# Design & Dev: Monsters (DRAGONS!)



## Reaper Steve (Aug 22, 2007)

Yikes!


----------



## breschau (Aug 22, 2007)

*New Design and Dev: Monsters*

Here there be Monsters.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Yikes!




Oh, wow.   

Me likey!!


----------



## Crymson (Aug 22, 2007)

Hit points are in 4th Edition according to that.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Wow. 

Quite a bit about character abilities there.

The dragon seems a little complex to run. Hope it isn't in reality.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Crymson said:
			
		

> Hit points are in 4th Edition according to that.




And AC. 

Cheers!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The dragon seems a little complex to run. Hope it isn't in reality.




On the one hand, I agree.

On the other, if any creature in the game should be allowed some level of complexity, it's the dragon.


----------



## Dog Moon (Aug 22, 2007)

I wonder how the Wizzy heals from the Clerics crit...


----------



## Crymson (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> On the one hand, I agree.
> 
> On the other, if any creature in the game should be allowed some level of complexity, it's the dragon.




Too true 

Althoug I am a fan of True20 and the damage track, I guess hit points _are_ simpler.


----------



## drowdude (Aug 22, 2007)

Well that article goes a long way towards making me feel optimistic about 4e


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> On the one hand, I agree.
> 
> On the other, if any creature in the game should be allowed some level of complexity, it's the dragon.




Yes, definitely. 

If only for the reason that you normally only encounter 1 dragon.

One great problem I have with certain D&D designs (and I'm going to point squarely as some of the high-level Paizo AP adventures) is that the statblocks become way, way too long and complicated. I can handle a creature that has three or four options each turn. Once that list reaches 10 or more - and has stuff (like spells) that isn't spelt out in the statblock - things get very, very difficult.

Especially if you've then got four different examples of that attacking you. One of my key problems with high level monsters + levels. (Oh, wrong thread!)

I love the monster design in MMV.

Cheers!


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

Hmmm... Dragons with over 1,000 HP. I still hope the CR for the mightiest ones don't exceed ~24. I don't want generic dragons being able to compete 1-on-1 with Demon Lords and the like...


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Dog Moon said:
			
		

> I wonder how the Wizzy heals from the Clerics crit...




That's something that we sort of saw in Bo9S, and is greatly needed in 4e.

The problem with the cleric is this: they can heal someone and stop them from dying, or they could do something fun (cast a spell, attack, etc.) I experienced this as a high-level cleric of Pelor - all my actions past the first round were spent keeping the barbarian alive.

It's far more interesting if I don't have to devote actions to this. If I get to attack, and a secondary ability I have triggers when I hit, thus healing someone... cool. I've fulfilled both my functions.

Cheers!


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Aug 22, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> Yikes!




I'm still not loving the nose spike on the chromatics.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

drowdude said:
			
		

> Well that article goes a long way towards making me feel optimistic about 4e




Not me.

I'm looking forward to 4e but that whole encounter just makes me go, "Hmmm... the continual disatisfaction that the design staff has with dragons, ranging form adding age categories in earlier editions via Forgotten Realms to making them powerful spellcasters with unique abilities in higher editions, has just taken a huge shot of crack cocaine to the new levels of silly."


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Actually, I think you'll find that Dragons have just lost most of their spellcasting and vulnerabilities. Nice.

Cheers!


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

From a PC perspective, it seems the fighter can do about 500 points of damage with a "solid blow."


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 22, 2007)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I'm still not loving the nose spike on the chromatics.




It's amazing now that nose spike can take otherwise fantastic dragon art (both this and the WAR full color shown over the weekend) and totally ruin it.

In case WotC' reading here: please lose the nose spikes! I'm willing to make a sizeable bet that a poll would shown that spike as extremely unpopular.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you'll find that Dragons have just lost most of their spellcasting and vulnerabilities. Nice.
> 
> Cheers!





Mixed emotions if that's true as in several books, especially those by the old WoTC, dragons = magic. Nixing their spellcasting abilities and vulnerabilities in exchange for more raw power can make them easier to run but also changes their whole dynamic at the same time. (As was the case between 2nd and 3rd.)


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> From a PC perspective, it seems the fighter can do about 500 points of damage with a "solid blow."




Nothing says that's the first round of combat.
(Not saying that you couldn't be right...)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 22, 2007)

Dog Moon said:
			
		

> I wonder how the Wizzy heals from the Clerics crit...




Probably some form of ability such that, when you score a critical hit while using a particular ability (Holy Strike?), you can heal an ally for a given amount.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> From a PC perspective, it seems the fighter can do about 500 points of damage with a "solid blow."



Somehow I doubt it was intended to suggest that a fighter can do that kind of damage in a _single _ hit. I assumed that was just the blow that put it at under 1/2 it's HP...


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you'll find that Dragons have just lost most of their spellcasting and vulnerabilities. Nice.



That would be my guess as well. Powerful dragons were pretty much the worst stat abominations of all the monsters in 3e.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 22, 2007)

That seemed a bit too "extreme" to me.  Hitting for 500 points?  Lets move the decimal point to the left one step, OK?

Oy.  Is it really going to be running around with AC 48 and striking for 584 points of damage and getting 8 actions per round and all that?  I find the prospect bewildering.  Not that it's too complicated for my brain; rather, that it's both a chore and impossible to relate to.


----------



## Umbra_Kaitou (Aug 22, 2007)

Probably a bad way to initiate my first post here, but please take it as a neutral observation only.

That dragon fights sounds very much like an Onyxia showdown.

I am glad to see HP and AC over the Star wars-esque save system.  And the cleric being able to heal and attack sounds promising.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 22, 2007)

That AC is higher than any Dragon AC in the 3.5 MM.


----------



## drowdude (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you'll find that Dragons have just lost most of their spellcasting and vulnerabilities. Nice.
> 
> Cheers!




Yeah, I sort of get the impression that the Xorvintaal dragon template from MMV was inspired by the changes they are making in 4e to some degree.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not me.
> 
> I'm looking forward to 4e but that whole encounter just makes me go, "Hmmm... the continual disatisfaction that the design staff has with dragons, ranging form adding age categories in earlier editions via Forgotten Realms to making them powerful spellcasters with unique abilities in higher editions, has just taken a huge shot of crack cocaine to the new levels of silly."




I want to know exactly how PCs will handle the dragon's output at the appropriate level.  We don't see enough here.

However, I do agree that they keep trying to upgrade dragons more and more.  This reads to me like they really want to go with the Runequest/Glorantha true dragon paradigm and are just too afraid.

For those who never played old RQ, the monster manual entry for true dragons states that if they like you they talk to you, if they don't they eat you.  They also take up full hexes on the region map.  

It reads like the designers just want to go "the dragon shows up and kills you all unless you can manage to run away."  Still, I'll wait for more information.  Maybe PCs can take what they can dish out at the right level.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 22, 2007)

*Mommy.*

Because of the ridiculous nose spike, dragons can't chew bubblegum. They can only kick ass. How many abilities did that dragon use in one round? That is insane. It seems like a lot of Draconomicon is being incorporated into Core. The old Clinging Breath on the secondary Fireball breath weapon. 
Free action Breath Weapon. Free Action Tail Slap in response to the rogue, new AoO? Special Ability to take a standard action to toast the wizard with the Clinging Fireball. 20' reach to standard action attack Ftr and Clr. Immediate action to Breath Weapon in response to a charge, AoO?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

> Because of the ridiculous nose spike, dragons can't chew bubblegum. They can only kick ass.




If you're collecting them, take a laugh point.

Heck, I'm surprised we didn't see something in there about the dragon getting a nose spike attack!


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 22, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Probably some form of ability such that, when you score a critical hit while using a particular ability (Holy Strike?), you can heal an ally for a given amount.




Or they are going the way of the Dark Eye: if you get an excellent success on an action, you can keep your action for this round. Having a crit would mean that the cleric just burned a free action and can take another standard action to heal somebody.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I want to know exactly how PCs will handle the dragon's output at the appropriate level.  We don't see enough here.
> 
> However, I do agree that they keep trying to upgrade dragons more and more.  This reads to me like they really want to go with the Runequest/Glorantha true dragon paradigm and are just too afraid.
> 
> ...




Yes, not a trend I'm fond of, I must say.

Dragons were killable in 1E and Classic.  I had a Paladin with a dragonslaying sword (x3 damage makes it a lot easier, naturally) who killed quite a few dragons _singlehandedly_ (it was a solo game sometimes, other times a duo).  The character wasn't "munchkinized" either, he was legit.  It's cool for dragons to be really tough, but it's also nice for a prepared character to be able to kill one and then another (don't recall if I ever got 3 in a row) in a climactic battle.  Stuff of legends and all that.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 22, 2007)

Umbra_Kaitou said:
			
		

> That dragon fights sounds very much like an Onyxia showdown.




Yeah, I had the same vision. Since I played a rogue, I guess it was the tail knockback , but then again, it could have been the goblets of fire..

