Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Testing against the Gold Dragon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 9560745" data-attributes="member: 59057"><p>They are probably very good. I had hoped they would nerf the reaction a bit. Monk die + double proficiency bonus + dex or so. </p><p>But I really question him im that the monk receives no damage. A monk only has one reaction. And if they use it to reduce damage, the dragon does not even need flyby. </p><p></p><p>Because very high AC is frustrating and volatile. If you deal damage, you feel progression. If I would change something it would be players doing less dage overall. </p><p></p><p>Mike [USER=697]@mearls[/USER] in his experimental game removed +stat to damage. </p><p>That was something I had in mind in early dndnext too. My reasoning back then was that if you remove stat from damage, you can lower low level foe HP. And 2 or 4 hp make a difference for a monster.</p><p>And then I'd add some class bonus to either melee damage at later levels. And maybe a smaller one for ranged at point blank. </p><p></p><p>For 5.14 I removed +stat from damage for any ranged attack beyond 30ft. Except when you spend all your movement to aim (then you can extend that range to 60ft).</p><p>Why? Because all my players only initially built ranged characters. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The dragon seems to be doing fine against an average unprepared party of 4.</p><p>Only having to fight 3 characters at a time at most and then being very disruptive for another one seems get the job done. Very unfun for the target of the banishment. But they are attacking a good aligned ancient dragon. In a way that is asking to be played with. </p><p></p><p>I still think, having line of sight requirement (or the place they were banished from if the dragon has no sight) would make the power more balanced (and I would play it that way probably). And then a gold dragon lair would feature cages without doors. And every round one player would be replaced into one of them. And the dragon would not try to kill the players but just force them to stop attacking.</p><p></p><p>Of course, if the players have any sort of preparation, a cage won't stop them, but then the dragon can go to more lethal methods.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 9560745, member: 59057"] They are probably very good. I had hoped they would nerf the reaction a bit. Monk die + double proficiency bonus + dex or so. But I really question him im that the monk receives no damage. A monk only has one reaction. And if they use it to reduce damage, the dragon does not even need flyby. Because very high AC is frustrating and volatile. If you deal damage, you feel progression. If I would change something it would be players doing less dage overall. Mike [USER=697]@mearls[/USER] in his experimental game removed +stat to damage. That was something I had in mind in early dndnext too. My reasoning back then was that if you remove stat from damage, you can lower low level foe HP. And 2 or 4 hp make a difference for a monster. And then I'd add some class bonus to either melee damage at later levels. And maybe a smaller one for ranged at point blank. For 5.14 I removed +stat from damage for any ranged attack beyond 30ft. Except when you spend all your movement to aim (then you can extend that range to 60ft). Why? Because all my players only initially built ranged characters. The dragon seems to be doing fine against an average unprepared party of 4. Only having to fight 3 characters at a time at most and then being very disruptive for another one seems get the job done. Very unfun for the target of the banishment. But they are attacking a good aligned ancient dragon. In a way that is asking to be played with. I still think, having line of sight requirement (or the place they were banished from if the dragon has no sight) would make the power more balanced (and I would play it that way probably). And then a gold dragon lair would feature cages without doors. And every round one player would be replaced into one of them. And the dragon would not try to kill the players but just force them to stop attacking. Of course, if the players have any sort of preparation, a cage won't stop them, but then the dragon can go to more lethal methods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Testing against the Gold Dragon
Top