Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9361954" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I think this highlights the dichotomy I see. For me, the question is -- should dragons (particularly since they are in the game title*) 1) be iconic monsters to be feared above all else, or 2) be something you see a lot of in your game**?*and should that matter**or 3) both, but that becomes more complexApparently the name of the game Dungeons and Dragons was chosen by two year old Cindy Gygax from a list of alliterative names, and the game wasn't necessarily supposed to treat them as specifically greater than other threats*. It makes sense in that context that dragons are not the "boss" monsters of the game. There's some value to that, in that you can actually have dragon opponents in your game -- not just once, but maybe once per adventure. It also means you can have them in most levels of play without resorting to fighting baby dragons**. Moreover, you could subdue dragons, possibly keeping them as mounts or pets, without it completely unbalancing the game! This was an interesting set of play patterns, and one I appreciated from the oD&D-AD&D and oD&D-BECMI lines.*although even in Chainmail they seemed to have more special rules than most high-value units.**although age categories existed since forever, and that was one way to do it,The 2e+ lines had dragons as boss-monsters, and that too has value. I get why people like that, particularly for the name-on-the-title enemy. The only two critiques I have for that are: 1) with aboleths, archmages, deities, devils & demons (including unique ones which are basically deities in their own right), evil kings/kingdoms/empires, liches, mind flayers, NPC parties, slaads, vampire lords -- to say nothing of ‘non-evil, just against you’ antagonists -- the game is positively top-heavy in options for boss monsters; and 2) creatures known for sleeping in far-away caves on top of treasure mounds don't have the same innate plot hooks for being the 'boss monster' challenge to cap off a campaign or plot arc (or at least something like vampires, illithids, wererat crime lords, and 'that invading kingdom over there' have more straightforward explanations). That said, I get why people would want to use them for this, and why they wanted higher-cap versions of the creatures to use with this*. For that, I think 2e has the best flavor**, and will agree with the 4e stans that it has the best rules (actual non-trivial diversity between types being a major component). *I just wish 2e+ had better ways to keep low-level options for them, other than actual newborns**2e Monster Compendium entries, with actual ecology and worldbuilding, is something I wish would come back in force.</blockquote>

Verification