Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garnfellow" data-source="post: 5069446" data-attributes="member: 1223">Am I really the only one who is dissatisfied with both 4e's AND PF's approach to dragons? Both approaches are actually great illustrations of some of my key problems with each game system.Like Kamikaze Midget, I think 4e went much too far in stripping away all of the non-combat options for dragons. I mean, the game is named Dungeons and Dragons -- if there is one monster that should be more complicated than any other, make it a dragon. I appreciate wanting to simplify the stat block, but I'm not so excited about the result: easy to run, smart dinos with breath weapons. (Yawn.)On the other hand, the Pathfinder approach was to keep all of the 3e complexity and then add even more, but with cooler flavor. While I appreciate the desire to give dragons more thematically consistent abilities, in the same breath I would say the last thing in the world dragons needed were more fiddly abilities with little combat use. While I can't deny the flavor coolness of many of the new abilities, mechanically they were a wasted opportunity. (What dragons really needed, particularly at the higher levels, were abilities that would let them function better as solo monsters and stave off Lanchester's Square Law: abilities that would give them more actions per round, more movement, reactive actions, and the chance to recover from crippling attacks.)So I find myself in the unhappy position of choosing between easy and boring or complicated and flavorful. I'm not sure either choice is very compelling.</blockquote>

Verification