What About Dragons? (NOT the highest-level monster?)
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
I love Dragons
I love dragons and I'm betting they will play a big part in 4e.
I bet we'll see dragons run like the dragon icon D&D minis. Each dragon acts like six characters, with multiple options per round. The scenario we read on the D&D website made it sound like it gets a lot of different attacks each round in response to the attacks of the players.
Rather than have sorcery levels, I'd like to see a dragon have new draconic abilities that make sense like the spells and feats we saw in Draconomicon. They make a lot more sense.
I love dragons and I'm betting they will play a big part in 4e.
I bet we'll see dragons run like the dragon icon D&D minis. Each dragon acts like six characters, with multiple options per round. The scenario we read on the D&D website made it sound like it gets a lot of different attacks each round in response to the attacks of the players.
Rather than have sorcery levels, I'd like to see a dragon have new draconic abilities that make sense like the spells and feats we saw in Draconomicon. They make a lot more sense.
A'koss
Explorer
A little over a year ago a started a thread called "Dragon... have we lost the icon?"
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3004737&postcount=1
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3006315&postcount=43
So naturally I'm very pleased with the direction WotC seems to be taking with them now. The dragon's abilities come across as natural extensions of the monster without turning them into wizards trapped in lizard bodies. And with 14 or 16 pages (I can't recall the exact number at the mo.) of the MM dedicated to dragons, they're getting plenty of coverage and so I'm not overly concerned with the amount of "air-time" they're getting now. Besides, it's a long ways off yet.
I personally don't think they need a full 12 age groups though, 1 for every appropriate size category is plenty IMO (making it 5 or 6 age groups). I do hope though that each dragonic subspecies has distinct combat strategies/abilities to differentiate them. That is, more than just changing the damage descriptors from fire to cold to electicity.
My biggest concern though is that WotC might place the "generic" dragons too high up on the food chain, competing too closely (powerwise) with uniquely powerful beings like Fiend Lords, the Tarrasque, even Tiamat & Bahamut. The uniques should be at a level where they should be able to crush any standard dragon (or race of monster for that matter), no matter how old and without much problem.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3004737&postcount=1
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3006315&postcount=43
So naturally I'm very pleased with the direction WotC seems to be taking with them now. The dragon's abilities come across as natural extensions of the monster without turning them into wizards trapped in lizard bodies. And with 14 or 16 pages (I can't recall the exact number at the mo.) of the MM dedicated to dragons, they're getting plenty of coverage and so I'm not overly concerned with the amount of "air-time" they're getting now. Besides, it's a long ways off yet.
I personally don't think they need a full 12 age groups though, 1 for every appropriate size category is plenty IMO (making it 5 or 6 age groups). I do hope though that each dragonic subspecies has distinct combat strategies/abilities to differentiate them. That is, more than just changing the damage descriptors from fire to cold to electicity.
My biggest concern though is that WotC might place the "generic" dragons too high up on the food chain, competing too closely (powerwise) with uniquely powerful beings like Fiend Lords, the Tarrasque, even Tiamat & Bahamut. The uniques should be at a level where they should be able to crush any standard dragon (or race of monster for that matter), no matter how old and without much problem.
Similar Threads
