D&D 4E Things wrong with 4e: Dragons

[DEFCON 1]

But what would a Burnt Sienna dragon add to the game?

I think Joy Of Painting host Bob Ross would've been quite happy to have a Burnt Sienna dragon in the game. Right there next to the Burnt Umber. And the green dragons living in those Happy Little Trees.

 

[jshaft37]

I have to put a lot more work into making 4e dragons interesting villains than I had to put into 2e or 3e dragons to make them interesting villain.

Could you elaborate on this?

Also: Monster Manuals should come with fully developed lairs and peons. One shouldn't have to invest extra time into the game just to get an awesome dragon out of it.

That would be a great design goal for all "solo/boss" type monsters. It would help me for sure since I run a sandbox game.

 

[herrozerro]

I have to put a lot more work into making 4e dragons interesting villains than I had to put into 2e or 3e dragons to make them interesting villain.

Also: Monster Manuals should come with fully developed lairs and peons. One shouldn't have to invest extra time into the game just to get an awesome dragon out of it.

The dracomonicon books are better for this kind of thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Could you elaborate on this?

4e dragons, at their best, are mechanically interesting in one and only one way: to fight.

My games have been using the Three Pillars since before they were a buzzword, so combat is only one part of the interesting parts about my games. I can't afford to have a monster who is only mechanically interesting in combat if they are to be a big part of my games. I need them to be able to be interesting out of combat, too.

The main thing that helped me in 2e and 3e were the automatic unique abilities that dragons got as they aged. Things like the white dragon being able to make a blizzard, the red dragon locating objects from its hoard, the green dragon's link to the fey via charms and plant abilities, the black dragon's alliance with bugs and lizards, the blue's capacity for illusion. Few of these abilities were directly useful in combat, but they helped the dragon cast a shadow that was much longer than a single combat.

4e shoved all those abilities into the ritual ghetto and then pretended mostly like they didn't exist, and even when an effort was made to present them, it had to fight uphill against 4e's focus on combat.

The dracomonicon books are better for this kind of thing.

I've really gotta vehemently disagree with that. Major villains are the anchors of the conflict and interesting encounters in D&D games, and the monster books deserve to be designed with the idea of interesting encounters first and foremost. Dragons should be the major villains of basic vanilla D&D -- they're freakin' in the title, and since lairs are dungeons, you've got a double whammy.

I think you could structure a monster manual around the five dragons (and perhaps the gold) as anchors and make a much better monster book more useful than any that has come before.

Alphabetical lists of statblocks are much better in a web tool like the Compendium. For a book, I need lairs, I need peons, I need villains, and I need different kinds of encounters lined up at the ready.

I know that might not really happen for 5e -- people kind of expect an alphabetical listing of monsters from a book called "Monster Manual." But at the very least, I need my dragons to be suggestive of something more than just the ability to kick someone's butt in a fight.

 

[Vael]

4e Dragons, post Monster Vault, are very good monsters. Easy to run, feel like Dragons, and terrifying to a party. Admittedly, I could use more "trappings" for them, rituals to make them seem more magical, designed lairs and more themes and quick modification methods. But overall, very satisfying, at least compared to the spellcasters of 3.5.

 

[herrozerro]

I've really gotta vehemently disagree with that. Major villains are the anchors of the conflict and interesting encounters in D&D games, and the monster books deserve to be designed with the idea of interesting encounters first and foremost. Dragons should be the major villains of basic vanilla D&D -- they're freakin' in the title, and since lairs are dungeons, you've got a double whammy.

I think you could structure a monster manual around the five dragons (and perhaps the gold) as anchors and make a much better monster book more useful than any that has come before.

Alphabetical lists of statblocks are much better in a web tool like the Compendium. For a book, I need lairs, I need peons, I need villains, and I need different kinds of encounters lined up at the ready.

I know that might not really happen for 5e -- people kind of expect an alphabetical listing of monsters from a book called "Monster Manual." But at the very least, I need my dragons to be suggestive of something more than just the ability to kick someone's butt in a fight.

I dont understand this at all. the 4e draconomicon's are pretty much dragon monster manuals. full of sample lairs, treasures, dragon rituals, info on all of the dragons, mannerisms, etc.

pretty much all of what you are asking.

 

[Incenjucar]

4e dragons, at their best, are mechanically interesting in one and only one way: to fight.

4E monsters are monsters. If you want a villain you need to build that into a larger adventure. Individual villains make terrible monster entries because they are incredibly specific and take up vast amounts of space, while being the least-likely sort of thing to use.

And like it or not, dragons have never really been THE villains in the game. Heck, there's a reason that the Dragon trope in TV Tropes isn't the villain. Dragons are that scary thing you fight on the WAY to the villain.

Overall, a "Book of Villains" would be nice, with awesome options to apply to ANY kind of monster, be it a dragon or a lich or a really scary fighter.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd rather have a dragon customising system instead of the traditional Rainbow of Doom. The current setup sends a confusing message.

I actually wrote just such a thing for 3e and 4e. One time as a joke, my players had to fight a pink dragon. (It breathed acidic cotton candy.)

 

[jshaft37]

4e dragons, at their best, are mechanically interesting in one and only one way: to fight.

My games have been using the Three Pillars since before they were a buzzword, so combat is only one part of the interesting parts about my games. I can't afford to have a monster who is only mechanically interesting in combat if they are to be a big part of my games. I need them to be able to be interesting out of combat, too.

The main thing that helped me in 2e and 3e were the automatic unique abilities that dragons got as they aged. Things like the white dragon being able to make a blizzard, the red dragon locating objects from its hoard, the green dragon's link to the fey via charms and plant abilities, the black dragon's alliance with bugs and lizards, the blue's capacity for illusion. Few of these abilities were directly useful in combat, but they helped the dragon cast a shadow that was much longer than a single combat.

4e shoved all those abilities into the ritual ghetto and then pretended mostly like they didn't exist, and even when an effort was made to present them, it had to fight uphill against 4e's focus on combat.

While dragons haven't popped up either of the two games I DM lately (and the last one that did was solely a patron), I don't get that same limited/hampered feeling from 4E monsters/solos/bosses. My games are only ~25% combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the 4e draconomicon's are pretty much dragon monster manuals. full of sample lairs, treasures, dragon rituals, info on all of the dragons, mannerisms, etc.

pretty much all of what you are asking.

Sure, but none of those things really matter in 4e, which is a problem, too.

See, it's a problem with monster philosophy that runs a lot deeper than their appearance in the MM.

4E monsters are monsters.

No, they're statblocks.

Monsters have a life beyond combat. They have a context. 4e dragons are mostly devoid of this context, which cripples them in comparison to earlier-e dragons for my purposes.

While dragons haven't popped up either of the two games I DM lately (and the last one that did was solely a patron), I don't get that same limited/hampered feeling from 4E monsters/solos/bosses. My games are only ~25% combat.

Yes, yes, anyone can add context to a statblock, and some people do so effortlessly. But D&D shouldn't expect me or anyone else to fill in the blanks myself order to run it.

2e and 3e dragons, by virtue of their greater context (as demonstrated especially by their non-combat abilities) were thus easier for me to run, and thus better designed for my games.

Because I want more than a statblock for my major villains.