/shrug

I for one am also, glad they seem to keep the normal HP/AC rules, and aside from the reminder of Ony, it sounds like promising


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 22, 2007)

I may be reading too much into this, but the Cleric didn't make a move before her attack, and she only attacked once.

Since they are a party fighting a Dragon with lots and lots of hit points, I wonder if the Cleric has a low BAB, or if multiple attacks are gone (as in Star Wars SE).


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Somehow I doubt it was intended to suggest that a fighter can do that kind of damage in a _single _ hit. I assumed that was just the blow that put it at under 1/2 it's HP...




However, one suggestion I've seen is that the iterative attacks slow the game down.  Cutting down the fighter to a single attack is going to cripple them if you don't somehow increase the damage they can do with that attack.  If so, than 500 hp with a single attack might not be that far fetched.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Mixed emotions if that's true as in several books, especially those by the old WoTC, dragons = magic. Nixing their spellcasting abilities and vulnerabilities in exchange for more raw power can make them easier to run but also changes their whole dynamic at the same time. (As was the case between 2nd and 3rd.)




Well, and between 1e and 2e!

My conception of a dragon has claws, fangs and a wicked breath weapon. 

Any dragon that says, "I don't need to use that, I'm an 18th-level wizard" is in the wrong game. I encountered this in the end of the Age of Worms campaign, and I cheerfully ignored their spells.

A few innate magical abilities? Fine by me. Dragon-as-spellcaster? No, that's why we have high-level wizards in the game. 

Cheers!


----------



## Shade (Aug 22, 2007)

This article has put to rest my fears that most of the monsters would be one-trick or two-trick ponies.   The dragon still seems a fearsome foe.

I've heard that the MMV is a blueprint for 4e monster design.  If this is true, that's mostly a good thing, as the bulk of that book is great.   Monsters like the spirrax and garngrath still have a wide array of abilities to allow for flexible and interesting encounters.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> I may be reading too much into this, but the Cleric didn't make a move before her attack, and she only attacked once.




I think you're reading too much into it - the Cleric almost certainly would have had to move if the Fighter charged - _and_ they're getting rid of iterative attacks. 

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> However, one suggestion I've seen is that the iterative attacks slow the game down.  Cutting down the fighter to a single attack is going to cripple them if you don't somehow increase the damage they can do with that attack.  If so, than 500 hp with a single attack might not be that far fetched.





Then the difference between players and monsters is that monsters get multiple attacks? (the dragon makes two seperate claw attacks in addition to his 'freebie' stuff no?)


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Heck, I'm surprised we didn't see something in there about the dragon getting a nose spike attack!




That was the cause of the battle.  The nose spike generates a "look like a goof" effect.  If the effect succeeds, the PCs must all assume that they can beat this monster and attack regardless of the actual danger.

If dragons of equal antiquity use this power on a PC from which they are equidistant, and both effects succeed, the PC will eventually starve to death.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> However, one suggestion I've seen is that the iterative attacks slow the game down.  Cutting down the fighter to a single attack is going to cripple them if you don't somehow increase the damage they can do with that attack.  If so, than 500 hp with a single attack might not be that far fetched.



I had thought of that too (as they're pulling a lot of stuff over from SWS) but still... 500+ HP? Slay an ancient dragon in *2* hits? Not a chance IMO - that's far too much. Even _half_ that seems excessive.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Because of the ridiculous nose spike, dragons can't chew bubblegum. They can only kick ass. How many abilities did that dragon use in one round? That is insane. It seems like a lot of Draconomicon is being incorporated into Core. The old Clinging Breath on the secondary Fireball breath weapon.
> Free action Breath Weapon. Free Action Tail Slap in response to the rogue, new AoO? Special Ability to take a standard action to toast the wizard with the Clinging Fireball. 20' reach to standard action attack Ftr and Clr. Immediate action to Breath Weapon in response to a charge, AoO?



I think that Immediate actions are going to replace the standard Attacks of Opportunity. You get one Immediate action a round, and it lets you react to something when it's not your turn.

So you could cast a spell that requires an Immediate action, as your AoO. Or swing a sword. Or do what the dragon did.

Interesting...


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I think you're reading too much into it - the Cleric almost certainly would have had to move if the Fighter charged - _and_ they're getting rid of iterative attacks.



The getting rid of iterative attacks sounds like a good thing, but my player's would hate it. I'm going to wait for the 4E SRD and pick the best pieces to reinvent for my 3.5E campaign.

The new way skills are done sounds interesting too.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 22, 2007)

It read like combat at those levels could be over in two rounds. I know that seems to be the case now in high level 3e/3.5. But I'm not sure I like it now, and I'm not sure I'll like it in 4e.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I had thought of that too (as they're pulling a lot of stuff over from SWS) but still... 500+ HP? Slay an ancient dragon in *2* hits? Not a chance IMO - that's far too much. Even _half_ that seems excessive.




Of course, in this example, we don't know...

1) What maneuver, if any, the fighter might've been using.
2) If characters get extra damage in place of iterative attacks.
3) What magic weapon the fighter might be using.
4) What level the characters are.

If we're talking about epic characters here (in the 4E sense), a single hit doing hundreds of points isn't out of the question. But that said, we don't even know for a fact that he _did_ 500 in that shot. We just know that's the shot that dropped the dragon below half.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Of course, in this example, we don't know...
> 
> 1) What maneuver, if any, the fighter might've been using.
> 2) If characters get extra damage in place of iterative attacks.
> ...




Personally, I think it's likely he had a good manuever. 

Cheers!


----------



## mearls (Aug 22, 2007)

Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.

(The example combat cannot possibly start on round 1. It's more likely round 4 or 5. Dragons take a LOT more than 2 hits to go down, and no PC will come close to doing 500 hit points of damage to a single target with one attack.)


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> The getting rid of iterative attacks sounds like a good thing, but my player's would hate it. I'm going to wait for the 4E SRD and pick the best pieces to reinvent for my 3.5E campaign.
> 
> The new way skills are done sounds interesting too.



Actually, multiple attacks still exist - there's the Design & Dev. article that talked briefly about a 3rd level fighter with a longsword making multiple attacks. It could be that it requires a feat to accomplish (like SWS) though...


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.



 



> (The example combat cannot possibly start on round 1. It's more likely round 4 or 5. Dragons take a LOT more than 2 hits to go down, and no PC will come close to doing 500 hit points of damage to a single target with one attack.)



Thanks for chiming in here Mike, you've saved me from having to argue this all night long.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

Also, come on: we can't come to any conclusions about iterative attacks considering that the fighter *charged* that round.

Now, sure, maybe charging is flavour and the action doesn't exist in Fourth Edition, *but* . . .


----------



## Kabol (Aug 22, 2007)

"Finally, the cleric is up. Calling on the power of her god, she swings her halberd at the dragon—a critical hit! The damage isn’t bad, but even better, the wizard gets a nice surge of healing power."

- That just made me, OH so happy.  Sounds like Cleric has a little crusader in him in 4E.  I think im gonna go cry a little.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Aug 22, 2007)

hmmmm....


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

Guys, there's a 2 page thread on this already...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204972


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2007)

All this article did is convince me that I am not buying 4e and that I am completely done with WOTC with the exception of  Dragon Magazine up until the 4e switch occurs.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I had thought of that too (as they're pulling a lot of stuff over from SWS) but still... 500+ HP? Slay an ancient dragon in *2* hits? Not a chance IMO - that's far too much. Even _half_ that seems excessive.




Consider this possibility, just from things that have come up in 4E discussions

Solid hit, means critical.  Double or triple damage there.

Fighters will have "per day" and "per encounter" abilities, so one or two of them were used on the attack.

Modification for whatever counteracts the loss of interative attacks.

All this for 500 damage.


----------



## satori01 (Aug 22, 2007)

I like the "interactive" aspects of the monster design, such as the immediate Glob of Fire Trick....yes for the naysayers it smacks of W.O.W design, but that is not a bad thing (tm).

I do not want to see dragons completely stripped of some spell casting.  I think it is a good idea to concentrate primarily on Dragons physical prowess, however as we saw in 2e, lack of spell casting relegated them to by Archmages' Mounts.  No one in 3.x simply called dragons stupid beasts suitable for merely  riding.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 22, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.
> 
> (The example combat cannot possibly start on round 1. It's more likely round 4 or 5. Dragons take a LOT more than 2 hits to go down, and no PC will come close to doing 500 hit points of damage to a single target with one attack.)



Thank you so much for chiming in on this. My brain was on the way to filling in the blanks and they were not pretty.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Consider this possibility, just from things that have come up in 4E discussions
> 
> Solid hit, means critical.  Double or triple damage there.
> 
> ...



In case you missed it, check out Mike Mearls' reply a few posts above yours.

I don't doubt that there will be ways to combine "maneuvers" magic and solid crits to dole out some serious damage. But 500 HP is _insane_ amounts of damage for just one roll...


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not me.
> 
> I'm looking forward to 4e but that whole encounter just makes me go, "Hmmm... the continual disatisfaction that the design staff has with dragons, ranging form adding age categories in earlier editions via Forgotten Realms to making them powerful spellcasters with unique abilities in higher editions, has just taken a huge shot of crack cocaine to the new levels of silly."




