D&D 5E MM Preview: Here be Red Dragons

[doctorhook]

Highest spell level is no higher than 1/3 CR. You can almost certainly guess what the dragon's spellcasting stat is.

Thaumaturge.

It's the Comeliness score, obviously.

 

[Thaumaturge]

It's the Comeliness score, obviously.

Exactly.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't get how creatures this big don't have trample, or pin, or whatever to handle many creatures at once.

Wing attack. Also, fire breath.

Also, I don't get cone shaped fire.... .

What's not to get about it? It's the same way red dragon breath weapons have always worked; fire billows out of the dragon's mouth, expanding as it moves away from the dragon. The effect is a roughly conical blast with the apex at the dragon's mouth.

 

[Mercule]

My biggest concern with the stat block is actually the 22 AC. I get that 5E is supposed to be "flatter" and that an ancient red dragon is a bit bigger than the broad side of a barn. Still, that seems a bit low. I've got 3rd level PCs in my group with almost that high of AC. The red also has a +17 attack, which means that two reds fighting each other are going to hit 80% of the time. A 20th level barbarian w/o magic weapons (and assuming stat boosts to get to 20 str/24 when raging instead of feats) is going to be at a +13 to hit, which hits 60% of the time. Seems a bit extreme.

Hmm... Actually, I guess that's not as bad as it seems. I still think a couple points higher AC would be better (my observation flipping through most Basic monsters, too), but the statistics aren't horribly out of whack. Still a concern, though.

 

[Derren]

My biggest concern with the stat block is actually the 22 AC. I get that 5E is supposed to be "flatter" and that an ancient red dragon is a bit bigger than the broad side of a barn. Still, that seems a bit low. I've got 3rd level PCs in my group with almost that high of AC. The red also has a +17 attack, which means that two reds fighting each other are going to hit 80% of the time. A 20th level barbarian w/o magic weapons (and assuming stat boosts to get to 20 str/24 when raging instead of feats) is going to be at a +13 to hit, which hits 60% of the time. Seems a bit extreme.

Hmm... Actually, I guess that's not as bad as it seems. I still think a couple points higher AC would be better (my observation flipping through most Basic monsters, too), but the statistics aren't horribly out of whack. Still a concern, though.

There is the danger that at higher levels the only thing that matters is HP as everyone is nearly always hitting everyone else. Oh sure, a legendary monster can only be hit 60% of all times, but what about normal ones?
Flat math doesn't really fit with level advancement.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I seem to recall that there will be rules for customizing monsters (DMG?). I would think that adding spellcasting (and other features) to a creature would be part of that-- easily allowing you to add those features to a dragon. If so, it makes sense to me. I know that not everyone likes the idea of dragons having spells. It can make them far more complicated to run (I seem to recall whole threads on 'how to run your dragon' toward the end of 3e). One could ignore the spells and spell-like abilities, but when they are part of the statblock, you feel like you are not using the dragon to its full effect unless you use them.

This way, you have a fun, challenging and dynamic creature to run, even if you don't want to bother with spells or similar abilities. But if you think an ancient dragon should have some extra tricks, you have options for adding those tricks to the more straightforward base creature. It hopefully gives everyone what they want

Anyway, my two cents.

AD

I hope this is correct, I really want to see either in MM or DMG, rules for adding 2 levels of barbarian to a gnoll, or 15 levels of spellcaster to an ancient red dragon - or rules that let me approximate that effect (eg just giving the gnoll barbarian rage, and giving the red dragon some spell casting slots - in fact I would prefer this kind of simplified version that full blown adding levels).

 

[lkj]

I hope this is correct, I really want to see either in MM or DMG, rules for adding 2 levels of barbarian to a gnoll, or 15 levels of spellcaster to an ancient red dragon - or rules that let me approximate that effect (eg just giving the gnoll barbarian rage, and giving the red dragon some spell casting slots - in fact I would prefer this kind of simplified version that full blown adding levels).

I agree completely. Basically the sort of template that 4e has for adding a class. Or, as you say, a suite of class abilities that one can add piecemeal with some guidance for what that means for how much additional challenge that would represent (I don't expect a clean formula for this, as it will likely be very dependent on synergies with other abilities). And if I decide there is some reason to add a full blown class (which would be pretty rare), I've always got the players handbook.

AD