GX.Sigma
Adventurer
My point is that if they're modeled by different rules tokens over the course of play, that makes them less believable (because the mechanics aren't describing the world consistently, so they start to feel arbitrary).
D&D 5E June 17 Legend & Lore - Playtesting Dragons
- Thread starter jodyjohnson
- Start date
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I do sympathise with those who don't like the 'god grants this dragon 4 extra actions a round'. It does feel a bit fudged. Why is it that dragons are scary? In theory, because they can do a lot of things at once. Consider a battle, 4 humans on one side, 1 human on the other - why is that single human almost certainly beaten? The action economy, yes, but this also tallies with our real world beliefs that it's difficult to handle multiple opponents at once, you just can't defend every attack (only 1 reaction), nor attack every opponent equally well as you could a single opponent (multiattacks should be less effective). Now consider the 4 humans against a dragon. If the dragon sweeps its tail, it should be striking more than one of those humans, unless they are spread out. It can lunge at one opponent with its mouth, whilst merely swiping at random with a claw, and that claw is so big it might hit. It can breathe fire all over the place.
So if we give the dragon the ability to claw, claw, bite, AoE tail sweep, breathe and move all in a single turn, does it stand a chance? Not really, because stepped initiative means the party all act together and it can't react to attempts at synergy. The legendary actions are an attempt to give it more things to do in a round, and to allow those things to happen out of turn. These are all good, but I'd rather the rules just state that it gets these because it's so damned big. Even giants should have something like this - basic movement for a giant is far more like an attack when that massive foot is lumbering down onto your square. I would also consider reframing some of the actions as triggers, but still with a cost. So, the tail sweep for instance should be automatic whenever the dragon moves a certain distance on foot - but when triggered it costs one of their actions. The extra move should only apply when flying, and should trigger when the dragon is still in flight (neat way to make aerial combat seem more natural too). The breath weapon should trigger at the start of its own action, if it has enough actions left to do so. This provides tactical opportunities - can you get the dragon to use up enough of its actions so that it's not raining down fire on you every round? It probably needs a couple more actions to diversify - how about a wing shield that provides DR against a ranged attack, provided it isn't flying? I also stand by my suggestion that shaking off a condition should be an action - I remember something similar in late 4E that meant you could still 'stun' a serious solo, but it would just lose one of its actions, rather than this 'I'm immune to four things nyer' stuff.
On the subject of immunity to effects. You know it would be a lot easier to balance and adjudicate these things if serious knockout effects were laid out in a clearly progressive manner. So let's take paralysis, the inability to move or take physical actions. The progression for all 'paralysing' effects could be:
- slowed (half move, disadv to dex saves/initiative if not yet rolled)
- immobile (no move, auto fail dex saves, always last)
- torpid (as above, only a single attack allowed, no 'with an action' additional abilities, no spells, only lashing out allowed)
- paralysed (as above, no physical actions at all).
For the more mental version, stunning, the effects could be similar, but a different chain:
- dizzy (cannot move after you take your action)
- dazed (can only move or act)-
- stupefied (move half speed or make a single attack, as per torpid)
- stunned (no actions whatsoever)
You get the idea, and could probably reduce it to three levels per effect and just call them 'minor stun, stun, major stun' or something. Anyway, the basic idea is that for a super solo creature like a dragon, or even as part of magic resistance, you can have a blanket rule that says any spell cast has the effect reduced one step. A dragon could, therefore, never be paralysed or stunned (though you could allow stacking in a careful way). It also gets rid of 'save or nothing' spells, where a save would provide a reduced effect. Come on, let's streamline this!
So if we give the dragon the ability to claw, claw, bite, AoE tail sweep, breathe and move all in a single turn, does it stand a chance? Not really, because stepped initiative means the party all act together and it can't react to attempts at synergy. The legendary actions are an attempt to give it more things to do in a round, and to allow those things to happen out of turn. These are all good, but I'd rather the rules just state that it gets these because it's so damned big. Even giants should have something like this - basic movement for a giant is far more like an attack when that massive foot is lumbering down onto your square. I would also consider reframing some of the actions as triggers, but still with a cost. So, the tail sweep for instance should be automatic whenever the dragon moves a certain distance on foot - but when triggered it costs one of their actions. The extra move should only apply when flying, and should trigger when the dragon is still in flight (neat way to make aerial combat seem more natural too). The breath weapon should trigger at the start of its own action, if it has enough actions left to do so. This provides tactical opportunities - can you get the dragon to use up enough of its actions so that it's not raining down fire on you every round? It probably needs a couple more actions to diversify - how about a wing shield that provides DR against a ranged attack, provided it isn't flying? I also stand by my suggestion that shaking off a condition should be an action - I remember something similar in late 4E that meant you could still 'stun' a serious solo, but it would just lose one of its actions, rather than this 'I'm immune to four things nyer' stuff.