Were dragons really that weak?  I don't think my PCs survived a fight against one in 3E.  They only encountered one or two, but they were sent packing.

And now they're going to be tougher?  I thought the 3E dragons seemed to be the best of the 3 editions.

I picked up on the fighter causing 500 points of damage in a round.  That seems rather....excessive.  Of course, that's based on the assumptions inherent to 3E.

Banshee


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Were dragons really that weak?  I don't think my PCs survived a fight against one in 3E.  They only encountered one or two, but they were sent packing.




While the first encounter in RttToEE was a notorious player killer, I don't remember too many TPKs reported.  Lots of deaths, but most eventually overcame it (in my game 2 PCs were down, but none died).


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> However, one suggestion I've seen is that the iterative attacks slow the game down.  Cutting down the fighter to a single attack is going to cripple them if you don't somehow increase the damage they can do with that attack.




In SWSE the Rapid Strike feat lets you take -5 to attack to do an extra die of damage. There may be something similar here.


----------



## Yair (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Quite a bit about character abilities there.
> 
> The dragon seems a little complex to run. Hope it isn't in reality.



Yeah, me too. 

I agree that if anything should be complicated it should be dragons. Still, it seems like an awfully complicated creature to run. Both in terms of his numerous special abilities and in terms of remembering things over several rounds/turns (clinging breath or so on).

===

I was actually hoping HP would not be in 4e, but I knew it was a fool's hope 
AC 49 now... I wonder how PCs would reach such stratospheric heights. Hopefully without magic items, that are apparently "not required to be effective" now...


----------



## FireLance (Aug 22, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Were dragons really that weak?  I don't think my PCs survived a fight against one in 3E.  They only encountered one or two, but they were sent packing.



And the pertinent question here (as well as for all solo dragon-hunters) is: how tough were the dragons relative to the PC(s)? Even in 3e, a party of four should have the resources to defeat a dragon of CR equal to the party's level (a solo PC should be able to defeat a dragon of CR four less than his level). A dragon of party level +2 (character level -2 for a solo PC) would be a toughter, but still beatable encounter.


----------



## Victim (Aug 22, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Were dragons really that weak?  I don't think my PCs survived a fight against one in 3E.  They only encountered one or two, but they were sent packing.
> 
> And now they're going to be tougher?  I thought the 3E dragons seemed to be the best of the 3 editions.
> 
> Banshee




We don't see any spellcasting from the dragon though.  Given some of the stuff in the MM  V, we might see dragons without lots of formal spellcasting.  So the extra combat and breath weapon tricks would be needed to preserve their dangerousness.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 22, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.



Sounds like Smite, Power attack, touch attacks, mounted combat and / or spirited charge see some changes then...


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm not nearly as impressed as I expected to be when I saw the thread title. :\ 

The things I liked are pretty standard: dragons are awesome, they have high AC, heaps o' hit points, and a single one has enough mojo to handle a party, unlike many other monsters.

The things I didn't like:



> "It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. Oh—that gives the dragon the opportunity use its breath weapon as an immediate action."



OK, neat, but why is this?

I like intricate mechanics, so I'm not against the concept of conditional actions as such. But I don't like when the world seems like it functions according to the game mechanics, rather than the game mechanics modelling the world. What's the reason that getting hit lets the dragon use the breath weapon, _other_ than the fact that he has "use breath weapon when hit" ability?

For example, the other immediate ability mentioned makes much more sense:



> "Now the rogue moves around to flank with the fighter. Ordinarily, that would let the dragon use its tail slap again as an immediate action, but the dragon has used its immediate action already."



Attacks of opportunity gone, replaced by specific abilities that let you take out of turn actions against people who, let us say, provoke you?  In any case, unlike the breath weapon thing, it's intuitively clear why circling a giant lizard would let him tail slap "for free".



> He blasts the dragon with a ray of freezing cold, but this isn’t 3rd Edition.



Meh. I liked the dragon vulnerabilities. To some extent, it made them more vulnerable to metagaming, but really, would it be unreasonable for the character to assume that a white, ice-dwelling, cold-breathing creature was vulnerable to fire, even if he knew nothing about white dragons? What's the point of different energy types if they all work the same? Different visuals for the computer screen? 

The cleric's heal-on-hit ability sounds like one of the Devoted Spirit effects from Bo9S. It's cool, but again, I'd prefer it if it were described in terms of in-game effect, rather than pure mechanics. "The wizard gets a second wind as he sees his ally defy the dragon." or something.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> What's the reason that getting hit lets the dragon use the breath weapon, _other_ than the fact that he has "use breath weapon when hit" ability?




Actually, I suspect it's an "use breath weapon when reduced below half hit points" ability.


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

Yair said:
			
		

> AC 49 now... I wonder how PCs would reach such stratospheric heights. Hopefully without magic items, that are apparently "not required to be effective" now...



This is not much more than 3E dragons have (and 3E PCs can hit). Considerning the characters in the article might be up to 30th level, I don't think 49 is an outlandish number.


----------



## fuindordm (Aug 22, 2007)

Sounds good to me.

Another possibility is that the fighter has a high-level maneuver that drops the opponent by a certain percentage of their HP on a critical hit. _That _would be pretty cool.

The cleric's attack triggering healing sounds a bit hokey. I understand that you don't want them to spend a battle healing, though. As other posters have said, it's all in the flavor text and presentation. The example given makes it seem as if the cleric _has _to hit the dragon to heal his ally, which sounds like nasty necromancy to me. If the cleric is just using one of their normal healing abilites as a move action, however, then it's OK.

Dragons as spellcasters: I would like them to have knowledge of arcane magic. They obviously don't need it to fight with, unlike humanoid wizards, so it's kind of pointless to say "they cast as an X level sorcerer."  It would be appropriate to give them access to the Vancian spells without the per-encounter or per-round spells--this lets dragons teach humanoids ancient lore without over-complicating them in combat.

I like the idea of AoOs replaced by immediate actions. Clearly getting past a creature's reach is still an issue, and I hope the same goes for spear fighters!

Ben


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> While the first encounter in RttToEE was a notorious player killer, I don't remember too many TPKs reported.  Lots of deaths, but most eventually overcame it (in my game 2 PCs were down, but none died).



The dragon took down 2 of our party... and the rest were finished off by the doppleganger assassin the DM had insinuated into the group six sessions previously. Git. 

There's a lot of interesting stuff in there.

- AoO's look like they're gone in favour of an Immediate Action that you can elect to use under specific circumstances.
- I'm thinking the 'drop below half hit points bonus action' is some kind of 'enrage' bonus attack.
- Clerics can now heal by virtue of doing damage! Awesome. That's going to rejuvenate my favourite class to no end. Hopefully it won't just be on criticals.
- Push back from the tail slap. That should make life interesting for melee characters with short reach.
- What's with the Free Action breath weapon and tail slaps?


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Actually, I suspect it's an "use breath weapon when reduced below half hit points" ability.



That might well be. And it would make a lot more sense to me.

Thanks for making me like this much better.


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Then the difference between players and monsters is that monsters get multiple attacks? (the dragon makes two seperate claw attacks in addition to his 'freebie' stuff no?)




That's fine by me--shows a good division between the PCs and the monsters. Besides, it's a 4-on-1 teamup against the big bad meanie, not the 4-on-4 fights that was cited as the norm for 4th Ed.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I like the idea of AoOs replaced by immediate actions. Clearly getting past a creature's reach is still an issue, and I hope the same goes for spear fighters!



Immediate actions instead of AoOs? That would be great! It would make the battlefield far more dynamic and could also make some tactics more viable (I'm looking at you, counterspelling!).



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> That's fine by me--shows a good division between the PCs and the monsters. Besides, it's a 4-on-1 teamup against the big bad meanie, not the 4-on-4 fights that was cited as the norm for 4th Ed.



Or generally - one attack per limb. If you want two attacks, do two-weapon fighting!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 22, 2007)

Are we even sure that the Cleric could heal BECAUSE of the Attack/Crit? It sounds to me that he just could do both at the same round. Besides, he called to his God BEFORE the attack, which could mean that he might have casted a spell that allowed him to attack and transfer the damage as healing (like Vampiric Touch).

Anyway, another thing that I found interesting that the Dragon could attack with both Claws as a Standard Action instead of a Full Attack...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Baumi said:
			
		

> Anyway, another thing that I found interesting that the Dragon could attack with both Claws as a Standard Action instead of a Full Attack...




That's an interesting point, and it's got me thinking.

This is, as with everything else, _pure speculation_. But...

_If_ iterative attacks are gone, replaced by bonuses to damage, and...

_If_ the only way to get multiple attacks per round is via multiple limbs (a dragon's two claws, or two-weapon fighting) or a special maneuver...

Then it's just possible that the very concept of the "full attack action" is utterly absent from 4E.


----------



## Zaister (Aug 22, 2007)

I think I'm missing something, where does it say the dragon has 1,000 hp to begin with?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Then it's just possible that the very concept of the "full attack action" is utterly absent from 4E.




