Dragonomicon: Dracolich Mongrel

[Mouseferatu]

Oh, and before anyone asks...

No, I didn't write the dracolich mongrel. I didn't know it existed until the preview went up.

 

[Asmor]

Why use liches when you have mindless skeletons for that?

Realistically? Good for highly dangerous jobs where they're frequently being destroyed, since they just re-grow with their phylactery. Probably not a huge enough boon to justify the cost, though, unless you're both okay with raising undead but for whatever reason hesistant to slaughter enough people to raise skeletons as required.

More importantly, though, it leads to interesting and cool play opportunities, e.g. slave-liches begging the PCs to destroy their phylacteries so that they can finally have the rest of death.

 

[Zaukrie]

Then again, perhaps a mostly intact draconic spirit is *too hard* to control, and only one that is broken into a hundred pieces and at war with itself is able to be controlled at all?

These would make interesting 'spontaneous undead,' to occur in a Dragon's Graveyard, where winds charged with elemental forces sweep in sporadically and toss the bones around. While the spirits of the dragons are long gone, sometimes fragments of rage or despair remain soaked in these ancient relics, and when the bones are thrown into each other by the elemental winds of fire, ice, acid and lightning, these 'echoes' of ancient inhuman feelings surge and flare, the bones assembling into motley pathwork 'dragon liches' and going on rampages, fueled by long-dead passions.

This is good stuff. Just wanted to compliment you on your thinking here. Definitely using the 2nd idea there.

 

[Imp]

Yeah, the spontaneous-undead angle is the most interesting take on this thing, which, as presented, is basically angry-dead-thing-wants-to-kill you. The lich angle is uncompelling, mostly because a) what is the point really of having a phylactery if it's embedded in the creature, nope, you gotta chew through its hit points like any other skeleton, b) it's not like an enslaved entity that hates its cursed existence is going to take it real personally if you kill it but don't smash the phylactery, or even be able to do something about it, which is what phylacteries allow the kinds of liches what are scary to do to you; and c) as the master of a furious undead slave who hates you for making it, why would you put the kill switch exactly where you couldn't get to it if you needed to? Bleah. I especially like how the first knowledge check says "yup, it's undead, hates you, hates itself, hates everything, bet you couldn't have guessed that huh."

I don't like calling this sort of thing a "fluff deficit" – there were monsters in the later 3e monster manuals that were about as well fleshed out, but the descriptions went on for pages, pages that basically said "it's a servant of evil and it hates you" over and over and over again.

 

[Phaezen]

Yeah, the spontaneous-undead angle is the most interesting take on this thing, which, as presented, is basically angry-dead-thing-wants-to-kill you. The lich angle is uncompelling, mostly because a) what is the point really of having a phylactery if it's embedded in the creature, nope, you gotta chew through its hit points like any other skeleton, b) it's not like an enslaved entity that hates its cursed existence is going to take it real personally if you kill it but don't smash the phylactery, or even be able to do something about it, which is what phylacteries allow the kinds of liches what are scary to do to you; and c) as the master of a furious undead slave who hates you for making it, why would you put the kill switch exactly where you couldn't get to it if you needed to? Bleah. I especially like how the first knowledge check says "yup, it's undead, hates you, hates itself, hates everything, bet you couldn't have guessed that huh."

Phylacteries for Dracolichs work differently than for Lichs, the Dracolichs phylactery can be used to control the dracolich by the cult that created it. Dragons that become dracolichs by thier own free will do not have a phylactery. Also, as a side note if the dracolich's phylactery is destroyed, it can no longer be controlled by another person. So it makes sense to put the phylactery in a place where you have to go through the dracolich to get to it. Finally, the phylactery is destroyed when the dracolich is destroyed.

Phaezen

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Here's the problem with the whole "The personality is an amalgamut of other dragons" or "I bet it screams in thanks when it dies."

You're making that up.

I could say, with just as much authenticity, that when it dies, rainbows fly out and each bone turns into a butterfly. That's because we aren't told ANYTHING. Oh wait, it's an unwilling lich, which alone boggles the mind. This entry actually has negative fluff. It has anti fluff that is the opposite of and cancels out already pre-existing fluff.