On the subject of immunity to effects. You know it would be a lot easier to balance and adjudicate these things if serious knockout effects were laid out in a clearly progressive manner. So let's take paralysis, the inability to move or take physical actions. The progression for all 'paralysing' effects could be:
- slowed (half move, disadv to dex saves/initiative if not yet rolled)
- immobile (no move, auto fail dex saves, always last)
- torpid (as above, only a single attack allowed, no 'with an action' additional abilities, no spells, only lashing out allowed)
- paralysed (as above, no physical actions at all).
For the more mental version, stunning, the effects could be similar, but a different chain:
- dizzy (cannot move after you take your action)
- dazed (can only move or act)-
- stupefied (move half speed or make a single attack, as per torpid)
- stunned (no actions whatsoever)
You get the idea, and could probably reduce it to three levels per effect and just call them 'minor stun, stun, major stun' or something. Anyway, the basic idea is that for a super solo creature like a dragon, or even as part of magic resistance, you can have a blanket rule that says any spell cast has the effect reduced one step. A dragon could, therefore, never be paralysed or stunned (though you could allow stacking in a careful way). It also gets rid of 'save or nothing' spells, where a save would provide a reduced effect. Come on, let's streamline this!
Last edited:
This is a type of simulationism ("purist-for-system" in the Forge terminology; "process simulation" in the widespread ENworld terminology). But I agree with [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] that it doesn't seem to have any particular connection to "campaigns with a naturalistic worldview" (which was the phrase you used upthread, to which Obryn responded).
A game can have a naturalistic worldview but nevertheless have plenty of metagame mechanics or metagame-driven resolution. (Burning Wheel would be one example; some approaches to HeroWars/Quest would be another.)
As for your claim that such mechanics "make [game elements] less believable" and "start to feel arbitrary" - I assume that that is true for you (or you wouldn't say it!), but I don't know on what basis you are generalising your own experience and aesthetic response. My 4e game, for instance, is not particularly naturalistic - it is very cosmologically driven - but verisimilitude is an important consideration in narration and adjudication, and metagame mechanics are no obstacle to that.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Given that he was the person in specific in charge of the product (Keep on the Shadowfell) that made solos into ... just about anything, then he is carping and criticising about his own mistakes. While never acknowledging that it is a mistake that he is personally directly responsible for. As for the fact he worked on 4e, true. And he even gave it one of its fundamental abilities - daily powers. The parts of 4e he worked on are known - they have his name on them. I have never denied this. I have, however, pointed out some of what those books actually were and how they were received.
You are aware that half my comments about Mike Mearls are responses to you telling me I don't have the right to say what I am? So I'm expanding them and pointing out where they are true. I believe I have made a total of two comments mentioning Mearls recently that were not in direct response to you personally telling me I was wrong to bring him up by name. Hardly a "barrage". However your approach in challenging me is encouraging me to defend on my position and expand on it.
Savage Wombat
Hero
I was comparing the "fate points" to the poker chips in Deadlands. It's kind of anticlimactic to have to wear down an opponent by first draining their pool of little chips.
Maybe the "protection from saving throws" power should be tied to an advantage, so that there's an additional benefit to removing them then just using them up - that way the person forcing the save feels like he's doing something.
Maybe the "protection from saving throws" power should be tied to an advantage, so that there's an additional benefit to removing them then just using them up - that way the person forcing the save feels like he's doing something.
keterys
First Post
What about something like:
Impenetrable Scales - The dragon has resistance to damage and automatically succeeds on saving throws until it is below half hit points.
Gives the combat a phase change, even if only a minor one, and makes the "chips" apply universally to everyone as something sucky.
Impenetrable Scales - The dragon has resistance to damage and automatically succeeds on saving throws until it is below half hit points.
Gives the combat a phase change, even if only a minor one, and makes the "chips" apply universally to everyone as something sucky.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Having had to deal with that playing Torg, where I think the problem is even worse, I agree.
Some other games that I'm familiar with have incorporated some kind of "villain point" as well. But in the latest couple of editions of Mutants and Masterminds, I believe they've hit on a good formula for it. Every time the villain uses a GM fiat to have an improbable escape or save his bacon from a lucky shot, the PCs should gain a hero point. The PCs gain a benefit for suffering what is basically a plot complication. By contrast, Torg and this legendary pool for the dragon end up just having yet another sort of hit point to ablate before you can finally resolve the encounter.
Last edited:
I like. I was going to suggest "Impenetrable Mind" but I could rationalize that magic-resistant scales around the head could also act as psychic helmet.
Similar Threads
- Event post