You know, the more I think about this, the more it makes sense. After all, if it's assumed that martial characters will be using maneuvers/abilities in most rounds, just like wizards cast spells in most rounds, and that this is a primary function of play in 4E, then there's even less incentive to bother with the complexities of iterative attacks. After all, they either wouldn't be used that much (because maneuvers are better/cooler), or they'd be too good an option and discourage use of said maneuvers.

Between that, and the fact that a damage bonus lends itself to much faster play than multiple attacks at different modifiers, it seems to me that this would definitely be a solid direction for 4E to go.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> I think I'm missing something, where does it say the dragon has 1,000 hp to begin with?





			
				WotC Article said:
			
		

> It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, *dropping the dragon down below half its hit points.* Oh—that gives the dragon the opportunity use its breath weapon as an immediate action. A huge cone of fire bursts from the dragon’s mouth, engulfing all four PCs. But at least *the dragon is below 500 hit points!*




Bolded for emphasis!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> After all, they either wouldn't be used that much (because maneuvers are better/cooler), or they'd be too good an option and discourage use of said maneuvers.




In fact, iterative attacks could be a maneuver by itself.  It could have limits (x times per encounter, prerequisites, etc).


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> The cleric's attack triggering healing sounds a bit hokey. I understand that you don't want them to spend a battle healing, though. As other posters have said, it's all in the flavor text and presentation. The example given makes it seem as if the cleric _has _to hit the dragon to heal his ally, which sounds like nasty necromancy to me. If the cleric is just using one of their normal healing abilites as a move action, however, then it's OK.



I think it's "hit enemy to heal ally" because there are abilities just like that in Bo9S.

But it's not flavoured as nasty necromancy, draining enemies to channel into allies, or anything like that.

It's more of a morale ability: you're battered, you're hurting, the next blow could drop you, and you're not sure you'll be able to avoid it... and then the cleric pushes past you and smacks the dragon right on his ing nose spike! W00t! Go us! Maybe you can make it after all!



> Dragons as spellcasters: I would like them to have knowledge of arcane magic. They obviously don't need it to fight with, unlike humanoid wizards, so it's kind of pointless to say "they cast as an X level sorcerer."  It would be appropriate to give them access to the Vancian spells without the per-encounter or per-round spells--this lets dragons teach humanoids ancient lore without over-complicating them in combat.



Without knowing the details on how the at-will/per-encounter/Vancian division will work, this is a very neat idea.

In combat, dragons don't need lightning bolts and blurs; they've got breath weapons and thick scaly hides.

But out of combat, divinations and other "slow" spells would be very appropriate, IMO.

But I'm not sure if this fits very well with the "don't give monsters abilities they won't use" philosophy. Which is a good idea, really; I just hope they don't overdo it. I would hate for the dryad to lose her speak with plants ability just because it won't be useful in the fight against the PCs.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 22, 2007)

Let's not get too excited... the example doesn't seem too different from a 3ed battle to me.
Monster makes multiple attacks in the same round? Check.
Monster react to some attacks with a counterattack? Check (see AoOs).
Monster can full_attack+breath in the same round? Almost check... if it wasn't for the extra move this would just be a Dragon being 3.0-hasted. But wait a minute... wasn't everyone so happy that haste was nerfed? Ah, but I guess this is now only a dragons-only special ability.

There are significant differences in mechanics, but it's not more "cool" than what already happens in the game. I'm sure that 7 years ago they could have written an example that would sound just as exciting.

Something to note for me is that AoOs (whatever they will be called...) are still very much there, except that more options are given: the dragon is using the breath weapon again as an AoO (here called just immediate action) triggered by the charging fighter, except that the breath weapon affects everyone!

Multiple attacks: why the dragon does 2 claws attacks as a standard action + 1 tail slap as a free action is obscure to me. In 3.x it would have taken a full-round action to do all of them. Doesn't make a huge difference to me, but it does not sound as a simplification either.

And by the way, totally removing multiple attacks for PCs is not that nice... How are you going to fight a small group of mooks quickly? Maybe it's just going to require some special ability to make multiple attacks, but I think it's going to be there.

PS Someone please also explain to me the joke about "this isn't 3rd edition" because I didn't get it... "He blasts the dragon with a ray of freezing cold, but this isn’t 3rd Edition. The dragon takes normal damage, but it’s not enough to slow it down." Where's the joke?


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Then it's just possible that the very concept of the "full attack action" is utterly absent from 4E.




It also simplifies the standard action/move action vs Full Attack action. At least now it's clear: you have 3 actions in a round: a swift action (presumably), a standard action, and a move action. Maybe there's a Saga System in there too wherein you can trade all of that for a Full Round Action.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 22, 2007)

Also... I wouldn't worry too much about the removal of spellcasting to dragons. While I think that a spell-less dragon is not more special than a giant lizard, I am SURE that you CAN add spells to dragons by for example giving it some Wizard levels. NOT having spells by default could be a good thing because it's easier to add them than to take them away (and if you were just ignoring dragon's spells in 3.x, chances are that the battle would be easier than the expected CR).


----------



## Baumi (Aug 22, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Multiple attacks: why the dragon does 2 claws attacks as a standard action + 1 tail slap as a free action is obscure to me. In 3.x it would have taken a full-round action to do all of them. Doesn't make a huge difference to me, but it does not sound as a simplification either.




The main advantage is that you no longer have to stand around to be fully effective. So Moving to the enemy is no longer a disadvantage (which restricts you to one attack and let the enemy full attack you on his next round). This should make the Fights more dynamic and easier.

Also you don't have to differ the bonuses/attacks for Full Attack and Standard Attack any more which results in an easier to use stat block.


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 22, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Something to note for me is that AoOs (whatever they will be called...) are still very much there, except that more options are given: the dragon is using the breath weapon again as an AoO (here called just immediate action) triggered by the charging fighter, except that the breath weapon affects everyone!




Everyone might have been lined up or something. But immediate actions does make "reacting" more dynamic rather than simple AoO at the cost of performing less actions in a round (i.e. you don't have Combat Reflexes) which is what they're attempting to do.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Multiple attacks: why the dragon does 2 claws attacks as a standard action + 1 tail slap as a free action is obscure to me. In 3.x it would have taken a full-round action to do all of them. Doesn't make a huge difference to me, but it does not sound as a simplification either.




I think he meant that each claw attack was a standard action (why the tail slap is a free action is beyond me). Anyway, standard action terminology is easier to comprehend than Full Round actions (because it'll refer to standard and move actions and ask "what am I giving up?").



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> And by the way, totally removing multiple attacks for PCs is not that nice... How are you going to fight a small group of mooks quickly? Maybe it's just going to require some special ability to make multiple attacks, but I think it's going to be there.




I think iterative attacks will still be present in some form for PCs but not the norm (see Star Wars Saga system). Removing several group of mooks can be handled by Maneuvers from Book of Nine Swords which lets you do funky stuff such as a Whirlwind Attack (what I didn't like about it in 3.5 is that it came too late even for a pure Ftr) or perhaps an area of effect spell.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> PS Someone please also explain to me the joke about "this isn't 3rd edition" because I didn't get it... "He blasts the dragon with a ray of freezing cold, but this isn’t 3rd Edition. The dragon takes normal damage, but it’s not enough to slow it down." Where's the joke?




Red Dragons have fire subtype so they take 50% more damage (in 3.5, in 3.0  double damage on a failed save). Apparently that's ditched in 4th Ed. Your choice whether to take that as a good thing or a bad thing but it does make calculations faster/quicker/easier.


----------



## fuindordm (Aug 22, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I
> But I'm not sure if this fits very well with the "don't give monsters abilities they won't use" philosophy. Which is a good idea, really; I just hope they don't overdo it. I would hate for the dryad to lose her speak with plants ability just because it won't be useful in the fight against the PCs.




Exactly. Any intelligent monster is a potential ally, and this role is also important. Their out-of-combat abilities should not be neglected.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 22, 2007)

> But at least the dragon is below 500 hit points!



 

(By the way, I did _not _take this to mean the fighter did 500 damage in one shot. It seemed pretty obvious we were joining a battle already in progress.)


----------



## Draxo (Aug 22, 2007)

point 1: i hate the nosespikes.

point 2: Sound slike the dragon if terrifyingly powerful, and i say _GOOD_

Dragons were not powerful enoguh in 3rd ed.. I see dragons as something that should rightly be _terrifyingly powerful_ and the pinnacle of dangerous in D&D.


----------



## Yair (Aug 22, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> It also simplifies the standard action/move action vs Full Attack action. At least now it's clear: you have 3 actions in a round: a swift action (presumably), a standard action, and a move action. Maybe there's a Saga System in there too wherein you can trade all of that for a Full Round Action.



[pet peeve]
I HATE that standard actions are called standard actions. 
Player: "So, I attack. That's a standard action, right?"
DM: "Well, it's part of it. A standard action is attacking plus moving. And taking a Swift action, too, really."
Player: "So... a Standard Action is making a standard action (attacking), and other actions as well?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "Then what are they calling those actions your'e doing as your standard actions by themselves? Without the extra stuff?"
DM: "Errrg... they used to call them Partial Actions. Now... they just call them standard actions."
Player: "That's a good way to confuse people they've got there... wait a moment, I can regain my focus as a MOVE action?! I don't move to regain my focus, I stand still! Boy, this game has some sucky terminology..."

