Draco Historial - Dragons in D&D!

I don't really understand why these mechanics are unsatisfactory, just because they don't appear in the Monster Manual under the "dragon" heading. Is it an issue of indexing? Or of not realising the scope of these mechanical systems? KM's post here suggests that, for him at least, the answer to the second question is "no":

I don't understand "a key part of the creature's identity". If you know what you want from a blue dragon, and your books have the rules for it (in this case, skill challenges), what more do the designers need to do?

I don't understand either. And I mean not at all. More and more when I read these particular sorts of objections I can only conclude that indeed it has much to do with the aesthetics of the layout of the rules (such as the "indexing" as you described it) and how that differs with prior aesthetics. It has little or nothing to do with what actual tropes are possible within play, at the table, by way of deft GMing and engaged players.

@Kamikaze Midget , 100 % guaranteed I could run you through a satisfactory Elder Blue Dragon adventure set in desert at the end of Paragon Tier (level 20 Solo). Assuming the PCs are trying to locate the dragon's lair and survive the perils of its desert domain, you'd have:

1) Two concurrent, complexity 3 Skill Challenges. One Skill Challenge would be to "locate the dragon's lair" while the second one would be to "survive the perils of the dragon's desert domain."

- The "Locate" SC might involve the use of divination rituals, the leveraging of various knowledge skills, and dealing with Bedouin tribes (perhaps parlay or reconnaissance and intelligence). "Locate" SC complications might earn them conflict with the immediate Bedouin tribe interacted with or perhaps a competitor that venerates the dragon. Failed divinations might earn them psychic backlash (in the way of 2 lost surges or dealing with a particularly lethal mind-attacking trap) and/or an attack from * Desert Madness.

- Ultimate failure in "Locate" SC might lead them astray into a terrible conflict that costs them dearly. Perhaps a potentially lethal encounter as the site turns out to be the lair of another terrible creature and its minions (maybe even a competing Blue...of which they can potentially seek sponsorship in the removal of its rival by way of a social SC). Perhaps the lair was an illusory failsafe planted by the Blue itself. Upon the PCs arrival to the site of the fake lair, the dragon deploys contingencies (maybe the lair is a giant hazard that they must deal with - either as taxing combat or as a taxing SC - or perhaps the site is cursed and the PCs are attacked by a Desert Madness), and reinforces its redoubt. There should be clear signs of the fallout, which earn the PCs an accrued failure in the "Survive" SC and lost surges. Now they have to perform the "Locate" SC again.

- The "Survive" SC would stipulate that an Extended Rest cannot be achieved until the PCs succeed in the SC. Success in it would involve Exploration and Travel Rituals, physical and survival skills, and potentially some social skills if complications include intelligent life or locals that can end up as friend, foe or other. "Survive" complications would involve sandstorms, benign mirages, encounters with magical illusory effects from the dragon (such as an encounter with a hazard that attacks Will by representing itself as an oasis and attempts to send the creature over a cliff face to its death), exposure, predators, hostile locals and possible run-in with the dragons servitors or the dragon itself. Accrued failures would earn an attack from Desert Madness (or a required check for potential advancement if the PC already has it) and taxed surges.

- Ultimate failure in the "Survive" SC would mean big trouble. They would likely already be down a considerable number of surges (if not tapped), likely other daily resources, and possibly afflicted with Desert Madness. They would need to start anew before they could earn an Extended Rest, taxed with surge-loss, and perhaps hit with Desert Madness (or the threat of advancement).

2) Once the above is successfully resolved, depending upon how the fiction evolved, the PCs are probably going to be involved in a difficult infiltration Skill Challenge of some sort. Accrued failures would tax everyone's surges, bring about traps/hazards or dragon servitors that would tax the PCs yet more resources (Dailies, Surges, perhaps companions/cohorts that they have gained/rallied in the prior efforts). There could be all manner of results from ultimate failure here, up to and including the showing up of the "rival" blue that they thought they had earned as an ally, only to reveal the double-cross as they enter the Elder Blue Dragon's lair.

3) Then you have a fight with an Elder Blue Dragon which, in 4e, looks all the part and actually fights as a Blue Dragon, flying proficiently, wings scouring with the blasts of a wind(sand)storm, goring with its great horn, mauling with its claws, and calling lightning from its maw as well as its thunderclaps and bolts of lightning due to its mastery of those elements. It is not a humongous, flying, blue lizard-sorcerer.

You give its lair all manner of illusion traps and wards that are part of the encounter budget that can be the direct creation of the great Blue. You gives its lair all manner of desert-themed terrain elements (sliding sand dunes, sand-blasting winds, lightning sandpits, etc). You can bring in whatever servitors have become relevant or are generally thematically relevant.

