Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7016721" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Then I definitely don't understand (when we're talking about monster design), why you would be using the only non-updated 4e dragon as the template for 4e dragon distinctiveness.  If that is the case, then its, quite simply, uninspired GMing.  Let us say the GM hasn't created an interesting, dynamic, interactive battlefield in any way...whatsoever (D&D 4e GMing 101).  At the utterly bare minimum, combat with a Blue Dragon should entail trying to deal with a ranged flyer that is constantly assailing you with Lightning.  And if you do manage to pin it down, it has the ability (and impetus) to escape melee (Push + Prone) and immediately get back on the wing.  Combat with a Red Dragon will entail getting up close and personal with a fiery wyrm that dominates the melee.  Fiery bite and claw attacks.  When you try to gang up on it or flank it, you're getting a massive tail slap for your efforts, sending you flying away, and you'll have to test it again.  Every now and then you'll get an infernal blast.And neither of those touch Frightful Presence.  Or the actual updated monsters.I'm fairly (99.75%) certain this has been clarified as an improper reading of the text.  Shove is a discrete Action.  Multiattack is a discrete Action.  You could sub Shove for the entire suite of Multiattack attacks.  However, you can't sub Shove for one attack of a Multiattack flurry.  I think this was also cleared up on a Sage Advice column (or a Tweet).  Now, of course, you can do whatever you'd like in your home game, but its not orthodox 5e.Well, I'm not really "starting to admit", because it was never something I was arguing (that a single ability makes for a lack of distinctive punchiness).  I mean sure, if you strip down a McClaren, a Lamborghini, a Ferrari, and a Porsche (remove the location/type of engines, remove suspension/transmission systems, remove electrical/brakes), then yeah...you've just got a mildly different aerodynamic chassis with mildly different weight distribution.  I don't see how that makes for a compelling argument about the distinctiveness of the actual cars.  And again, this is 4e, where robust synergies creating tactical overhead and a dynamic series of interesting, thematic decision-points is the fundamental purpose of the engine.A huge part of the design effort of 5e was grounding the creature/phenomenon's story in the setting first, then building mechanics to that (rather than the inverse).  Dragons evolving unique hunting and confrontation archetypes (as a result of their distinct behavioral and biological paradigms) seems to precisely fit that directive.  I would hope that Blue Dragon's finesse hunt on the wing while Red Dragon's shock and awe their prey with rage and fury.[HR][/HR]We seem to be moving toward a discussion of complexity rather than distinction (one that I didn't enter into...I just wanted to correct the "lack of distinctiveness" narrative that was developing).  Ok, I'll jump into that real quick.  One thing I will say right off the bat is that (illegally) subbing various maneuvers (and their own distinct resolution procedure) for components of a Multiattack Action in order to achieve the same thing from a singular action (which doesn't require extra resolution...Gore = damage + auto Push and Prone rider) strikes me as ramping up the cognitive workload of the GM!Beyond that, let us say you just gave each of the two dragons one extra Legendary Action that cost 2 Actions.  This would be distinct from each other.  Obviously it would need to be remapped to 5e, but here goes:BLUEREDWould this singular addition:1)  Increase distinctiveness (behavioral, biological, tactical overhead in combat for both players and GM).2)  Increase the GM's cognitive workload beyond whatever preferred threshold you have.</blockquote>

Verification