I just wish they'd change things to a Main Action and Secondary Action instead of Standard and Move. It's simpler saying "In a round the standard thing you do is take one main, one secondary, one swift, and any number of free actions. A full action takes up both the main and secondary slots." Your "standard action" might be to attack and then move, but it shouldn't be a Standard Action!
[/per peeve]


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 22, 2007)

There are many things I don't like :
* HP skyrocket. It should be D&D, not a pinball highscore.
* AC skyrocket. Unless the high AC was due to the dragon using AC boost (spells or magic item) I don't see the point. Unless this dragon is CR 30
* No spells for dragons ? humf... I like the "dragons created magic" background you can find in many setting. I use draconic as the "latin" of most setting. If dragons ar now flying lezards with breath attacks, that's not fun
* vulnerability are lost ? Yeah. Great. A monster without weakness is a fun thing. Seriously, this is bad design. I know not all dragons had this elemental weakness, but I do think the most powerfull monsters (dragons, demons etc...) should have one weakness the PC can exploit if they find it. Unless the fight is only about pure force and cleverness is to be banned.

This is the first article that makes me somewhat skeptical about 4e. Wait and see. Perhaps I will wait a few more years.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg (Aug 22, 2007)

Wow. Can I have your decoder ring? Obviously you must have got something out of that article that I didn't. Were they actually discussing how the new edition will require the sacrifice of virgins and babies to dark gods before every session or what?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 22, 2007)

One of the biggest problems that 3.x dragons faced was a lack of actions when facing a party (and the fact that their breath weapon was largely ineffectual compared to a power attacking full attack in terms of causing damage. It tended to be nuisance only and didn't often get used except in strafing).

I really like the idea of powerful dragons being able to do multiple things - including lots of flaming!

I'd be equally happy to see chromatic dragons disappear, but I can live with their continued existence 

(I hope that we will still see dragons available as foes at all levels of the game - that was an innovation I really enjoyed with 3e)


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> * vulnerability are lost ? Yeah. Great. A monster without weakness is a fun thing. Seriously, this is bad design. I know not all dragons had this elemental weakness, but I do think the most powerfull monsters (dragons, demons etc...) should have one weakness the PC can exploit if they find it. Unless the fight is only about pure force and cleverness is to be banned.



Perhaps that slowing mentioned is the vulnerability. The problem of the fire/cold-weakness duality is, that it is faar to obvious, and that's basically the only weakness, that MMI monster have at all (besides the golems).

Bigger monsters should have weaknesses (it's fun), but it should be more clever, than "extra-damage". Or be based on using the environment, not about choosing the right damage type, because that'll easily become a metagame-problem.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 22, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> All this article did is convince me that I am not buying 4e and that I am completely done with WOTC with the exception of  Dragon Magazine up until the 4e switch occurs.



If you are worried about the fighter seemingly dealing 500 points of damage in one blow, Mike Mearls has stated that this is not the case in the other thread.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 22, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Perhaps that slowing mentioned is the vulnerability. The problem of the fire/cold-weakness duality is, that it is faar to obvious, and that's basically the only weakness, that MMI monster have at all (besides the golems).
> 
> Bigger monsters should have weaknesses (it's fun), but it should be more clever, than "extra-damage". Or be based on using the environment, not about choosing the right damage type, because that'll easily become a metagame-problem.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Preach on brother ! I hope you are right.


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> * AC skyrocket. Unless the high AC was due to the dragon using AC boost (spells or magic item) I don't see the point. Unless this dragon is CR 30



Even if you might have a point about the hp, AC isn't really all that.

A 3E red great wyrm has AC 45. A gold great wyrm has AC 47. And 3E dragons are expected to use spells. Mage armour lasts the whole day, so that's actually 49 and 51. If they have a bit of warning, you can count on shield of faith and shield too, for 58 and 60.

Considering that 4E seems to go to 30th on the same scale on which 3E goes to 20th, I don't think 49 is at all unreasonable for a powerful dragon.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 22, 2007)

Dog Moon said:
			
		

> I wonder how the Wizzy heals from the Clerics crit...




I am guessing that the crit triggers an Immediate action for the Cleric, which he uses to heal the Wizard.  Just a wild guess.


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 22, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I really like the idea of powerful dragons being able to do multiple things - including lots of flaming!



Oh! May I?  

Aww, you mean in game? OK.  

An interesting combat example. So an ancient reds almost doubles its hit points compared to 3E, and gets +10 to its AC, though we're not quite sure yet how combat math actually works. They get lots of actions, including

An inferno aura, useable as a free action.
A tail slap attack with an added pushback effect, useable as a free action.
Two claw attacks, useable as a standard action.
A fireball spit that sticks to the target dealing extra damage, useable as a standard action.*
A breath weapon, but we don't get to see what kind of action it normally takes - a free one like the inferno aura, as different uses of the same ability? 
A special action granting an extra standard action.*
They may take an immediate action to use their breath weapon when reduced blow half damage.
They may take an immediate action to use their tail slap when about to be flanked.
Did I miss anything? The ones marked with a * are those that might be some kind of inherent spellcasting on behalf of the dragon.
Red ancients don't take extra damage from cold effects, but apparently might get slowed, as well.

Clerics healing as they do other stuff is something I expected to see. I mostly expected it as healing tacked on to spells, though. Allows them to do their thing, and to heal as well.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 22, 2007)

Baumi said:
			
		

> The main advantage is that you no longer have to stand around to be fully effective. So Moving to the enemy is no longer a disadvantage (which restricts you to one attack and let the enemy full attack you on his next round).




That's true. I also often wish for the players to do something else than full-attack just because it's usually the most effective tactical choice... Basically granting ALWAYS a move action could help. At least until some players start whining that they are not getting anything if they choose not to move...

That it's going to be simpler, we have to see. All advertising are strongly pointing that 4e is simpler to prepare and simpler to run, but in that article we still have to deal with free actions, standard actions, immediate actions, move actions... They're increasing the number of DIFFERENT actions per round (see the dragon at least) and removing multiple attacks. That doesn't seem much simpler to me. Maybe slightly simpler than 3.5, but for example 3.0 without swifts and immediates was simpler too.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 22, 2007)

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> Red ancients don't take extra damage from fire effects, but apparently might get slowed, as well.




a) I think you mean cold effects 
b) they are just using 'slowed down' as figurative language... i.e. it was't a serious hp hit.

Cheers


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 22, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> * vulnerability are lost ? Yeah. Great. A monster without weakness is a fun thing. Seriously, this is bad design. I know not all dragons had this elemental weakness, but I do think the most powerfull monsters (dragons, demons etc...) should have one weakness the PC can exploit if they find it. Unless the fight is only about pure force and cleverness is to be banned.



I don't know how you've leapt from 'red dragons are no longer vulnerable to cold attacks' to 'dragons have no weaknesses'.


----------



## Ashardalon (Aug 22, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> a) I think you mean cold effects
> b) they are just using 'slowed down' as figurative language... i.e. it was't a serious hp hit.
> 
> Cheers



a) Oops.  Err, I mean, as a red dragon myself, I have to spread wrong rumors about my vulnerabilities. Yes.
b) Yeah, that is probably the case, so I said "might," but I guess there is a possibiity that it is the case.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 22, 2007)

threads merged


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Of course, in this example, we don't know...
> 
> 1) What maneuver, if any, the fighter might've been using.
> 2) If characters get extra damage in place of iterative attacks.
> ...




Yes, that sentence still makes sense if the dragon had 502 hit points and he just did 251. English sense anyway.

Can I just be the first to say.... what the.....?

Apparently it's going to be normal for dragons to breathe fire three or more times in one round? 

And the cleric... all I can think of is FF, and little green numbers appearing on everyone when he heals the party from a crit.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Aug 22, 2007)

I thought about the possible removal of iterative attacks and the High AC of the Dragon.
Mechanically it fits: Iterative attack bonusses got worse after the first. So the chance to hit with your second, thrid etc. attack got smaller.
But you had the chance of dealing more damage.
If you change iterative attacks to only one attack, there has to be a mechanic to scale the level advancement to the hit chance and damage output.
It is easier to change the AC than the BAB advancement per level. Hence the High AC of the Dragon.
Makes perfect sense to me
(hopes that Mike Mearls pats his head for deducting this)


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Perhaps that slowing mentioned is the vulnerability. The problem of the fire/cold-weakness duality is, that it is faar to obvious, and that's basically the only weakness, that MMI monster have at all (besides the golems).
> 
> Bigger monsters should have weaknesses (it's fun), but it should be more clever, than "extra-damage". Or be based on using the environment, not about choosing the right damage type, because that'll easily become a metagame-problem.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



I'd rather prefer a system where you have a small chapter of 40 or so vulnerabilities that you assign to monsters freely to make them easier enemy. Each complete with a appropriate knowledge check to discover it of course.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> I'd rather prefer a system where you have a small chapter of 40 or so vulnerabilities that you assign to monsters freely to make them easier enemy. Each complete with a appropriate knowledge check to discover it of course.



