Design & Dev: Monsters (DRAGONS!)

[Aloïsius]

No.

Does armor improve your AC in saga ? IMHO, you can't remover touch attack and not change to armor = DR. Unless you want to screw the wizards.

 

[Cam Banks]

This is going to make converting our 3.5 Dragonlance products an interesting process, indeed. The final battle with Frost in Price of Courage might look very different.

Also, what on earth is wrong with spikes on the dragon's snout?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Baby Samurai]

Does armor improve your AC in saga ? IMHO, you can't remover touch attack and not change to armor = DR. Unless you want to screw the wizards.

All characters AC scales with level like BAB, but certain abilities allow you to gain AC and other benefits from wearing armour.

 

[EricNoah]

I think the reaction I'm having ("eep!") is more about running high-level combats (which this is clearly an example of) in general and not 4E in particular. I've never been good at the high end and I don't anticipate any version of the game will ever change that.

 

[wedgeski]

This is going to make converting our 3.5 Dragonlance products an interesting process, indeed. The final battle with Frost in Price of Courage might look very different.

Does that mean MWP will be updating their prods to 4e?

 

[Imaro]

I think the reaction I'm having ("eep!") is more about running high-level combats (which this is clearly an example of) in general and not 4E in particular. I've never been good at the high end and I don't anticipate any version of the game will ever change that.

QFT...

I thought this was suppose to be one of the major design points, streamlining of high level encounters and combat at higher levels. The impression I get from reading this is well...there's still alot to keep track of for a DM, it's just been moved from number of abilities to how those abilities interact and the special circumstances that trigger them.

This article is kind of dissapointing to me, as I'm one of the people who was hoping for a more streamlined game, and this example isn't inspiring any faith in that notion. I will still wait and see though, but nothing I've heard so far seems to indicate a true streamlining of the game...everything just seems like MORE.

 

[Korgoth]

Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.

Thanks for dropping in! I guess the wording in the article was a little ambiguous.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Hmmm... Dragons with over 1,000 HP. I still hope the CR for the mightiest ones don't exceed ~24. I don't want generic dragons being able to compete 1-on-1 with Demon Lords and the like...

Why not?

I see nothing wrong with Dragons being right at the top of the food chain in regards to power. And it is not like Ancient Great Wyrm Dragons need to be that common anyway.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[FireLance]

Hmmm, maybe most of the encounters in 4e are going to be designed to feel like fights between two groups of creatures, even if it is the PCs against a single monster.

It has been noted that a fight between a group of PCs and a single creature often favors the PCs because they get multiple actions for every one that their opponent makes. One solution to that is to ensure that the PCs always fight groups, so the BBEG should always be accompanied by a lieutenant and some mooks. However, what do you do when you want to run a scenario in which the PCs gang up against one big, tough, scary monster which is solitary by nature or circumstance? The solution appears to be: give the monster more actions.

I wonder if this may be an indication of how monster statistics may change when the monster adopts different roles in 4e. The giant that the PCs must work together as a group to overcome at 5th level might have the statistics of a Solitary Bad Guy (including, possibly, the ability to attack multiple opponents with a standard action swing of his club, dealing moderate damage to each opponent), while the giant gang that the PCs encounter at 10th level might have Grouped Bruiser stats and be limited to a single attack per standard action (but one that would do hefty damage).

However, I would be wary of the potential downsides of monsters being able to do too many things before the party can react, such as the possibility of sending one or more PCs from full hit points into the negatives in a single turn's worth of actions. In 3e, this has happened a couple of times with a DM who liked to make a single initiative roll for his monsters, and liked sending them against the party in big groups. One way to ensure this is to allow the monster to make multiple reactions, i.e. multiple immediate actions in response to the PCs' actions, instead of making multiple free actions on its turn.

 

[ThirdWizard]

However, what do you do when you want to run a scenario in which the PCs gang up against one big, tough, scary monster which is solitary by nature or circumstance? The solution appears to be: give the monster more actions.

Reminds me of the beholder redesign that could act on two different initiative counts. That gave it more actions and gave a chance that PCs would act between the beholder's two actions.