Removing spellcasting from dragons...

[Klaus]

In the latest Designing the Delve article, David Noonan wrote:

R&D Confession: To be blunt, I think dragons are overdesigned. They’re eighty gallons of fun in a forty-gallon barrel. And the most troublesome aspect of dragons is their potent spellcasting. Those big sorcerer (and sorcerer/cleric) lists certainly make dragons more effective, but they also add about 20,000 moles of complexity. (Side note: we need a unit of measurement for game-design complexity.) And worse, spellcasting makes dragons less archetypically draconic. Rather than rampaging through the PCs and breathing fire on them, the dragon is waving his claws around and chanting. So dragon spellcasting has a big ole’ bullseye on it—for the Delve, anyway.

I must say, I agree. Spellcasting doesn't *feel* dragonlike to me. I am thinking of dropping the spellcasting of dragons and dropping the CR by 1 for each 2 sorcerer levels removed. If I want a dragon to cast spells, I'll just give it sorcerer levels.

 

[Lalato]

They've already done it in the D&D Minis game. Dragons can't cast in the game. They just get their attacks and breath.

--sam

 

[Crothian]

I would give them more themed spell like abilities. Dropping them that much of a CR might be problematic.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If you do that, though, you ought to give them some spell-like or supernatural abilities that allow for buffing, lair protection, and divination. Dragon performance isn't only about combat -- spells help with that -- and the buffs help keep them on par with those pesky adventurers.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I completely agree. I've said (and posted) similar things in the past, in fact.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you do that, though, you ought to give them some spell-like or supernatural abilities that allow for buffing, lair protection, and divination.

Well, the latter two, maybe. But honestly, I see no reason why dragons without spells would need magic buffing abilities. Just bump up their Strength, Con, natural armor, damage dice, and maybe DR and SR, to make up for the spell-based CR drop.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Odd. I always felt they were rather paltry spellcasters. I admit to never using a dragon who was greater that Mature Adult (yet) but their spells tend to be primarily defensive or utilitiarian in nature.

Not to say the spells don't make a difference, because they do. These days I'd say if you don't like them as spellcasters, give them some Tome of Battle maneuvers. I'd say making them Crusaders would be appropriate, since those maneuvers cycle continuously like their breath weapon.

 

[Hussar]

In the complexity thread, I posted this fix:

Strip out the spellcasting of the dragon. Eyeball it and either use a CR+1 dragon's stats, or CR+2. Doesn't even have to be the same type of dragon. If you strip out the 5 levels of sorc from an adult blue (cr14), just use the stats for an adult red (cr 15), without the spellcasting obviously.

There, now all your buffs are included in the creature - better AC, damage, whatnot.

 

[A'koss]

Hmmm, I had a post up on this very topic not so long ago...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171424&highlight=dragon

 

[Psion]

Feh. I wholeheartedly and vociferously disagree with Noonan. Dragons "overdesigned"? What game are we playing again?

I find interesting and deep adversaries part of what makes D&D worth playing. Just because some creature is more complex to run than a sack of HP with an attack bonus does not make it over designed. It gives it depth and potential.