Design & Dev: Monsters (DRAGONS!)

[jasin]

Indeed:
Undead Flaws: sunlight curse, positive energy vulnerability, brain hunger

Dragon Flaws: overwhelming pride, soft belly, taste for virgins, greed

and so on.

Kind of like the supernatural monsters in d20 Modern? That might be quite interesting.

 

[Baby Samurai]

If you change iterative attacks to only one attack, there has to be a mechanic to scale the level advancement to the hit chance and damage output.
It is easier to change the AC than the BAB advancement per level. Hence the High AC of the

Exactly, I believe they will scale BAB/attacks and AC better this time around.

In 3.5, a 20th level fighter pretty much always hit with his first attack because his attack modifier far outstripped any AC out there.

I would actually like to see a bit more whiffing in encounters, so maybe they will last on average longer than 3 rounds.

AC might scale with level/HD (like BAB does).

 

[Andor]

You know... The fact that the rogue kept trying to get behind him and that he was the only one catching the tail slap makes me think that we might see the return of facing...

YES! I hated it's removal from 3rd ed and especially the 3.5 10'x10' horse wonkiness. Huzzah!

 

[Branduil]

Well if they eliminate dependence on magic items AC has to scale with level. I'm sure it will be built into the classes.

 

[Branduil]

You know... The fact that the rogue kept trying to get behind him and that he was the only one catching the tail slap makes me think that we might see the return of facing...

YES! I hated it's removal from 3rd ed and especially the 3.5 10'x10' horse wonkiness. Huzzah!

That would go against the push for simplicity. Not to mention facing is silly and makes no sense for abstract D&D combat. I think the Rogue was just trying to get in flanking position.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I have a feeling their going to drop Touch AC; does anyone else feel this way?

And if Saga is anything to go by, we might also say goodbye to HD, there will just be CL and how many hit points you get each level.

 

[Someone]

The "multiple action dragon" seems consistent with the design of Gargantuan creatures for the miniatures games - they are conceived as a single warband on themselves, and have multiple actions. Looks like we should treat dragons as a single group of creatures (multiple attacks, many free action to use, ability to use more than one standard action each round) in terms of what they can do.

 

[an_idol_mind]

How do you get that it is insanely powerful?

The tone of the article, intentionally or not (probably intentionally) is basically saying, "look how badass 4e dragons will be!" And, considering that dragons have invariably increased in power with every new edition, the article certainly seems to imply the trend will continue.

And of course, this is a dragon of unknown level* facing PCs of unknown level.

Ancient red dragon, according to the lead-in. Which makes me wonder what wyrm and great wyrm dragons will be like (if they keep the 3e age categories).

 

[pawsplay]

Ancient red dragon, according to the lead-in. Which makes me wonder what wyrm and great wyrm dragons will be like (if they keep the 3e age categories).

They'll travel through time by vibrating their molecules.

 

[Piratecat]

All this article did is convince me that I am not buying 4e and that I am completely done with WOTC with the exception of Dragon Magazine up until the 4e switch occurs.

Cool! Luckily, we have LOTS of other threads outside of the 4e forum.

(Which is my way of saying that people who aren't interested in 4e will probably have less fun on the boards if they hang out in the 4e forum.)

Sorry for the hijack -- back to monsters!