Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6983544" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks for the reply.The first sentence of (2) seems almost self-evidently true. There are at least two ways it can happen: the mechanics offer the promise of something interesting, but the GM doesn't use them (or mis-uses them - eg uses the dragon's firebreath when everyone is out of range, hence having no concrete impact on the fiction). Or the experience of the PCs engaging the monster is boring despite the GM's use of the mechanics, eg because the situation is unmotivated. I tend to feel that this second way is less common if the mechanics are well designed, unless the GM's framing of the encounter is really terrible. Because if the stakes are at least "Can we (the PCs) survive this?", and the mechanics pose an interesting challenge to survival, that can often be enough to generate at least a modicum of interest.The last clause of (2) is more intriguing (to me at least). I'm not 100% sure what you would count as a "creative use". Or "simple monster", for that matter. I'm not sure if you count gelatinous cubes as simple monsters, but I remember running a 4e encounter with gelatinous cubes which was interesting because there were holes in the floor that the PCs were in danger of falling down if they wanted to avoid the cubes, but the cubes could just manoeuvre over because of their large, amoeboid bodies.If you've got in mind non-combat dimensions of interest - eg the encounter becomes, in effect, a puzzle (eg "How do we deal with these wererats, given that they're in human form so we'll look like murderers if we just cut them down, but if we let them escape we may not catch them again?") - then I agree that can be interesting, but the interest is not being carried by the combat mechanics at all.If my understandings of what you had in mind in that last clause are completely off base, tell me!(1) is something I generally do in 4e when preparing solo monsters (especially to ensure adequte action economy even if the party pulls out its big stuns and dominates), and when turning something from a standard to an elite; but most published standards and elites I run as published (except for MM3-ing damage for pre-MM3 monsters). Back in my RM days I used to modify monsters quite a bit, especially there spells (like 5e, RM relies heavily on the PC spell lists to supply monster special abilities). So I couldn't really say I have a typical approach as far as modifying vs using as published is concerned.I think the 4e Ancient Red Dragon would be a reasonable start for Smaug. It's got quite a bit of overlap with your Ancient Red that you linked to.I'm not sure about spells - I tend not to like draconic spellcasters (except for Oriental Dragons, whom I tend to see more as natural magicians, connected to their ability to take human form and their place in the spirit hierarchy). The resistance to non-magic weapons I can see (and didn't 3E have this), though personally I'd rather handle their inability to be killed by an army of archers by way of narrative fiat (ie my "method one" in my post upthread) - I'm not sure I want to say that a PC archer can't take down Smaug just because s/he lacks a magic arrow.One thing I don't really like about D&D dragons is frightful presence - although it now has legacy status, I think it's origin is as a placeholder for a simple morale check based on the fact that - for ordinary soldiers - this things is unbeatable. I don't really think a dragon should have (or need) a magical ability to break morale.</blockquote>

Verification