Some people like having very minimal fluff. That's awesome for you. Others of us have come to expect a lot more from their monster entries from other, better Monster Manuals. For us, nothing about this entry makes the monster look more interesting then just being another token to put on a wargame board.

As for no positive feedback, there's only so many times you can say "Good lord, give us some fluff beyond just two lines" and be completely ignored every single time.

Oh, and my all caps post came from the two responses after mine that stated "Stop posting your opinion. It isn't allowed."

 

[The Little Raven]

Oh, and my all caps post came from the two responses after mine that stated "Stop posting your opinion. It isn't allowed."

Maybe if you didn't sound like you were holding your nose every time you posted in a 4e-related thread, people might actually think you were doing more than threadcrapping. Paired with the fact that the all caps post (usually in the form of assigning them to people that have different opinions, with the requisite lack of proper grammar and punctuation to paint them as some kind of reactionary intarweb r-tard) has become your M.O., it's really no surprise you get a negative reaction.

 

[Scribble]

Deliberate design intention methinks...but i don't know why. Maybe they think readers have short attention spans and just want the bare basics to fight something?

Maybe to sell to gamers like me?

I tend to think of myself as a relatively creative individual- I like to write, I like to sculpt, and sometimes paint... Pretty much if it's creative, I'll be interested in it. D&D (and rpg games in general )has always served that need gamewise for me by alowing me to be creative while playing a game with friends.

What really gets my creative juices flowing (ewwwwww) isn't what they DO tell me, but the things they DON'T tell me. Small amounts of flavor work like springboards for me. When they leave soemthing out, my mind wants to fill in the gaps, and that almost always leads to adventure ideas. Lots and lots of flavor just tends to be something to read.

And yes... it also gets in the way when I just want a monster for the pcs to fight.

I'd also be willing to bet I'm not terribly difefrent then the average gamer.

 

[Scribble]

Why use liches when you have mindless skeletons for that?

Why use a person when you can do it with a robot?

Computers handle lots of customer service tasks, but ultimately for the weird problems, they use humans. "I'm sorry, I can't help you with that, please hold for the next available representative..."

Same is probably true in the highly profitable undead slave world. Only so much a zombie minion can handle before having to pass you through to it's more concious allies.

How can this creature even have a consciousness considering that it is a patchwork out of multiple, already long dead creatures?

Lots n lots of ways to play this one...

It's got a pretty low intelligence so maybe they all exist together in a cloud of confusion constantly struggling to figure out what the heck it is?

Maybe the ritual kind of creates an entirely new "conciousness?" Maybe it's just powerfull enough to sort of grab hold of some "soul matter" and make a conciousness, but nowhere near the level of power a god could make... so again why it's so dumb... It's soul just isn't right...

Maybe it's got a sort of split personality... Fun for encontering it at difefrent times... At one point the dominant soul is semi helpful trying to give you tips on when it's master will be most vulnerable, but then reverts to a concioudness that clings to any form of life no matetr how horrible.. and instantly thwarts those tips it gave you... (fight club dragon!)

Maybe it just uses the soul of the most recently dead dragon part.. or the soul of the most powerful dragon in the list of parts...

Maybe the intelligence is again so low because the soul exists only partially there, and partially in the realm of the dead... eprhaps tortured, and trying to find a brave group of adventurers to find it's physical pressense and put an end to it...

 

[M.L. Martin]

Here's the problem with the whole "The personality is an amalgamut of other dragons" or "I bet it screams in thanks when it dies."

You're making that up.

I could say, with just as much authenticity, that when it dies, rainbows fly out and each bone turns into a butterfly.

Why in the world does 'authenticity' matter a whit? Complain that it doesn't give you enough to work with, fine, but that fan ideas built on it aren't 'authentic'? What's next, are we only going to be allowed to use 'official' monsters and adventures?

That's because we aren't told ANYTHING. Oh wait, it's an unwilling lich, which alone boggles the mind. This entry actually has negative fluff. It has anti fluff that is the opposite of and cancels out already pre-existing fluff.

Some people like having very minimal fluff. That's awesome for you. Others of us have come to expect a lot more from their monster entries from other, better Monster Manuals.

The same 'other, better Monster Manuals' that established that even full-fledged dracoliches can be created against the will of the dragon in question? (2E Monstrous Manual, 3.5 Draconomicon)