Design & Dev: Monsters (DRAGONS!)

[jasin]

Actually, I suspect it's an "use breath weapon when reduced below half hit points" ability.

That might well be. And it would make a lot more sense to me.

Thanks for making me like this much better.

 

[charlesatan]

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?)

That's fine by me--shows a good division between the PCs and the monsters. Besides, it's a 4-on-1 teamup against the big bad meanie, not the 4-on-4 fights that was cited as the norm for 4th Ed.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I like the idea of AoOs replaced by immediate actions. Clearly getting past a creature's reach is still an issue, and I hope the same goes for spear fighters!

Immediate actions instead of AoOs? That would be great! It would make the battlefield far more dynamic and could also make some tactics more viable (I'm looking at you, counterspelling!).

That's fine by me--shows a good division between the PCs and the monsters. Besides, it's a 4-on-1 teamup against the big bad meanie, not the 4-on-4 fights that was cited as the norm for 4th Ed.

Or generally - one attack per limb. If you want two attacks, do two-weapon fighting!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Baumi]

Are we even sure that the Cleric could heal BECAUSE of the Attack/Crit? It sounds to me that he just could do both at the same round. Besides, he called to his God BEFORE the attack, which could mean that he might have casted a spell that allowed him to attack and transfer the damage as healing (like Vampiric Touch).

Anyway, another thing that I found interesting that the Dragon could attack with both Claws as a Standard Action instead of a Full Attack...

 

[Mouseferatu]

Anyway, another thing that I found interesting that the Dragon could attack with both Claws as a Standard Action instead of a Full Attack...

That's an interesting point, and it's got me thinking.

This is, as with everything else, pure speculation. But...

If iterative attacks are gone, replaced by bonuses to damage, and...

If the only way to get multiple attacks per round is via multiple limbs (a dragon's two claws, or two-weapon fighting) or a special maneuver...

Then it's just possible that the very concept of the "full attack action" is utterly absent from 4E.

 

[Zaister]

I think I'm missing something, where does it say the dragon has 1,000 hp to begin with?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Then it's just possible that the very concept of the "full attack action" is utterly absent from 4E.

You know, the more I think about this, the more it makes sense. After all, if it's assumed that martial characters will be using maneuvers/abilities in most rounds, just like wizards cast spells in most rounds, and that this is a primary function of play in 4E, then there's even less incentive to bother with the complexities of iterative attacks. After all, they either wouldn't be used that much (because maneuvers are better/cooler), or they'd be too good an option and discourage use of said maneuvers.

Between that, and the fact that a damage bonus lends itself to much faster play than multiple attacks at different modifiers, it seems to me that this would definitely be a solid direction for 4E to go.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I think I'm missing something, where does it say the dragon has 1,000 hp to begin with?

It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. Oh—that gives the dragon the opportunity use its breath weapon as an immediate action. A huge cone of fire bursts from the dragon’s mouth, engulfing all four PCs. But at least the dragon is below 500 hit points!

Bolded for emphasis!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Glyfair]

After all, they either wouldn't be used that much (because maneuvers are better/cooler), or they'd be too good an option and discourage use of said maneuvers.

In fact, iterative attacks could be a maneuver by itself. It could have limits (x times per encounter, prerequisites, etc).

 

[jasin]

The cleric's attack triggering healing sounds a bit hokey. I understand that you don't want them to spend a battle healing, though. As other posters have said, it's all in the flavor text and presentation. The example given makes it seem as if the cleric has to hit the dragon to heal his ally, which sounds like nasty necromancy to me. If the cleric is just using one of their normal healing abilites as a move action, however, then it's OK.

I think it's "hit enemy to heal ally" because there are abilities just like that in Bo9S.

But it's not flavoured as nasty necromancy, draining enemies to channel into allies, or anything like that.

It's more of a morale ability: you're battered, you're hurting, the next blow could drop you, and you're not sure you'll be able to avoid it... and then the cleric pushes past you and smacks the dragon right on his ing nose spike! W00t! Go us! Maybe you can make it after all!

Dragons as spellcasters: I would like them to have knowledge of arcane magic. They obviously don't need it to fight with, unlike humanoid wizards, so it's kind of pointless to say "they cast as an X level sorcerer." It would be appropriate to give them access to the Vancian spells without the per-encounter or per-round spells--this lets dragons teach humanoids ancient lore without over-complicating them in combat.

Without knowing the details on how the at-will/per-encounter/Vancian division will work, this is a very neat idea.

In combat, dragons don't need lightning bolts and blurs; they've got breath weapons and thick scaly hides.

But out of combat, divinations and other "slow" spells would be very appropriate, IMO.

But I'm not sure if this fits very well with the "don't give monsters abilities they won't use" philosophy. Which is a good idea, really; I just hope they don't overdo it. I would hate for the dryad to lose her speak with plants ability just because it won't be useful in the fight against the PCs.