Reminds me of d20 Modern... but sounds quite good. Add a random table (because some people ALWAYS want one), and perhaps some themes (outsider-vulnerabilities, dragon-vulnerabilities and so on), and it's good to go!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 22, 2007)

This preview leaves me cold. The more insanely powerful dragons get, the less useful they are in my games.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Reminds me of d20 Modern... but sounds quite good. Add a random table (because some people ALWAYS want one), and perhaps some themes (outsider-vulnerabilities, dragon-vulnerabilities and so on), and it's good to go!
> 
> Cheers, LT.



Indeed:
Undead Flaws: sunlight curse, positive energy vulnerability, brain hunger 

Dragon Flaws: overwhelming pride, soft belly, taste for virgins, greed

and so on.


----------



## glass (Aug 22, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> This preview leaves me cold. The more insanely powerful dragons get, the less useful they are in my games.



How do you get that it is insanely powerful? In spite of using several special abilities it had yet to drop a PC despite being reduced to half hit points itself. And of course, this is a dragon of unknown level* facing PCs of unknown level. So we know basically nothing about the power level of this particular dragon, or what that would say for the power level of dragon in general even if we did.


glass.

(* Since CR is apparently gone)


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Indeed:
> Undead Flaws: sunlight curse, positive energy vulnerability, brain hunger
> 
> Dragon Flaws: overwhelming pride, soft belly, taste for virgins, greed
> ...



Kind of like the supernatural monsters in d20 Modern? That might be quite interesting.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> If you change iterative attacks to only one attack, there has to be a mechanic to scale the level advancement to the hit chance and damage output.
> It is easier to change the AC than the BAB advancement per level. Hence the High AC of the




Exactly, I believe they will scale BAB/attacks and AC better this time around.

In 3.5, a 20th level fighter pretty much always hit with his first attack because his attack modifier far outstripped any AC out there.

I would actually like to see a bit more whiffing in encounters, so maybe they will last on average longer than 3 rounds.

AC might scale with level/HD (like BAB does).


----------



## Andor (Aug 22, 2007)

You know... The fact that the rogue kept trying to get behind him and that he was the only one catching the tail slap makes me think that we might see the return of facing...

YES! I hated it's removal from 3rd ed and especially the 3.5 10'x10' horse wonkiness. Huzzah!


----------



## Branduil (Aug 22, 2007)

Well if they eliminate dependence on magic items AC _has_ to scale with level. I'm sure it will be built into the classes.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 22, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> You know... The fact that the rogue kept trying to get behind him and that he was the only one catching the tail slap makes me think that we might see the return of facing...
> 
> YES! I hated it's removal from 3rd ed and especially the 3.5 10'x10' horse wonkiness. Huzzah!



That would go against the push for simplicity. Not to mention facing is silly and makes no sense for abstract D&D combat. I think the Rogue was just trying to get in flanking position.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

I have a feeling their going to drop Touch AC; does anyone else feel this way?

And if _Saga_ is anything to go by, we might also say goodbye to HD, there will just be CL and how many hit points you get each level.


----------



## Someone (Aug 22, 2007)

The "multiple action dragon" seems consistent with the design of Gargantuan creatures for the miniatures games - they are conceived as a single warband on themselves, and have multiple actions. Looks like we should treat dragons as a single group of creatures (multiple attacks, many free action to use, ability to use more than one standard action each round) in terms of what they can do.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Aug 22, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> How do you get that it is insanely powerful?





The tone of the article, intentionally or not (probably intentionally) is basically saying, "look how badass 4e dragons will be!" And, considering that dragons have invariably increased in power with every new edition, the article certainly seems to imply the trend will continue.



> And of course, this is a dragon of unknown level* facing PCs of unknown level.




Ancient red dragon, according to the lead-in. Which makes me wonder what wyrm and great wyrm dragons will be like (if they keep the 3e age categories).


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> Ancient red dragon, according to the lead-in. Which makes me wonder what wyrm and great wyrm dragons will be like (if they keep the 3e age categories).




They'll travel through time by vibrating their molecules.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 22, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> All this article did is convince me that I am not buying 4e and that I am completely done with WOTC with the exception of  Dragon Magazine up until the 4e switch occurs.



Cool!  Luckily, we have LOTS of other threads outside of the 4e forum.  

(Which is my way of saying that people who aren't interested in 4e will probably have less fun on the boards if they hang out in the 4e forum.)

Sorry for the hijack -- back to monsters!


----------



## Beastman (Aug 22, 2007)

I also have mixed feelings with this combat example. On one hand it reads spectacular, on the other it seems that combat becomes more complicated.

As I read it correctly, the dragon has free actions, two standard actions, one move action and one immediate action per round. The whole combat looks very dynamic but I fear at the cost of simplicity.

So do immediate actions replace AOO or are they in addition to them? If in addition, the whole thing will become even more complicated and unmanageable.

Furthermore, I especially do not like the mentioning of the cleric hitting the dragon and at the same time healing the wizard because of a successful attack *bah*. This has something of japanese console-RPGs to me, not quite what I like...guys running around with spiked hair, swinging swords four-times the length of their own height...

So, guess I will wait for some more examples for clarifications...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 22, 2007)

What is most interesting to me is what this potentially reveals about the revisions to the combat action system.  Now, we don't know all the details, certainly, but to me this implies:

- Standard actions remain for single attacks or other complex non-move actions

- Move actions remain

- Free actions appear to encompass anything that occurs on your turn than takes lesss time than a standard/move action (implies: free action killed swift action and took his stuff.  Good riddance, swift action).

- Immediate actions appear to be an expanded category that allow actions to take place outside your turn in response to something someone else does.  So they encompass attacks of opportunity (which can now include spell like ability, supernatural ability, immediate action-length spells, etc beyond simple melee attacks), as well as actions like casting  _feather fall_ and other spells that have  acasting time of "immediate action"

- Full attack & full round actions are unknown as they aren't referenced, although reading in between the lines on the dragon's attack I'd interpret that full attack actions are gone; multiple attacks are some sort of special ability that occur within a standard action.  But that's pure speculation.

If my guess is right, it's a good simplification of the combat system reducing it to four actions from the current number (six? seven?).


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 22, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Cool!  Luckily, we have LOTS of other threads outside of the 4e forum.
> 
> (Which is my way of saying that people who aren't interested in 4e will probably have less fun on the boards if they hang out in the 4e forum.)
> 
> Sorry for the hijack -- back to monsters!





I'm a hybrid, myself.  I'm sticking with 3.5, but I'm certainly interested in any changes in 4e that I can port to my 3.5 game.

For this article, the combat complexity doesn't seem any less, but it does seem different.  I'm not a fan of the cleric healing it's friends by taking an attack action (huh?).  However, I like the idea of the cleric's healing being an *immediate* action that could be taken 1/round.  That's something I can port immediately into my 3.5 game and I think that's pretty cool.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 22, 2007)

While this article is an example of only a single battle, (and probably a fairly high level one at that) and as such should probably be taken with a grain of salt. However, I can't help but wonder how exactly the DMs job has been made any easier from this example (which I believe was a stated design goal). That dragon sounds like a PitA to run to me.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

Beastman said:
			
		

> not quite what I like...guys running around with spiked hair, swinging swords four-times the length of their own height...




...But if I recall I don't think they made mention of Cloud or what have you…


----------



## AGFlynn (Aug 22, 2007)

This looks like it might make combat even faster in real time, which makes me very leery of the changes. One thing we've noticed in 3.5 is that massive, sprawling combats often take hours and hours of game time. Then we look at the number of rounds actually played in game to find "Oh, that huge battle that nearly destroyed town X? That was actually over in less than a minute." 
We also have a lot of three- or four-round combats that take a good deal of time to wade through in gaming time and it seems a letdown afterwards to realize it all went down in 24 seconds.
I sure hope 4e deals with that disconnect. It's a minor issue, but it takes some of the fun out of a big brawl.


----------



## satori01 (Aug 22, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> However, I can't help but wonder how exactly the DMs job has been made any easier from this example (which I believe was a stated design goal). That dragon sounds like a PitA to run to me.




Clearly we need more data, but one of the common problems cited with monsters with alot of powers & options is it can lead to information overload on the part of the DM when trying to weigh those options in the thick of the moment.

I myself have had such a dilemma when running a Titan (hmm do I use Meteor Swarm or do I full attack?), it often leaves the DM wondering either if a more flavorful ability could have been used, or it he or she underplayed the monster.

As Plane Sailing mentioned, breath weapons for dragons now in 3.5 are generally used on the first round, (modified w/ breath weapon feats), and then relegated to the background as the Full Attack  or spell casting abilities of the creature are the most effective way to deal damage.

