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

[Guacamole]

Oddly enough, it seems some people find the tradition of smart dragons a compelling narrative and want to find a way to make it work in their games. Crazy, huh?

 

[lukelightning]

Oddly enough, it seems some people find the tradition of smart dragons a compelling narrative and want to find a way to make it work in their games. Crazy, huh?

And oddly enough, some people find the mythic tradition of solitary, asocial dragons a compelling narrative.

It's easier to stat up dragons as non spellcasters and add spellcasting in if needed rather than the other way around.

 

[Guacamole]

And oddly enough, some people find the mythic tradition of solitary, asocial dragons a compelling narrative.

It's easier to stat up dragons as non spellcasters and add spellcasting in if needed rather than the other way around.

Hence, if people have different styles of play, it seems somewhat pointless to jump into a thread not about your style of play and go "OMG. DRAGONS SHOULD BE BIG BAD AND STOOPID!!!!!!!!" Perhaps a thread about dragons being big bad and stupid would be more appropriate than a thread jack, no?

 

[Dausuul]

I think the reason dragons are so often made out to be masterminds is that they are the iconic foe in D&D, which means people want an option to make a dragon into the Big Bad. However, Big Bads are not merely the nastiest villains around; they're also the engines that drive the plot. A plot consisting of "Hike up to the dragon's lair and kill it" does not make for an exciting story.

Therefore, if dragons are to function in a Big Bad role, it's very handy for them to have mastermind capabilities. It is possible to have Big Bad dragons that don't run networks of intrigue (see Smaug), but they don't really cut it as dumb brutes.

 

[Lackhand]

Which, I remind everyone, is _not_ what the loss of minor sorcerous spellcasting means.

 

[TwinBahamut]

A plot consisting of "Hike up to the dragon's lair and kill it" does not make for an exciting story.

Well, I think both Beowulf and Tolkien's The Hobbit will disagree with you, but that is a different point... Edit: Looking at your post again, even you seem to recognize this with your Smaug reference, so I wonder why you made this point at all.

The Mastermind is not the only archetype for the BBEG. In fact, the archetype many people are referring to in this thread, the hidden figure who controls the world from behind the scenes, is just a subset of the idea of a Mastermind. Dragons shouldn't be built with the assumption of that one subset of a single archetype.

Regardless, I prefer dragons to be The Dragon, rather than the villain itself, and they certainly don't need magic for that role. They might not even need a lair for that role.

 

[Stormtalon]

Well, I think both Beowulf and Tolkien's The Hobbit will disagree with you, but that is a different point... Edit: Looking at your post again, even you seem to recognize this with your Smaug reference, so I wonder why you made this point at all.

I think the point he's trying to make is that, regardless of role -- be it mastermind, despot, or rampaging beast -- the last thing that any dragon would be is a simple "big, dumb brute." Smaug was the epitome of the rampaging beast, but he was also intelligent, arrogant and somewhat (in an odd way) cultured. In D&D, only the White Dragons --and now, apparently, the Iron Dragons-- will fit neatly into the dumb brute role, and even they have at least human-level intelligence.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, I think both Beowulf and Tolkien's The Hobbit will disagree with you, but that is a different point... Edit: Looking at your post again, even you seem to recognize this with your Smaug reference, so I wonder why you made this point at all.

Yeah, my ideas were sort of changing as I wrote the post. What it really comes down to is that while a BBEG need not be a Mastermind, animalistic brutes don't make for very satisfying BBEGs in a long campaign. Dragons who fill the BBEG role should be clever creatures, if not necessarily brilliant.

Beowulf's fight with the Fire-Drake was spectacular, but when you get right down to it, it was just one battle. In a D&D game, it wouldn't have taken more than a single session to complete. That's what I mean by "hike up to the dragon's lair and kill it."

The Hobbit is a much better case; it's a long story that's very much in the classic D&D "quest mold." It's not just hiking up to the dragon's lair and killing it. It's hiking through the hills, getting caught by trolls, tricking the trolls into being petrified, visiting Rivendell, crossing the Misty Mountains, getting caught by goblins, escaping the goblins, finding a magic ring, meeting Gollum, having a riddle-game, escaping from Gollum, escaping the goblins again... et cetera, et cetera.

And no, Smaug isn't a Mastermind. But he is quite intelligent. He has to be intelligent so you can hate him; otherwise there's not enough motivation to carry players through a big campaign, and the final confrontation is just another fight. After you've been through the sort of stuff Bilbo had to go through, the confrontation with the Big Bad has to be suitably epic.

The Mastermind is not the only archetype for the BBEG. In fact, the archetype many people are referring to in this thread, the hidden figure who controls the world from behind the scenes, is just a subset of the idea of a Mastermind. Dragons shouldn't be built with the assumption of that one subset of a single archetype.

Regardless, I prefer dragons to be The Dragon, rather than the villain itself, and they certainly don't need magic for that role. They might not even need a lair for that role.

Dragons certainly make excellent Dragons. Still, I dislike always having them in a subordinate role.

 

[The Little Raven]

I can't decide if this thread is like the Terminator or the Energiser Bunny…

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. "

This thread is very much the Terminator.

 

[FourthBear]

Dragons certainly make excellent Dragons. Still, I dislike always having them in a subordinate role.

There has definitely been a beefing up of dragons going from 1e to 2e, then 2e to 3e. Many people felt that dragons in the first edition of AD&D were underpowered. In that editions, dragons were often subordinate to the mastermind villains. Heck, there were specific rules in 1e for subduing dragons and for capturing dragon eggs and training the hatchlings. In both 2e and 3e, dragons got a very substantial power and intelligence boost. Unfortunately, it does seem to have come with dragon stats that would make a tax lawyer blanch.