Draconomicon Excerpt: Frostforged Wyrm

[I'm A Banana]

Except that is a dangerous road to walk down

Kamikaze Midget: Dangerous Design.

I'm going to get that on a business card!

writing an elaborate combat subsystem for a single monster seems, in my mind, a waste of time and effort and an invitation for slowing down combat and potentially penalizing groups that don't think of the exact right tactic.

I'll fully agree with you on the "unnecessarily elaborate" thing. But, then, why not have the fluff match the crunch? If it's too elaborate for a single combat, make it a huge setpiece. If you can't do that, simplify the fluff.

Penalizing the "wrong strategy" only occurs of you take a 3e-ish approach and assume everyone's going to do the best thing all the time. If you just let it be a little reward -- let this monster be a little easier, if the players are clever -- then you reward the players without hurting anything. Except maybe a DM who wanted to use it as the boss, but it's not SOLO, so that should twig a DM that using it as a boss is probably not recommended, ya?

It also means having to address a variety of questions - can PCs target the demons all the time? Can they hit them with area effects? How many demons need to be killed? If the characters spend four actions to kill all the demons and weaken the dragon, wouldn't those four actions have been better spent killing the dragon itself?

Those questions are going to get asked in many campaigns anyway. By anticipating them and giving us an answer, WotC will be designing for use at the table.

They do give us an answer here, it's just the D&D equivalent of "I'm the Mom, that's why!" It's really unsatisfying y'know?

The rules already have a solid, comprehensive framework for rewarding creative tactics - page 42. They don't attempt to define a specific list of creative actions and how they work, since that would both be a pain to create, and actively prevent other creative solutions not thought up by the designers.

It'd be nice if the monster pointed out Page 42 and gave some suggestions for what "creative tactics" PC's might choose. That'd even address that issue.

But it doesn't, so it's not addressed.

Easy to run, distinct and memorable in nature and appearance, this is the sort of creature I am very glad to see

It'd just be more awesome if the fluff reflected the crunch.

This is probably something you can say for a whole bucketload of things from 4e, though.

 

[Scribble]

Man... Elves would be a lot less mobile without their feet... how comes the MM doesn't say what happens when I try to attack an elf's feet?

Or a Beholder's Eyes? Or a Dragon's wings? Or a Snakes fangs?

The dragon and the demons are effectively 1 creature. Attacking the demons = attacking the creature as a whole. Just like thweir haven't been any called shots in D&D since 2e.

Aside from that, it doesn't say that the Demons hold the plates on... it says they repair the plates when the dragon actively tries to free itself. Killing the demons doesn't mean the plates automatically just fall off right then and there. They're held on by

So you kill the little demons? Awesome, now when the dragon kills you, it can pull off the metal plates without fear of little demons thwarting his attempts.

If you want them to fall off when the demons are killed? Cool. But that's on you. Nothing about that monster stat block indicates that that is the case, however.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The dragon and the demons are effectively 1 creature.

But they aren't REALLY one creature.

4e distinguishes between attacking a mount and attacking a rider, doesn't it?

It also distinguishes between attacking a dragon and attacking a kobold standing next to it

And attacking a spider and attacking that spider's drow master.

And attacking a snake, and attacking the thing that the snake is grappling.

Why will it allow for that strategy, but not for this?

It is unsatisfying. It is lame.

So you kill the little demons? Awesome, now when the dragon kills you, it can pull off the metal plates without fear of little demons thwarting his attempts.

If you want them to fall off when the demons are killed? Cool. But that's on you. Nothing about that monster stat block indicates that that is the case, however.

This is exactly the problem.

 

[Kishin]

But they aren't REALLY one creature.

4e distinguishes between attacking a mount and attacking a rider, doesn't it?

It also distinguishes between attacking a dragon and attacking a kobold standing next to it

And attacking a spider and attacking that spider's drow master.

And attacking a snake, and attacking the thing that the snake is grappling.

Why will it allow for that strategy, but not for this?

It is unsatisfying. It is lame.



This is exactly the problem.

Its a gamist design decision. I don't think I would have done it that way, admittedly, and I'm fairly gamist when it comes to mechanics.

But in all seriousness, aren't 'clever tactics' the reason we have DMs? To adjudicate the all sorts o things folks come up with at the gaming table, be they logical or crazy?

Rule on it as you will. Its part of your job.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its a gamist design decision. I don't think I would have done it that way, admittedly, and I'm fairly gamist when it comes to mechanics.

RPG design probably shouldn't be an -ism.

But in all seriousness, aren't 'clever tactics' the reason we have DMs? To adjudicate the all sorts o things folks come up with at the gaming table, be they logical or crazy?

Rule on it as you will. Its part of your job.

It's their job to make sure I don't have to pull something out of the air very often.

They failed, I called 'em on it. Whatever I do next is damage control.