My reading of the example implies to me the Dragon has been focused on being a combat brute.  The tail sweep would appear to be a situational ability.....sure the DM has to monitor
when the triggering condition is met, but this is little different than AoO now.  The key thing is it takes what is in general a subpar ability, (tail slap damage is pretty poor), an takes it off the list options for DM....No more "The players are looking at me, what do I do what do I do
Full Attack?  Spell?  Breath Weapon?  Spoil Water?  Tail Slap? Crush?   umm, umm, tail slap.

Triggered situational abilities like getting an extra use when brought to half hit points do not seem that hard to run either, on the piece of paper where you track the HP of the monster write down the half hit point #, circle it, and leave a note to do X when you hit that number.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

AGFlynn said:
			
		

> One thing we've noticed in 3.5 is that massive, sprawling combats often take hours and hours of game time. Then we look at the number of rounds actually played in game to find "Oh, that huge battle that nearly destroyed town X? That was actually over in less than a minute."
> We also have a lot of three- or four-round combats that take a good deal of time to wade through in gaming time and it seems a letdown afterwards to realize it all went down in 24 seconds.
> I sure hope 4e deals with that disconnect. It's a minor issue, but it takes some of the fun out of a big brawl.




I totally know what you mean – the players in my Planescape campaign have looked at me after a massive throw down with an expression of "Wow, I can't believe we made it, that battle was epic!" , only for me to tell them that the actual battle was 24 seconds…

…Odd.


----------



## AGFlynn (Aug 22, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Because of the ridiculous nose spike, dragons can't chew bubblegum. They can only kick ass. How many abilities did that dragon use in one round? That is insane. It seems like a lot of Draconomicon is being incorporated into Core. The old Clinging Breath on the secondary Fireball breath weapon.
> Free action Breath Weapon. Free Action Tail Slap in response to the rogue, new AoO? Special Ability to take a standard action to toast the wizard with the Clinging Fireball. 20' reach to standard action attack Ftr and Clr. Immediate action to Breath Weapon in response to a charge, AoO?





Well, I never thought I'd see such bigotry on these boards. Youse guys are just a lousy bunch of nose-spikists.


----------



## The Souljourner (Aug 22, 2007)

AGFlynn said:
			
		

> This looks like it might make combat even faster in real time, which makes me very leery of the changes. One thing we've noticed in 3.5 is that massive, sprawling combats often take hours and hours of game time. Then we look at the number of rounds actually played in game to find "Oh, that huge battle that nearly destroyed town X? That was actually over in less than a minute."
> We also have a lot of three- or four-round combats that take a good deal of time to wade through in gaming time and it seems a letdown afterwards to realize it all went down in 24 seconds.
> I sure hope 4e deals with that disconnect. It's a minor issue, but it takes some of the fun out of a big brawl.




Wait, I don't understand.  If combats take too long now, and this will speed them up, why does it make you leery?  Isn't it exactly addressing the problem you've had with 3.x?

I know I'd really love to be able to get more than one fight done in an hour and a half.... and that at 4th level.  I can't imagine what it would be like at higher levels.

-Nate


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to 4e but that whole encounter just makes me go, "Hmmm... the continual disatisfaction that the design staff has with dragons, ranging form adding age categories in earlier editions via Forgotten Realms to making them powerful spellcasters with unique abilities in higher editions, has just taken a huge shot of crack cocaine to the new levels of silly."




That's my feeling too.  The only D&D iteration of dragons I like is Classic BECMI; where you get 3 simple to use stat blocks per dragon (small, large & huge) and can run them out-of-the-box.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I totally know what you mean – the players in my Planescape campaign have looked at me after a massive throw down with an expression of "Wow, I can't believe we made it, that battle was epic!" , only for me to tell them that the actual battle was 24 seconds…
> 
> …Odd.



No, you see, epic battles like this always take place in slow motion, so those 24 seconds feel like five minutes.


----------



## jasin (Aug 22, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I have a feeling their going to drop Touch AC; does anyone else feel this way?



I hope not; it's just too useful. But then, they might come up with a way to provide the most of functionality without an additional value to keep track of...

Are there touch attacks in Saga?


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Aug 22, 2007)

I think that it is a good idea that Badass Monster receive a lot of actions. What bothered me in 3x a little was that even the mightiest Demonlord only had his ONE full round action while Players had one Full round action each (disregarding spells that give you extra actions).

Maybe in 4ed the Balor (if he is still in the MM) will be able to use a spell like ability (or however that will be labeled) and his whip and his sword in one round.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2007)

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> If you are worried about the fighter seemingly dealing 500 points of damage in one blow, Mike Mearls has stated that this is not the case in the other thread.




Its wasn't just that.  I don't like that a monster gets to make a special attack just because it reaches half hit points.  I don't like that the wizard heals, because the cleric hit the dragon.  Both to me are hokey.  I didn't like these things with MMV and with Bo9S respectively and don't want a 4e that uses them. In short, the designers are not makes the game more fun to me with these design decisions. They are actually making it less fun.

And, I am still wondering how the dragon "burst out in an inferno of flame".


----------



## Intrope (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm actually more interested in the Cleric in this battle:

1. She's using a halbred (apparently to good effect)--sounds like they've greatly widened the 'useful' weapon list!

2. She's using a halbred--apparently, Clerics aren't as limited in weapon choices as before.

3. She's using a halbred--Battles between Clerics will no longer be pointless! [1]

The Wizard also appears to have cast a relatively weak attack spell; could he already be out of high-power spells by round 5? 

Also, the 'scoured away his fire resistance' line is interesting: are we going to a system where more defenses can be overcome by burn-through? That could be a good thing...

On the AC 49: I can see how a high level fighter could hit this (BAB up to +30 + many bonuses?); I'm more interested in the rogue, who missed--but apparently had a chance to hit. Maybe rogues are better fighters than they used to be?

[1] Yah, Old Joke is Ooooooooolllld. Older than most of the enworlders, likely!


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Wait, I don't understand.  If combats take too long now, and this will speed them up, why does it make you leery?  Isn't it exactly addressing the problem you've had with 3.x?





What we're saying is that we want the actual real time it takes to run a battle be shorter, but the actual in game time to be longer. 

Maybe they should go back to longer rounds?


----------



## Greg K (Aug 22, 2007)

Intrope said:
			
		

> [1] Yah, Old Joke is Ooooooooolllld. Older than most of the enworlders, likely!




Loved that little cartoon gag from Dragon


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Are there touch attacks in Saga?




No.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> No, you see, epic battles like this always take place in slow motion, so those 24 seconds feel like five minutes.




Totally, almost as long as those weeping, eye contact scenes between Frodo and Sam.

"You know; if it wasn't for Gandalf…"


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 22, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> No.



Does armor improve your AC in saga ? IMHO, you can't remover touch attack and not change to armor = DR. Unless you want to screw the wizards.


----------



## Cam Banks (Aug 22, 2007)

This is going to make converting our 3.5 Dragonlance products an  interesting process, indeed. The final battle with Frost in _Price of Courage _might look very different.

Also, what on earth is wrong with spikes on the dragon's snout? 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Does armor improve your AC in saga ? IMHO, you can't remover touch attack and not change to armor = DR. Unless you want to screw the wizards.




All characters AC scales with level like BAB, but certain abilities allow you to gain AC and other benefits from wearing armour.


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 22, 2007)

I think the reaction I'm having ("eep!") is more about running high-level combats (which this is clearly an example of) in general and not 4E in particular. I've never been good at the high end and I don't anticipate any version of the game will ever change that.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 22, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> This is going to make converting our 3.5 Dragonlance products an  interesting process, indeed. The final battle with Frost in _Price of Courage _might look very different.



Does that mean MWP will be updating their prods to 4e?


----------



## Imaro (Aug 22, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I think the reaction I'm having ("eep!") is more about running high-level combats (which this is clearly an example of) in general and not 4E in particular. I've never been good at the high end and I don't anticipate any version of the game will ever change that.




QFT...

I thought this was suppose to be one of the major design points, streamlining of high level encounters and combat at higher levels.  The impression I get from reading this is well...there's still alot to keep track of for a DM, it's just been moved from number of abilities to how those abilities interact and the special circumstances that trigger them.  

This article is kind of dissapointing to me, as I'm one of the people who was hoping for a more streamlined game, and this example isn't inspiring any faith in that notion.  I will still wait and see though, but nothing I've heard so far seems to indicate a true streamlining of the game...everything just seems like MORE.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 22, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Let me assure everyone that, if the fighter in the example actually did do 500 hit points of damage in one attack, development will ambush him on his way out of design and soundly beat his damage back to a real D&D level.




 

Thanks for dropping in!  I guess the wording in the article was a little ambiguous.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Aug 22, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Dragons with over 1,000 HP. I still hope the CR for the mightiest ones don't exceed ~24. I don't want generic dragons being able to compete 1-on-1 with Demon Lords and the like...




Why not?

I see nothing wrong with Dragons being right at the top of the food chain in regards to power.  And it is not like Ancient Great Wyrm Dragons need to be that common anyway.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## FireLance (Aug 22, 2007)

Hmmm, maybe most of the encounters in 4e are going to be designed to feel like fights between two groups of creatures, even if it is the PCs against a single monster. 

