Dragons Are Disposable(D.A.D.)Membership drive

[Victim]

They have 18 ints at a little past the halfway mark of their potential growth.

Only because Dragons go epic in CRs (needed for boss fights at high level). It's not uncommon for INT using PCs to have 18 at halfway through their potential growth either without even going into epic levels.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Count me in!

I see no reason why every single dragon is treated as a tactical genius to rival Napoleon, with spells AND spell-like abilities, a truckload of magic items, and being able to act completely logically and rationally, without ever making mistakes by losing their temper, arrogantly underestimating their opponents, fighting head-on to induce more fear in their targets and because they enjoy tearing puny humans to shreds...

I've been waiting for a thread like this for so long.

 

[Derren]

Who says that every single dragon has to be played like a genius? They should be played according to their intelligence (which most of the time is not to shabby when you remember that a normal human has only a Int of around 10 and that dragons have a lot od skillpoints too). Just because wizards tend to have an equal high Int does not mean that dragons are not allowed to be portrayed as geniuses. The player of the wizard is simply not playing his character according to its Int score.

But every dragon should be played effectivly. Most players, when playing a Int 6 Half Orc, won't play their character inneffective either so why should dragons be played ineffective when they have less than 20 Int?
Also how many times have you seen a dragon with the tactical skill of Napoleon? In the end it depends on the tactical skill of the DM and I doubt that there are many DMs who can rival Napoleons tactical knowledge.

If you prefer non sentien dragons, that is fine too. Just don't forget that this is a houserule and that the normal D&D dragons are sentient, spellcasting and except for the lower chromatic ones fairly intelligent.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Yeah, the "Bothered About Defeatable Dragons" gang were quite obnoxious.

(I use "Defeatable" rather than "Disposable" because that was a lot closer to what they seemed to mean.)

Geoff.

 

[Derren]

Yeah, the "Bothered About Defeatable Dragons" gang were quite obnoxious.

(I use "Defeatable" rather than "Disposable" because that was a lot closer to what they seemed to mean.)

Geoff.

Not really. They are only bothered that DMs use dragons without any tactic at all. Dragons are very compley to use correctly so they want to post guides on how to run dragons.
Its not about making dragons undefeatable, but to make them a worthy challenge according to their abilities.

 

[Wolfspider]

Yeah, the "Bothered About Defeatable Dragons" gang were quite obnoxious.

(I use "Defeatable" rather than "Disposable" because that was a lot closer to what they seemed to mean.)

Geoff.

Are. And since you made the issue personal, I feel the need to respond and clarify the purpose behind the whole B.A.D.D movement, if you will.

Dragons are, indeed, there to be killed. They are monsters designed to challenge a group of PCs, but ultimately they are defeatable. I've used dragons in my campaigns three times over the course of 25 years of DMing. The PCs were able to defeat the dragons all three times, and there were no TPKs.

HOWEVER

Dragons have a lot of abilities, physical and magical and social, and are quite powerful. In order to provide the maximum amount of challenge, DMs should be familiar with these abilities and make sure to take into account the kind of tactics a generally highly intelligent beast with hundreds of years of experience would use.

This kind of preparation would be needed for any type of similarly powerful beast.

Dragons are iconic. An encounter with them should be something adventurers (and their players) never forget. I have seen an aweful lot of forgettable encounters, though, and this is what made me Bothered.

My philosophy about dragons springs from the works of Tolkien, especially how he portrays Glaurung in the Silmarilion (and reading Children of Hurin recently only cemented this belief). Glaurung is able to manipulate and destroy many lives. Ultimately he was killed, but he left behind a lot of pain and misery. He wasn't Disposable, and he remains quite memorable.

By the way, I'm sorry for being so obnoxious.

 

[Sound of Azure]

treasure types ... H ... S ... T ... R

I'd like to buy a vowel, Tony.

 

[Lackhand]

Originally Posted by Sound of Azure

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

treasure types ... H ... S ... T ... R

I'd like to buy a vowel, Tony.

Just so long as those vowels aren't "A" or "U".

We really don't need a "Bothered About Disposable Arch-Fiends" thread.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Just so long as those vowels aren't "A" or "U".

We really don't need a "Bothered About Disposable Arch-Fiends" thread.

You don't want to be a BAD AF?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Yeah, the "Bothered About Defeatable Dragons" gang were quite obnoxious.

(I use "Defeatable" rather than "Disposable" because that was a lot closer to what they seemed to mean.)

Geoff.

Geoff, you are being rude to a number of ENworld users with that generalised statement. Don't do it again or there will be consequences.