Loss of Innate Spellcasting (or 'How Dragons Build Lairs')

[Propheous_D]

Derren we have surpassed the superflous here and have reached a point were we shed our childhood and tak about adulthood.

1. You assume the chamber the dragon is in is not ventilated use smaller air holes. You also assume that one of the entrances that is "plugged" is not large enough for the dragon.

You are completely stretching trying to hold onto a thin whisper of your arguement for arguement sakes.

2. 10th level wizards do not teleport around. At 10th level teleport is risky to imposible for most 10th level wizards in earlier versions and in 4E it has all ready been stated to be expensive and harder to do via ritual. Please come up with better more intellegent arguements. EVEN in the Realms wizards did not teleport all over the place. Alot of them travelled and with an entourage a dragon would snack on in one round.

3. This is getting utterly rediculous. You are now trolling. Your arguments are becoming a bit old and I would appreciate you either accept that your opinion is yours and frankly the minority of this cross section of players, or come up with something that actually makes sense and doesn't every single poster after you squashing. I wish you the best playing other editions or games.

conclusion

There is no evidence to support a drastic weakening in the dragons presence or power with a dm worth anything more then a cut and paste campaign.

Good gaming all

 

[Derren]

Derren we have surpassed the superflous here and have reached a point were we shed our childhood and tak about adulthood.

1. You assume the chamber the dragon is in is not ventilated use smaller air holes. You also assume that one of the entrances that is "plugged" is not large enough for the dragon.

You are completely stretching trying to hold onto a thin whisper of your arguement for arguement sakes.

If you think so. But I suppose that me asking why the adventurers instead of attacking the dragon wouldn't simply plug the air holes (or blow a cloudkill into it) is trolling too.
And I guess its normal that the dragon has to plug and unplug the exit to his lair whenever it tries to leave and comes back, which also includes placing the heavy object on top of it so it falls down when a hole is disintegrated into the plug.
Lets not talk about what happens if the adventurers manage to only drill a small hole into a plug and use it to fire spells/arrow through it.

2. 10th level wizards do not teleport around. At 10th level teleport is risky to imposible for most 10th level wizards in earlier versions and in 4E it has all ready been stated to be expensive and harder to do via ritual. Please come up with better more intellegent arguements. EVEN in the Realms wizards did not teleport all over the place. Alot of them travelled and with an entourage a dragon would snack on in one round.

So, why? A 10th level wizard has many options other than mundane travel (and that includes overland flight). And escaping from a dragon is not that hard for him either. Invisibility + Dimension door. The Blindsense only goes so far. I suggest you stop thinking in novel terms "The wizard travels because the plot says he does" and start thinking in game terms.

3. This is getting utterly rediculous. You are now trolling. Your arguments are becoming a bit old and I would appreciate you either accept that your opinion is yours and frankly the minority of this cross section of players, or come up with something that actually makes sense and doesn't every single poster after you squashing. I wish you the best playing other editions or games.

Ok, which of my answers is the rediculous one? That dragons are vulnerable to massive archer attacks when flying away which, considering his lack of healing, places him as a disadvantage as he now has to recover this damage first (attrition)?
Was it the one that when using smoke to convey the intention for a meeting that the dragon has to spend most of his time outside of his lair watching for the smoke? (Also the dragon would be unable to have agents farther away as it can so, not to mention that colored smoke is suspicious)?
Or was it that a unmagical dragon does not necessarily have access to much magical knowledge a 10th level wizard might be interested in?

 

[JahellTheBard]

Dragons are the elite of all mosters ... they should have the greatest magical powers ... i see them as pure magic in tangible form ... like in EarthSea by Le Guin .. They shoud be more, much more than just mindless brutes ...

 

[Wormwood]

They shoud be more, much more than just mindless brutes ...

There's a large divide between "not being a 10th-level sorcerer" and being "a mindless brute".

 

[kennew142]

There's a large divide between "not being a 10th-level sorcerer" and being "a mindless brute".

Ain't this the truth?

Some things I've learned in this thread:

1) If all dragons aren't archmages, they are inconsequential creatures at best

2) It is better for the rules to make every dragon a powerful spellcaster than to allow such an option for those GMs who want it (i.e. giving dragons caster levels or wizard training)

3) If a few GMs want all dragons to be powerful spellcasters, the rules have to make it so - even if that is not what most GMs would like

4) If a BBEG uses minions of any kind, he isn't really an BBEG

5) Only spellcasters can be major villains - everyone else is too weak

6) It is too much trouble to construct a good story - every creature should be given enough magic to make good plotlines unnecessary

7) No matter how many viable scenarios are given to disprove a point, even more ridiculous (and tenuous) arguments can be constructed to argue ever more minor details in order to hold onto the original point

In 28 years of GMing (and too many dragon scenarios to count), I have never used a dragon BBEG who relied on magic, eschewed minions or experienced the kind of bizarre problems I've seen trotted out in this thread.

If some GMs want their dragon BBEG to be powerful spellcasters, rules exist to make it so. No one is telling you not to. As for the rest of us, we don't need them. Dragon spellcasting has always been so weak that they are insignificant to the overall power of the dragon.

