Dragonomicon: Dracolich Mongrel

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

Except that the all-caps post was the edited version, not the original, and that the past, let's see, every 4e thread outside of this one that I've posted in I haven't said a single bad word about it. Right? But hey, by all means, link me to those other posts I've made where I'm just hating on 4e. No, seriously, link them - I've seen this claim from you before, so back it up.

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?

It's the same reason you can't defend an edition - ANY edition, be it 3e, 2e, 1e, whatever - with house rules. Your rules don't make the natural game better.

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)

The complaint there wasn't with the "lich against it's will" but rather the dearth of fluff.

So here's my end response, I suppose: Wizards, please give more fluff, and make it more varied. Please.

 

[Set]

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

Thanks! I was tempted not to even post to this thread, seeing as how the jumping-on-anyone-who-doesn't-love-it has already started.

I kind of like the dragon's graveyard idea, best, myself, but I blame that on leftover 'cool' still stuck in my brain from the D&D cartoon.

 

[Imp]

Phylacteries for Dracolichs work differently than for Lichs, the Dracolichs phylactery can be used to control the dracolich by the cult that created it.

Can, or can't? I totally can't tell if this is a typo or not.

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.

So, why even have the phylactery, and status as a "lich", at all? What does it get you? I can't see that it serves any function at all, except as a description of the creature's anatomy, much like shooting zombies in the brain to kill them, which is also something that doesn't matter in any version of D&D without a house rule.

 

[questing gm]

Here's how I would take on it.

The bone mongrel personality is based on the dragon whose soul is kept in the phylactery, which is usually done by force. For some reasons or another, the body of said dragon is either lost or completely destroyed, so cultist had to find a replacement body for the dragon's soul to inhabit it. They decided to just build a patchwork of dragon bones to give it a similar resemblance to the dragon's previous body to allow it to inhabit it more easily.

However, since the dragon's soul was taken out by force, it's mental state is already bordering along the insane and rage which explains why it wants to just end it's miserable existence.

So there you have a mad/crazy dragon with one personality inside the bones of other dragons.

I will admit that the first time I read the flavor text of the Bone Mongrel, I thought they were implanted with a undead sentient spirit into bones of dragons to animate it. But that didn't really go well to explain what personality the dragon would have.

 

[Runestar]

Ironically, I don't think we would be seeing all these complaints here were the creature renamed to something else which did not include the term "dracolich". The disconnect here could stem from 3e treating dracoliches as very powerful, special and sacred beings, so it could seem demeaning (and odd even) to suddenly lower their status to little better than a common watchdog.

I mean...mongrel and lich? Who comes up with these names? It seems like some sort of random word program was used to string together different unassociated words to come up with new creature names or something.

Something normal like "skeletal dragon thrall" could easily have sufficed. The original name sounds extremely goofy. I don't think I can even pronounce it to my players without any of us keeping a straight face.

 

[Phaezen]

Can, or can't? I totally can't tell if this is a typo or not.

Can, 4th Ed Monster Manual, page 72.

So, why even have the phylactery, and status as a "lich", at all? What does it get you? I can't see that it serves any function at all, except as a description of the creature's anatomy, much like shooting zombies in the brain to kill them, which is also something that doesn't matter in any version of D&D without a house rule.

As I said, the Phylactery is what allows its creator to control it, it is only fluff and you can ignore it if you want .

Phaezen

 

[Phaezen]

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.

[sblock]
Shhhhh don't tell anyone I told you this , but this is a game of make believe, everything is made up.
[/sblock]

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.

Fair enough, the fluff amount might not work for you, but the whole concept presented in this excerpt has provided the inspiration for 2 setpiece enounters in the campaign I am running next year in the tricky heroic to paragon transition.

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."

But, too be fair to those posters, if you don't have anything constructive to add to a thread, don't add anything, you are just wasting peoples bandwidth. By constructive, I don't mean you have to agree with the topic of the thread, but at least post your disagreement in a way that encourages debate.

This,

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.

is better than this:

Just like all the other 4e monster fluff.

Which is to say, dull, uninspiring, and just lame.

Phaezen

 

[jensun]

Oh wait, it's an unwilling lich, which alone boggles the mind.

We have had unwilling Dracoliches since FR's Cult of the dragon.

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, when you posted your opinion, you did something other than jumping up and down and screaming "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it!" like a petulant four year old you might get a better response.

 

[Derren]

We have had unwilling Dracoliches since FR's Cult of the dragon.

No, the CoD created willing dracoliches, they just didn't mention that they could control them (which they didn't do often).

In the end, this monster doesn't make sense.
The creation of a lich normally requires a living participant who is turned into a lich during the ritual. This is not the case with this monster. Instead you get the remains of several young dragons and somehow turn them into a lich with a soul.

And even if you gloss over that, the creation of such a monster is not ressource effective. For labor, wasting several dragon remains is not productive. This undead is obviously created for war. But because of the spledid idea of putting the Phylactery on the body you can't even reuse it after it has been killed.

No, this monster would be fine a golem or mindless undead, but true to the 4E ideology, it was made a lich because lich sounds cooler than golem, no matter that it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Shadeydm]

No, this monster would be fine a golem or mindless undead, but true to the 4E ideology, it was made a lich because lich sounds cooler than golem, no matter that it doesn't make any sense.

This is really the bottom line, well said sir.

The lich draco or not was always a terrifying and powerful creature now the term lich has been devalued to include this poop. Lame!