Perhaps the other Blue shows up (the one sponsoring the PCs if it goes that way) when the Elder Blue hits Bloodied and you give the PCs control of it as a (standard) companion character for the rest of the fight. Who knows what happens from there.


Anyhoo. All told, I don't know how it could possibly be contended that the system components of 4e don't back GMs up (and PCs) with the means for an absolutely awesome Blue Dragon experience. The above would make for an extremely difficult, thematic challenge that can be ramped up or down in difficulty just by means of encounter budgeting, complication fallout, by moving the SCs down a complexity, or by alleviating the requirements for an Extended Rest. Or it could be made more difficult by doing the same in the opposite direction.


* Desert Madness
The whole of the desert is the dragon's lair. Every promise of refuge entraps your mind in a twisted lie.

Stage 0: The target recovers from the disease.

Stage 1: While affected by stage 1, the target takes a -2 penalty to Initiative checks and Will.

Stage 2: While affected by stage 2, the target loses one healing surge that cannot be regained until the target recovers from the disease. The target takes a -2 penalty to Initiative, Perception, Insight checks and Will.

Stage 3: While affected by stage 3, the target takes a -2 penalty to Initiative, skill checks, and Will.

Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Arcana or Insight check if it is at stage 1, 2, or 3.

Special: If attacked by Desert Madness, the target must make an Arcana or Insight check. Failure to achieve the Moderate DC means the stage of the disease increases by one.

Lower than Easy DC: The stage of the disease increases by one.
Easy DC: No Change

Moderate DC: The stage of the disease decreases by one.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Combat resolution in 4e has 3 mechanical "layers": the general templates (level-appropriate defences, hit points, damage etc); the monster-specific stat blocks; and the design of a particular encounter.

Skill challenges have only 2 mechanical "layers": the general templats (N-before-3, level-appropriate DCs, etc); and the design of a particular encounter.

Sure, but that doesn't help me understand why it's more important for the rules to provide a combat stat block for a lightning-using blue dragon than it is to provide, say, a skill challenge for that blue dragon getting the party lost in a desert. Especially when the latter is arguably a more vital element of running a (particular kind of) blue dragon.

You can't just drop a dragon into a combat encounter without doing the work to frame it (at a minimum, drawing up some terrain for it to fight in). The MM doesn't give this; WotC wants to sell you adventures, Draconomicons, etc. Sketching out some ideas for a desert-mirage-water-sucking-blue-dragon-toying-with-the-party is the corresponding work for a skill challenge. The MM doesn't give this either, for similar reasons.

Because they want to sell me adventures and splats? Look, I'm already buying their monster book. I'm buying it so that I can get support running the newest version of the dragon that I've enjoyed running for the last 11 years. I would expect at LEAST what I've gotten with the last two monster books, if nothing better. When I open it up and find that it doesn't actually explicitly support that even at the level I've historically had, yeah, that's disappointing. That's less bang that I expected to get for my buck. I'm not getting what I had reason to expect to get out of the product -- what at least two versions of the product had no real problem giving to me (even if they both could've done a lot better). When I hit that in 4e, it was disappointing. If I open up the 5e monster book and get the same sensation, it'll be disappointing again. If anything, failing to meet that need lessens my desire to make further purchases -- the game's already demonstrated an inability to do what I need it to do.

Manbearcat said:
100 % guaranteed I could run you through a satisfactory Elder Blue Dragon adventure set in desert at the end of Paragon Tier (level 20 Solo).

Of course. I'm not trying to argue otherwise. I'm just saying that 4e only really gives you ready-made mechanical support for the fight (and actively works against set-up, lore-wise). The rest of it you have to do the heavy lifting on. That eats up time and effort that could be spent on other things. That's less than I got out of the 3e and 2e books -- the dragon's explicit abilities supported that style of encounter/ongoing adventure. 4e does not give that support. That's part of why 4e's presentation of dragons didn't meet my needs, and something I'd hope the 5e presentation of the beasties doesn't also let me down on.

Manbearcat said:
All told, I don't know how it could possibly be contended that the system components of 4e don't back GMs up (and PCs) with the means for an absolutely awesome Blue Dragon experience. The above would make for an extremely difficult, thematic challenge that can be ramped up or down in difficulty just by means of encounter budgeting, complication fallout, by moving the SCs down a complexity, or by alleviating the requirements for an Extended Rest. Or it could be made more difficult by doing the same in the opposite direction.

