Dragon + snatch feat = TPK?

[Cedric]

Sun Tzu on the Art of War with Dragons...

Never fight a Dragon on a battleground of his own choosing.

Cedric

 

[Fade]

Any PCs worth their salt of high enough level to be fighting a dragon like that will be flying too.

 

[Angcuru]

as in winged boots?

 

[Spikey]

I've found that Tree Tokens work well against dragons that try to graple you in their mouths.

 

[reapersaurus]

I've found that Tree Tokens work well against dragons that try to graple you in their mouths.

ROFL!!!
quite the whopper of a Game of Death reference there...

And to answer the question: as any member of BADD could tell you, the main reason why dragons are ever killed is because DM's don't play them to their full abilities.

 

[Dark Eternal]

It sounds to me like B.A.D.D. has it figured out.

Seriously - all of the tactics you guys are suggesting for dragon slaying are great, but one thing bothers me about them. Just about every dragon above the young adult age category has genius-level intellegence, and by Old and up, they're supernaturally intellegent. So given that by this point, they've had hundreds of years of survival experience, don't you think they would have figured all of these tricks out? Indeed - the best tricks, they'd be using themselves!

A human's greatest weapon isn't any gun, spell, sword or explosive. It's the human mind - human ingenuity, creativity, intellegence. And the same would be true of dragons - except to the nth power. A hyperintellegent dragon is going to be able to think circles around a group of average adventurers. That's a deadly - and very appropriate, IMHO - advantage, and rare indeed would be the occasion when a group of demi-humans would be able to overcome it.

Anyways - that's my 2 cp worth. "We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress."

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Dark Eternal:

It sounds to me like B.A.D.D. has it figured out.

Seriously - all of the tactics you guys are suggesting for dragon slaying are great, but one thing bothers me about them. Just about every dragon above the young adult age category has genius-level intellegence, and by Old and up, they're supernaturally intellegent. So given that by this point, they've had hundreds of years of survival experience, don't you think they would have figured all of these tricks out? Indeed - the best tricks, they'd be using themselves!

A human's greatest weapon isn't any gun, spell, sword or explosive. It's the human mind - human ingenuity, creativity, intellegence. And the same would be true of dragons - except to the nth power. A hyperintellegent dragon is going to be able to think circles around a group of average adventurers. That's a deadly - and very appropriate, IMHO - advantage, and rare indeed would be the occasion when a group of demi-humans would be able to overcome it.

The problem isn't limited to dragons. There are no game rules or help in the DMG for playing highly intelligent, wise, or to a lesser extent, charismatic characters and beings. In the end, they're only as good as the person who plays them.

Were testing the waters to allow Int. checks to learn weaknesses and abilities in a never-before-seen enemy. A highly intelligent being can observe an enemy and learn one thing about his enemy as a standard action or his intellience modifier number of things about him as a full round action. DCs depend on how exacting information you get. A DC 15 check might tell you that the target has more HPs than you do, a DC 30 check might tell you the target has 79 HP and is ripe for a Power Word: Kill.

We're looking at making opposed Wis. checks to allow you to know what the enemy's immediate next move might be. If you just make your opposed roll you learn something about their actions in a broad sense (flee, attack, spellcasting), to the specific (flee along *this* path, move to engage *here*, cast an *offensive* spell.) if you make an impressive check (win by 10 for example). Again, a standard action check should be in order. You can also make a check against an entire group, making a single roll but at a cumulative -2 penalty per target observed. A very wise dragon flying overhead could look at a party and possibly know exactly what everyone's next round action might be. But as it takes a standard action to accomplish, it is not as much use when you're in the thick of things. A wise cleric hanging back and observing though can give tactical advice...

Has anyone else tried something like this? I know I've seen rules like this before, long, long ago.


A'koss!

 

[Dark Eternal]

The problem isn't limited to dragons. There are no game rules or help in the DMG for playing highly intelligent, wise, or to a lesser extent, charismatic characters and beings. In the end, they're only as good as the person who plays them.

This is a problem I highly empathize with. I just finished playing Terathramus Allisynieth - an elven half-celestial cleric / paladin / divine agent in a long running campaign who, at 20th level, had stats to the order of 26 wis and 28 cha with his enchancement bonuses.

I had very much enjoyed playing the character at lower levels, but it got increasingly hard for me to deal with suspension of disbelief regarding my own character, since I couldn't help but feel that I was very inadequate at portraying. someone that wise and charsimatic.

In the end, I loved the character, and he was without a doubt the greatest role-playing challenge of my gaming career, but when the campaign finally ended I was quite glad to be done with him, as playing the character had become an exercise in frustration. Terathramus would have been very disappointed with his player, I think.

Were testing the waters to allow Int. checks to learn weaknesses and abilities in a never-before-seen enemy. A highly intelligent being can observe an enemy and learn one thing about his enemy as a standard action or his intellience modifier number of things about him as a full round action. DCs depend on how exacting information you get. A DC 15 check might tell you that the target has more HPs than you do, a DC 30 check might tell you the target has 79 HP and is ripe for a Power Word: Kill.

We're looking at making opposed Wis. checks to allow you to know what the enemy's immediate next move might be. If you just make your opposed roll you learn something about their actions in a broad sense (flee, attack, spellcasting), to the specific (flee along *this* path, move to engage *here*, cast an *offensive* spell.) if you make an impressive check (win by 10 for example). Again, a standard action check should be in order. You can also make a check against an entire group, making a single roll but at a cumulative -2 penalty per target observed. A very wise dragon flying overhead could look at a party and possibly know exactly what everyone's next round action might be. But as it takes a standard action to accomplish, it is not as much use when you're in the thick of things. A wise cleric hanging back and observing though can give tactical advice...

If I may voice my opinion, that's absolutely brilliant.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Dark Eternal:

I had very much enjoyed playing the character at lower levels, but it got increasingly hard for me to deal with suspension of disbelief regarding my own character...

Heh, heh, heh...

If I may voice my opinion, that's absolutely brilliant.

Your opinion is so noted.

The rules still need to be thoroughly playtested but our group is definitely liking the direction they're heading.

We're thinking of broadening the ability out into roleplaying situations as well (without tripping on other skills hopefully). An intelligent character trying to gain the favor of the king might observe something about the king himself that may be helpful - shared hobby, dislike for grubby mercenaries, etc. It's still up to the character to do something with that information.

A wise character trying to gain favor with the king might notice that the Queen's chambermaid is the best route. She has the ear of the Queen, and through the Queen, the King... Now it's time to get Mr. Charisma to go to work. The intelligent man sees a problem and tries to analyze it directly (looking for the weakness), the wise man looks for path of least resistance, which isn't always the most direct one.

If you've got both, you're very dangerous - you know the best route to achieve your goals (Wis) and the means to realize every step (Int).


A'koss!

 

[Plane Sailing]

We're looking at making opposed Wis. checks to allow you to know what the enemy's immediate next move might be.

Presumably you would allow sense motive in here too (probably against bluff)?