 

[Guacamole]

The point is simply this. The rules are a framework to build a game on. Rules cannot be a comprehensive document that wil cover every circumstance. It is logical that the rules be subject to the narrative, not vice versa, because the narrative is the motive force behind the game--the rules are the body, the narrative is the soul.

If your narrative requires that your dragon be able to cast spells to be a suitable BBEG, then so be it. He does. He has wiz/sor/cleric/warlock levels. If that means that the heroes don't fight the dragon until level 20 rather than level 18, so be it. If that means that the dragon has access to special "dragon magic" beyond the ken of the heroes--a plot device, if you will-- so be it. The dragon can send magical messages, magically shape his lair, errect wards and protections, etc. This isn't cheating as long as the players are aware (through research, rumor, notes found on assassinated NPC kobold clerics) that the dragon has magical wards they may not be able to circumvent (or there needs to be a allowance for this).

It's either that or continuing to play 3.5.

Cheers,
guacamole

 

[Mirtek]

Dragons and magic used to be synonynous in D&D. I even say that dragons and dragon magic are much more "D&D'ness" than the typical metalic/chromativ colors. I guess scraping their "D&D color code" would be only half as worse as scraping their innate magic.

I dearly hope that FR and other settings will quickly reintroduce their own, spellcasting, version of the dragons.

 

[Derren]

Ain't this the truth?

Some things I've learned in this thread:

1) If all dragons aren't archmages, they are inconsequential creatures at best

2) It is better for the rules to make every dragon a powerful spellcaster than to allow such an option for those GMs who want it (i.e. giving dragons caster levels or wizard training)

3) If a few GMs want all dragons to be powerful spellcasters, the rules have to make it so - even if that is not what most GMs would like

4) If a BBEG uses minions of any kind, he isn't really an BBEG

5) Only spellcasters can be major villains - everyone else is too weak

6) It is too much trouble to construct a good story - every creature should be given enough magic to make good plotlines unnecessary

7) No matter how many viable scenarios are given to disprove a point, even more ridiculous (and tenuous) arguments can be constructed to argue ever more minor details in order to hold onto the original point

In 28 years of GMing (and too many dragon scenarios to count), I have never used a dragon BBEG who relied on magic, eschewed minions or experienced the kind of bizarre problems I've seen trotted out in this thread.

If some GMs want their dragon BBEG to be powerful spellcasters, rules exist to make it so. No one is telling you not to. As for the rest of us, we don't need them. Dragon spellcasting has always been so weak that they are insignificant to the overall power of the dragon.

1. Without magic dragons are a lot weaker as they lack options. After the players encountered 3 red dragons in the game they will knew what awaits them which makes the dragon weaker. Also if you play out the environment around the dragon a lack of magic also makes teh dragon weaker as it can't prepare itself against the PCs (or generally against the adventurers) anymore.

2. Its better for the rules to give a monster which requires spellcasting those spells instead of requiring every DM who wants more than a combat encounter to houserule it in.
Also theoretically you just need rules to build monsters and not actual monsters itself. That way every DM can have what he wants and you would save a whole book.
But that is not what people want, they want complete monsters.

3. If some DMs want to use monsters like they did use them in previous editions they should be able to do so.

4. The BBEG is not the BBEG when it is more or less helpless without his minions as he might still be able to fight well but has no way to influence the world on a level appropriate scale.

5. In 3E yes (High level, or with access to a lot of spellcasters). generally the BBEG must be able to match the ressources of the opposition (NPCs and PCs) and when they have magic he needs them too.

6. A good plotline requires the BBEG to have fixed abilities and not get ruled 0 whenever he needs something.

7. So far I haven't seen a viable theory, only some dodged counters which don't really address the point. If you know a counter example post it in my "Challenge" Thread.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216248

The problem with all counters is that they do not address the big picture. See the smoke idea. Yes, smoke can be a way to convey messages, but the poster didn't think of how this method of communication would mean for the day to day life of the dragon, the possible operating distance of the dragon or for the security of the operation (suspicious, easily forgeable,). This "seeing the big picture" (don't know a better word for it) is what all those counters are lacking imo.

In your 28 years of GMing, did you ever think about the backstory and how the dragons achieved what they did by the rules or simply said "thats a interesting plotline so that happened"?.

 

[Guacamole]

Dragons and magic used to be synonynous in D&D. I even say that dragons and dragon magic are much more "D&D'ness" than the typical metalic/chromativ colors. I guess scraping their "D&D color code" would be only half as worse as scraping their innate magic.

I dearly hope that FR and other settings will quickly reintroduce their own, spellcasting, version of the dragons.

Why does it matter? If you don't like dragons the way they are, tweak them to suit your campaign.

 

[Mirtek]

Why does it matter? If you don't like dragons the way they are, tweak them to suit your campaign.

In this case it also doesn't matter if they give them their innate dragon magic. If you don't it, tweak them to suit your campaign.

Isn't it the tantrism of the pro-4e crowd that it's always easier to ignore than to build yourself? Ah, I forgot that's only the case when the added thing is something that they like. Woe if it's just merely suggested that there could come something they don't like (like a map of the PoL setting), because then it makes a 180° turnaround and it's suddenly easier to build yourself than to just ignore what's written (See the Map-Thread, there it's suddenly claimed that the mere existance of the map is something that impedes ones imagination while all you have to do is to just ignore it).