Right, but 4e's designers didn't do that work, you did. I'm buying a monster book so that I don't have to do as much work when running an adventure with that monster. 4e's monster book didn't support the way I run dragons (a way derived from the immediately previous e's, that they supported adequately).
 

KM, would a paragraph of flavor text describing blue dragon tactics and a suggested skill challenge have sufficed to bring the 4E dragon up to snuff? I find that many of 4E shortcomings arise from its bullet-point writing style, which leaves out a lot of flavor. Attaching a short block of out-of-combat tactics would have gone a long way here.
 

Right, but 4e's designers didn't do that work, you did. I'm buying a monster book so that I don't have to do as much work when running an adventure with that monster. 4e's monster book didn't support the way I run dragons (a way derived from the immediately previous e's, that they supported adequately).

Well. They did the work in providing unprecedented, robust rules frameworks to mechanically resolve noncombat conflicts and threats; Skill Challenge, Disease/Condition Track, a mathematically transparent Trap/Hazard system, a terrain system, a transparent and tightly functional encounter budgeting system, an easy monster template/theme system. Then there is guidance and communication on how to use these things and how to pace an adventure to deliver the style you're going for (such as the implications of Extended Rest denial until specific, difficult conditions are met).

All of the above are, of course, located in the DMG and DMG2. This is where I would expect them to be found. Learning how to functionally use the swath of available system rules to create thematically coherent and challenging conflicts for your players is the purview of the DMG(s).

And as far as the work goes, the actual mental overhead is minimal for a skilled GM. The above took me about 2-3 minutes to come up with. It is pretty generic/vanilla but would do the job aplenty. I wouldn't need to prep (I typically spend little to no time on prep). I could run that right now with some scratch paper, some dice, and a bunch of strangers (who know the system). Brainstorming thematically coherent and internally consistent complications and conflict fallout is the GM's job, not any Monster Manual's job. Understanding various genre tropes, having a forensic base of knowledge to draw upon and deploy during play, honing your creativity and your ability to improvise immediately...these are all honed and not any Monster Manual's job.

Sure, but that doesn't help me understand why it's more important for the rules to provide a combat stat block for a lightning-using blue dragon than it is to provide, say, a skill challenge for that blue dragon getting the party lost in a desert. Especially when the latter is arguably a more vital element of running a (particular kind of) blue dragon.

<snip>

I'm already buying their monster book. I'm buying it so that I can get support running the newest version of the dragon that I've enjoyed running for the last 11 years. I would expect at LEAST what I've gotten with the last two monster books, if nothing better. When I open it up and find that it doesn't actually explicitly support that even at the level I've historically had, yeah, that's disappointing.

It seems that, overall, your complaint is that 4e MM1 didn't properly convey enough thematic material for the GM such that a brand new GM to the game would have no idea how to compose proper thematic, and internally consistent, pushback from the distinctive dragons;

1) regional complications/conflict
2) the wyrm's changing ecology as it ages
3) its (granular) means available
4) granular lair info
5) ts typical servitors
6) the denizens of the surrounding regions it might rule

You're looking for fully-fleshed, prescriptive examples of thematic noncombat complications/conflicts/fallout and servitors for each dragon? That would require an extreme amount of page count to supplement the MM for each of the relevant legendary/mythic monsters that each have their own thematic niche in the implied setting of D&D. Further, I dispute that the 2e or 3e books provided such information. They provided an outrageous amount of prescriptive fluff that did little to nothing to aid me at the table. I suppose it made for quality Reader's Digest material (if that is what one is looking for), but in no way did all of that 2e or 3e fluff marry itself to the actual system components available, which in turn basically nullified the prospect of ease of use in actual play at the table...which moved much of the GM's job away from actual play at the table to (often considerable) pre-play prep (some GMs love this I guess...I despise it with the burning hatred of a thousand suns). It was entirely up to the GM to sort the wheat from the chaff from those entries and then find a way to make up their own noncombat rules, leverage the (scantly) available rules, or figure out whether they were convinced the PCs power plays (typically involving spells and magic items which were not located in the MM) would work when there were no legitimate resolution tools invoked (rulings).

I wonder how much of these debates comes to a head over the fact that a certain segment of the player-base yearns for a granular, prescriptive, canonical bent to their monsters and their settings. Then you have another segment of the player-base that merely wants some (perhaps highly) malleable defaults that provide just enough to let them refluff and customize at their discretion.

Does a MM need to tell me that a blue smells of ozone or sand? That it uses illusions/hallucinatory effects and wards to ensnare and dispose of those who enter its domain? That it has a general disposition of mocking disdain toward lesser creatures and is generally manipulative when it isn't being outright cruel? Why it is more apt to be involved with Storm Giants than Stone Giants? What it diet consists of during adolescence? Does it need to spend 3-5 extra pages outlining specific noncombat challenges/conflicts/threats likely to be encountered when tangling with a mighty blue?
 

