to go with the Runequest/Glorantha true dragon paradigm and are just too afraid.

For those who never played old RQ, the monster manual entry for true dragons states that if they like you they talk to you, if they don't they eat you. They also take up full hexes on the region map.

It reads like the designers just want to go "the dragon shows up and kills you all unless you can manage to run away." Still, I'll wait for more information. Maybe PCs can take what they can dish out at the right level.

Yes, not a trend I'm fond of, I must say.

Dragons were killable in 1E and Classic. I had a Paladin with a dragonslaying sword (x3 damage makes it a lot easier, naturally) who killed quite a few dragons singlehandedly (it was a solo game sometimes, other times a duo). The character wasn't "munchkinized" either, he was legit. It's cool for dragons to be really tough, but it's also nice for a prepared character to be able to kill one and then another (don't recall if I ever got 3 in a row) in a climactic battle. Stuff of legends and all that.

 

[Jack99]

That dragon fights sounds very much like an Onyxia showdown.

Yeah, I had the same vision. Since I played a rogue, I guess it was the tail knockback , but then again, it could have been the goblets of fire..

/shrug

I for one am also, glad they seem to keep the normal HP/AC rules, and aside from the reminder of Ony, it sounds like promising

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I may be reading too much into this, but the Cleric didn't make a move before her attack, and she only attacked once.

Since they are a party fighting a Dragon with lots and lots of hit points, I wonder if the Cleric has a low BAB, or if multiple attacks are gone (as in Star Wars SE).

 

[Glyfair]

Somehow I doubt it was intended to suggest that a fighter can do that kind of damage in a single hit. I assumed that was just the blow that put it at under 1/2 it's HP...

However, one suggestion I've seen is that the iterative attacks slow the game down. Cutting down the fighter to a single attack is going to cripple them if you don't somehow increase the damage they can do with that attack. If so, than 500 hp with a single attack might not be that far fetched.

 

[MerricB]

Mixed emotions if that's true as in several books, especially those by the old WoTC, dragons = magic. Nixing their spellcasting abilities and vulnerabilities in exchange for more raw power can make them easier to run but also changes their whole dynamic at the same time. (As was the case between 2nd and 3rd.)

Well, and between 1e and 2e!

My conception of a dragon has claws, fangs and a wicked breath weapon.

Any dragon that says, "I don't need to use that, I'm an 18th-level wizard" is in the wrong game. I encountered this in the end of the Age of Worms campaign, and I cheerfully ignored their spells.

A few innate magical abilities? Fine by me. Dragon-as-spellcaster? No, that's why we have high-level wizards in the game.

Cheers!

 

[Shade]

This article has put to rest my fears that most of the monsters would be one-trick or two-trick ponies. The dragon still seems a fearsome foe.

I've heard that the MMV is a blueprint for 4e monster design. If this is true, that's mostly a good thing, as the bulk of that book is great. Monsters like the spirrax and garngrath still have a wide array of abilities to allow for flexible and interesting encounters.

 

[MerricB]

I may be reading too much into this, but the Cleric didn't make a move before her attack, and she only attacked once.

I think you're reading too much into it - the Cleric almost certainly would have had to move if the Fighter charged - and they're getting rid of iterative attacks.

Cheers!

 

[JoeGKushner]

However, one suggestion I've seen is that the iterative attacks slow the game down. Cutting down the fighter to a single attack is going to cripple them if you don't somehow increase the damage they can do with that attack. If so, than 500 hp with a single attack might not be that far fetched.

Then the difference between players and monsters is that monsters get multiple attacks? (the dragon makes two seperate claw attacks in addition to his 'freebie' stuff no?)

 

[Korgoth]

Heck, I'm surprised we didn't see something in there about the dragon getting a nose spike attack!

That was the cause of the battle. The nose spike generates a "look like a goof" effect. If the effect succeeds, the PCs must all assume that they can beat this monster and attack regardless of the actual danger.

If dragons of equal antiquity use this power on a PC from which they are equidistant, and both effects succeed, the PC will eventually starve to death.