MM2 Excerpt: Adamantine Dragon

[Derren]

Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters, right? I'm not sure why, but I assumed that was an Iron Dragon. Maybe because it looks kind of brutish and the irons were described as the "stupid" metallic dragon. The tail certainly implies that it's the same as in the Adamantine excerpt, though.

Not a fan of the beak either, but I can deal. Those tiny pinprick eyes make it look outright sinister - not sure if that's good or bad.

Its an adamantine dragon. Scott once made an adamantine dragon facebook or livejournal page for fun and he used that picture.

And I already said back than that the dragon is ugly, but its nothing compared to the new picture.

And I agree with Tequila Sunrise. Why can't obviously good creatures not have the good alignment? Just so that PCs can fight it without any moral problems?

 

[Belphanior]

Why can't obviously good creatures not have the good alignment? Just so that PCs can fight it without any moral problems?

What is it about the adamantine dragon that makes it "obviously good"?

They are described as:
Haughty and imperious, adamantine dragons assume leadership of any creatures in their territory. They demand loyalty, tribute, and respect, and in return they take the responsibility of protecting their charges seriously.

Nothing about this makes it "obviously good". It removes the sovereignty of anything in its territory and makes them its subjects. The only thing keeping it from being evil is the fact that it's not a callous or devious tyrant, but it's not really far off.

Yes, metallic dragons used to have their goodness hardwired into their DNA. I think by now we should all have come to terms with the fact that 4e often breaks with tradition; a 4e monster's alignment should be based on its 4e-mindset, not what a book from several editions ago said.

 

[Derren]

Yes, metallic dragons used to have their goodness hardwired into their DNA. I think by now we should all have come to terms with the fact that 4e often breaks with tradition; a 4e monster's alignment should be based on its 4e-mindset, not what a book from several editions ago said.

Of course they only do this to good monsters (so that the PCs can fight them more often). Previously evil monsters are still evil.

While in older editions it was "Colour coded for your convenience" it is now "If it moves, kill it".

 

[hong]

Of course they only do this to good monsters (so that the PCs can fight them more often). Previously evil monsters are still evil.

While in older editions it was "Colour coded for your convenience" it is now "If it moves, kill it".

No, it is "if it's big, it's dangerous". Even if it's on your side.

This is another way in which 4E is more metal.

 

[Belphanior]

Of course they only do this to good monsters (so that the PCs can fight them more often). Previously evil monsters are still evil.

While in older editions it was "Colour coded for your convenience" it is now "If it moves, kill it".

Zombies and skeletons aren't evil in 4e any more. They were in 3.5

I'm not really focusing just on alignment here, just the overall purpose of a critter within the game.

Demons and devils got mixed up a bit to put the "monstrous engines of destruction" in one camp and the "thinking guys of corruption" in the other (globally speaking). Although they were evil, those definitely got shaken up.

But like I said, why are you focusing on what the older editions were like? 4th is its own thing and handles monsters in its own way. Demanding the metallic dragons be good for the sake of tradition strikes me as unwise, because that tradition itself was always a bit silly. The dragons took quite a lot of pages in the MM, but compared to the chromatics hardly ever got used.

 

[Nebulous]

I like those TEN attacks it gets when it uses an AP with dragon frenzy. That's sure to put a world of hurt on a party...

 

[chaotix42]

Ummmmm.

Wow.

That seems nastier than any dragon in the MM1, or the Draconomicon for that matter. I'm really looking forward to seeing what the other dragons look like!

 

[Andor]

It looks like a cross between a pangolin, an iguana, and a protoceratops.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Would you all agree that the thunderous roar (which is probably a giant fart as the dragon seeks equilibrium after its thunder burp) is a free action in that it is described as an effect and no mention is made of a required action?

No. It's not an action, it's an effect of using the power. If for some reason the dragon can not take actions, it still occurs. The cost with regards to economy of actions was already paid when the power was used.

So to paraphrase, it is indeed a giant fart, biologically incapable of being stopped.

 

[Elric]

Ummmmm.

Wow.

That seems nastier than any dragon in the MM1, or the Draconomicon for that matter. I'm really looking forward to seeing what the other dragons look like!

Compared to the level 22 Red Dragon solo soldier in the MM, it looks significantly better offensively. However, it's also weaker defensively; 2 lower AC for its level and just over 2 lower average FRW for its level. It also has 250 fewer HP despite being only one level down. So the designers may have decided to redesign solos for greater offense and less defense, or this might be a function of it being a soldier in particular (since soldiers are already the highest AC monsters, elite and solo soldiers with AC=18+level can lead to players missing quite often).