KM, would a paragraph of flavor text describing blue dragon tactics and a suggested skill challenge have sufficed to bring the 4E dragon up to snuff? I find that many of 4E shortcomings arise from its bullet-point writing style, which leaves out a lot of flavor. Attaching a short block of out-of-combat tactics would have gone a long way here.

I think it would've been better. I can't say for sure if it would be totally what I'm looking for, since the 4e blue dragon is such a different beast than its predecessors (so, like, a skill challenge about a thunderstorm wouldn't've been as useful, but it would be in line with the lore for 4e blue dragons), but an SC I could've modified to work probably would've been better than nothing.

But I do want to stress that it's less the flavor, and more the lack of support for gameplay that I'm disappointed by. 4e dragons don't really support the gameplay experience I am looking for in a D&D dragon. I could probably same the same about OD&D dragons and 1e dragons and probably Basic dragons, too. Lore is all well and good, story material can be inspirational, but my main issues are functional, in-play issues: the 4e Blue Dragon entry in the MM doesn't support a play experience I'll be happy with. The 2e and 3e versions are deeply flawed as well, but they do better at giving me that support (a list of spell-like abilities can go a long way for me, apparently!).
 

I don't understand either. And I mean not at all. More and more when I read these particular sorts of objections I can only conclude that indeed it has much to do with the aesthetics of the layout of the rules (such as the "indexing" as you described it) and how that differs with prior aesthetics. It has little or nothing to do with what actual tropes are possible within play, at the table, by way of deft GMing and engaged players.

@Kamikaze Midget , 100 % guaranteed I could run you through a satisfactory Elder Blue Dragon adventure set in desert at the end of Paragon Tier (level 20 Solo). Assuming the PCs are trying to locate the dragon's lair and survive the perils of its desert domain, you'd have:

<snip>

Well, that description would certainly not satisfy me so pay up! Oh, right, I didn't pay in so I've already got back everything invested other than time.
 

So as to avoid a wall o' text, I'm gonna try to parse down the reaction to the meat -- feel free to let me know if I'm missing a vital point here!

Well. They did the work in providing unprecedented, robust rules frameworks to mechanically resolve noncombat conflicts and threats; Skill Challenge, Disease/Condition Track, a mathematically transparent Trap/Hazard system, a terrain system, a transparent and tightly functional encounter budgeting system, an easy monster template/theme system. Then there is guidance and communication on how to use these things and how to pace an adventure to deliver the style you're going for (such as the implications of Extended Rest denial until specific, difficult conditions are met).

Sure, and they also gave DMs a set of rules frameworks to generate combat stats for monsters. So why do I get dragon combat stats, and not much else? What privileges the combat stat block when there are other things so much more relevant to the feel of the thing in play? If it's worth the time-saving efficiency for the designers to whip up that stat block, why isn't it worth it for them to whip up a SC? If 5e is myopically focused on a combat encounter with the critter, it's going to disappoint me, too (however much its lair and being legendary add to that combat encounter).

Brainstorming thematically coherent and internally consistent complications and conflict fallout is the GM's job, not any Monster Manual's job. Understanding various genre tropes, having a forensic base of knowledge to draw upon and deploy during play, honing your creativity and your ability to improvise immediately...these are all honed and not any Monster Manual's job.

And yet the combat stats there are thematically coherent, internally consistent mechanics for a (specific kind of) conflict that display an understanding of genre tropes and base knowledge, enabling a DM to focus on improvising rather than on details.

That's what I need from a monster entry. Combat stats are a big part of that, but they aren't all that's necessary, especially when the creatures have other elements at work.

It seems that, overall, your complaint is that 4e MM1 didn't properly convey enough thematic material for the GM such that a brand new GM to the game would have no idea how to compose proper thematic, and internally consistent, pushback from the distinctive dragons

It's at a higher level than that: the 4e MM1 didn't give me support to run the kinds of dragons I want to run. Given that 2e and 3e did (though it wasn't much), I know that such a thing is not beyond the scope of a D&D MM. 4e did not, and I hope 5e does. It doesn't necessarily require a novella (though I'm a fan of non-standard monster books), but it does require more than what 4e gave me. And, heck, on certain axes, 4e gave me too much -- I don't need a handful of different lightning-based attack powers.

I wonder how much of these debates comes to a head over the fact that a certain segment of the player-base yearns for a granular, prescriptive, canonical bent to their monsters and their settings. Then you have another segment of the player-base that merely wants some (perhaps highly) malleable defaults that provide just enough to let them refluff and customize at their discretion.

I'm of the opinion that mechanics should enhance the narrative told in play -- that the rules and the story should be intimate. Modularity keeps that customizable and flexible, because it allows you to change one set of details for another.

I'm also of the opinion that when I buy a D&D monster book, I'm getting support for running that monster in my D&D games. With dragons in 4e, this wasn't the case, since it didn't give me the support for the things I wanted to do. Those things weren't unrealistic, given that previous e's supported that just fine.
 

The 2e and 3e versions are deeply flawed as well, but they do better at giving me that support (a list of spell-like abilities can go a long way for me, apparently!).

So perhaps if the entry had a list of Arcana and Nature Rituals that each age could use and perhaps a list of thematic utility powers that you could choose 1 from? For instance:

Elder Blue Dragon Rituals

Conceal Object
Control Weather
Hallucinatory Creature
Hallucinatory Item
Hallucinatory Terrain
Silent Image
Silt Walk
Stone Shape
Sundered Skies
Waterbreathing
Water Walk

Elder Blue Dragon Utility Power (choose 1)

Illusory Wall
Phantom Mask
Spectral Vision

Would that have been sufficient? This is fully canvassed in the DMGs in the form of guidance and with hard examples in the templates and themes sections. Is this a case of indexing (as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned above) whereby you just feel that this sort of stuff should be in the MM rather than DMG?
 

So perhaps if the entry had a list of Arcana and Nature Rituals that each age could use and perhaps a list of thematic utility powers that you could choose 1 from? For instance:

Elder Blue Dragon Rituals

Conceal Object
Control Weather
Hallucinatory Creature
Hallucinatory Item
Hallucinatory Terrain
Silent Image
Silt Walk
Stone Shape
Sundered Skies
Waterbreathing
Water Walk

Elder Blue Dragon Utility Power (choose 1)

Illusory Wall
Phantom Mask
Spectral Vision

Would that have been sufficient? This is fully canvassed in the DMGs in the form of guidance and with hard examples in the templates and themes sections. Is this a case of indexing (as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned above) whereby you just feel that this sort of stuff should be in the MM rather than DMG?

Yeah, that would've been OK. No better than 2e/3e, but at least the same level. I'd be grumping about how that support could be better in the specific than whether that support existed at all. ;)

You can call it indexing, but suggesting that the creature might have a power or ability is streets ahead of simply leaving it up to the DM to figure that out if they want it or not. It's the difference between a dragon combat stat block, and info in the DMG about how to build stat blocks.
 

Sure, and they also gave DMs a set of rules frameworks to generate combat stats for monsters. So why do I get dragon combat stats, and not much else? What privileges the combat stat block when there are other things so much more relevant to the feel of the thing in play? If it's worth the time-saving efficiency for the designers to whip up that stat block, why isn't it worth it for them to whip up a SC? If 5e is myopically focused on a combat encounter with the critter, it's going to disappoint me, too (however much its lair and being legendary add to that combat encounter).

This is just me and my preferences talking here so while I'm certain there are plenty of others who share this preference, I have no idea how widely held it is (perhaps not that widely held given how often folks use adventures and how popular APs are).

In the same way that I have no idea how I could properly use an adventure or adventure path, I have no idea what use I could get out of a scripted Skill Challenge. I know some people are able to do it (and do it well - [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] to name two I know of that are so inclined and adept) but I can't imagine how I could make it work. A single conflict is such a malleable, organic thing, prone to such a vexing myriad of prospective outcomes, that I don't know of what use it would be for me to even attempt to organize/map half of the potential outcomes, let alone all of them. I can understand, now and again, being prepared with a small, guiding list of pithy, prospective complications and fallout. But, much of the time, the conflict will evolve dramatically from the scene opener even before the rising action gets underway. It will be rather difficult to predict, with consistent precision, where things might go and you must always take care that you don't artificially constrain player choice such that All Roads Lead to Rome. In my GMing experience (which admittedly is very low prep, very high improv - which I'm adept at), it just seems cost prohibitive to spend a lot of time on prep for abstract, noncombat conflict resolution. Things will go where they are going to go and you're more likely to not see it coming than you are to have predicted it.

As such, if a MM gave me a hard SC (let alone one for each individual legendary/mythical monster) that they thought I could actually run in one of my game sessions, they will have wasted an extraordinary amount of page count and effort and charged me for it. But, I may be in the extreme minority on this given how well Pathfinder APs sell and how much out of game prep some GMs perform (and seem to enjoy).
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top