It has been noted that a fight between a group of PCs and a single creature often favors the PCs because they get multiple actions for every one that their opponent makes. One solution to that is to ensure that the PCs always fight groups, so the BBEG should always be accompanied by a lieutenant and some mooks. However, what do you do when you want to run a scenario in which the PCs gang up against one big, tough, scary monster which is solitary by nature or circumstance? The solution appears to be: give the monster more actions.

I wonder if this may be an indication of how monster statistics may change when the monster adopts different roles in 4e. The giant that the PCs must work together as a group to overcome at 5th level might have the statistics of a Solitary Bad Guy (including, possibly, the ability to attack multiple opponents with a standard action swing of his club, dealing moderate damage to each opponent), while the giant gang that the PCs encounter at 10th level might have Grouped Bruiser stats and be limited to a single attack per standard action (but one that would do hefty damage).

However, I would be wary of the potential downsides of monsters being able to do too many things before the party can react, such as the possibility of sending one or more PCs from full hit points into the negatives in a single turn's worth of actions. In 3e, this has happened a couple of times with a DM who liked to make a single initiative roll for his monsters, and liked sending them against the party in big groups. One way to ensure this is to allow the monster to make multiple reactions, i.e. multiple immediate actions in response to the PCs' actions, instead of making multiple free actions on its turn.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> However, what do you do when you want to run a scenario in which the PCs gang up against one big, tough, scary monster which is solitary by nature or circumstance? The solution appears to be: give the monster more actions.




Reminds me of the beholder redesign that could act on two different initiative counts. That gave it more actions and gave a chance that PCs would act between the beholder's two actions.


----------



## HeyJoe (Aug 22, 2007)

Sort of off topic, but I don't like the new look for the dragons. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the other colors besides green... but as it stands I think it looks awful with the big, clunky horns.


----------



## Zelgadas (Aug 22, 2007)

Here's something that all this talk about immediate actions has me wondering: can you ready them?  On the most recent D&D Podcast it was mentioned that they were doing some things with initiative order, and readied and delayed actions were specifically mentioned.  I'm wondering if they've done away with both and simply now allow you to ready your immediate action for a specific trigger, or until after a specific person has acted.  If this were the case, it would allow you to react to things more dynamically and give you  more tactical options, but it might preserve your initiative count, thus limiting needless complexity.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Hmmm, maybe most of the encounters in 4e are going to be designed to feel like fights between two groups of creatures, even if it is the PCs against a single monster.



I think that's spot on. 4E has probably an emphasis on multiple opponents - but the iconic dragon fight is only against _one dragon_, therefore, dragons get upgraded to the power and speed (as in number of actions) to remain viable, without giving him huge devastating attacks to balance the loss of actions (and making him a glass cannon).

It's better to fit the monsters the design paradigm, than the other way round. That's good, and makes dragon more... dragony?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Henry (Aug 22, 2007)

I've seen concerns that this example makes dragons MORE complicated to deal with; if anything, it sounds LESS complicated to deal with. Anyone who has really run a dragon to its maximum effectivess (with spells, special abilities, and all) knows what I'm talking about. Dragons often have abilities that aren't even figured into their stat blocks, and if they were done so, they would be far more effective. Y'know that stoneskin, energy resistance, barkskin, etc. That was in the stat block? It just gave that 3rd edition  dragon an extra effective 200 hit points and 5 more points of AC, which would have changed the outcome of the whole battle. Ever run a Solar in an epic D&D combat? Those guys should probably go up about 4 or 5 CR points if all their defenses are in place!

Even if the dragon got FIVE extra actions per turn, it's still easier than having to plot out what spells they have, what happens when the Wizard dispels them, etc. All this stuff comes directly from a Dave Noonan design article from last year, where he talks about making a CR 20 red dragon for the dungeon delve at Gencon, and realizing that the stat blocks were just too "busy" for the DMs to easily use.


----------



## Henry (Aug 22, 2007)

Zelgadas said:
			
		

> Here's something that all this talk about immediate actions has me wondering: can you ready them?




By their nature, they're "readied" to begin with. You can perform them in response to things, and they take effect immediately, and when used you can't use another immediate action during the next round. Most Immeidate action spells and abilities are in response to something, like the Psion being able to throw up an energy adjustment power as an immediate action and then not get damaged by whatever energy is hitting them.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2007)

If this is a change from the "Attack of Opportunity" nomenclature to a simplified "If you do X to someone, they can do Y as an Immediate Action," then I think I like it.  Assuming the game doesn't get filled with millions of these things.

Cleric seems to be more Crusader-ish.  Sounds good to me.

We can't derive anything from the size of the numbers because we don't know what level this is.

I don't think we can derive anything about facing or backstabbing.  The rogue could just be trying to flank, and he's going to the back because the fighter is in the front.

Wizard cast a spell even though he was on fire.  No mention was made of concentration checks.  Doesn't mean there wasn't one, but it wasn't brought up.

Large monsters get extra actions.  I like this.  

No mention was made of a save versus the tail slap pushing effect.  Doesn't mean there wasn't one though.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 22, 2007)

I think you could safely ditch readying and delaying with appropriate definition and scope of immediate actions.


----------



## Destil (Aug 22, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> a) I think you mean cold effects
> b) they are just using 'slowed down' as figurative language... i.e. it was't a serious hp hit.
> 
> Cheers



I'm guessing the slow is a side effect of whatever polar ray type effect the wizard used. Sounds like a good ability for a high level wizard: xd6 cold damage, fort save or be slowed for y rounds.

Mabye the slowing aspect is a per encounter ability, but the cold damage is at will? That would be pretty cool, one flexible attack that you have a lot of options with... (freeze a foe solid on a failed save and slowed even on a successful save if you use it as a per day?)


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

Intrope said:
			
		

> On the AC 49: I can see how a high level fighter could hit this (BAB up to +30 + many bonuses?); I'm more interested in the rogue, who missed--but apparently had a chance to hit. Maybe rogues are better fighters than they used to be?



I think the bab of classes will be altered to fit more into the role. Defenders and strikers will have full BAB (paladins, fighters, rangers, rogues, +30 in the endgame)
Leaders will have 2/3 BAB (clerics, warlords, +20 in the endgame)
Controllers will have 1/3 BAB (wizards and who knows, druids?, will have +10, which will suck royally but then again they won't need it.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Aug 22, 2007)

> However, I would be wary of the potential downsides of monsters being able to do too many things before the party can react, such as the possibility of sending one or more PCs from full hit points into the negatives in a single turn's worth of actions. In 3e, this has happened a couple of times with a DM who liked to make a single initiative roll for his monsters, and liked sending them against the party in big groups.




QFT.

I once had a 2nd level character take 22 javelin attacks before he could even blink. *Twenty-two!* Thankfully most missed, & he succeeded on his bluff check to fall to the ground 'dead' with 0 hp. 


Facing: I prey over the blood of a thousand sacrificial goats that this *never* comes back into D&D. Played it, hated it with a deep & burning passion which the strongest antibiotics cannot cure. 

Something stabs me in the back & I can't even spin around for 6 seconds? It's like every combatant is stumbling around the battlefield with blinders on and polarized magnetic boots strapped to their feet that lock them into facing a single direction. I can imagine how interesting fight scenes in LotR or PotC, for example, would've been with rules like this. *yawn*


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> I think the bab of classes will be altered to fit more into the role. Defenders and strikers will have full BAB (paladins, fighters, rangers, rogues, +30 in the endgame)
> Leaders will have 2/3 BAB (clerics, warlords, +20 in the endgame)
> Controllers will have 1/3 BAB (wizards and who knows, druids?, will have +10, which will suck royally but then again they won't need it.



Hmm... I think that would be bad design: The difference between the best and worst class is a difference of 20 - the size of the dice used to roll meaning, that something, a wizard would only hit on a 20 (AC 30) would be an auto-hit for a fighter - that increasing gap was the reason, why epic levels use these wacky inherent bonuses, instead of continuing BAB (and because of the insane number of new attacks).

I think a gap topping out at 10 points difference (practically even more, due to different focus of feats and ability scores) is alread fine, so it'll probably look more like: Full BAB (topping out at +30), 5/6 BAB (topping out at +25) and 2/3 BAB (topping out at +20).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> I once had a 2nd level character take 22 javelin attacks before he could even blink. *Twenty-two!* Thankfully most missed, & he succeeded on his bluff check to fall to the ground 'dead' with 0 hp.



Aye, I once overdone an encounter , a CR 21 encounter IIRC with monsters dealing about 400 damage from magic missiles each round! After I realized what I've done I made them go away leaving remaining surviving PCs to their sudden terror.


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 22, 2007)

Out of curiosity, I tried to assemble a "monster stat block" based on the information in the article and the idea that monsters are monsters, using the later 3.5 stat block as a template.

[sblock]
	
	



```
[b][u]Ancient Red Dragon	Lvl ??	XP ?????[/u]
CE Decathlete (Gargantuan Dragon (Fire))?
Init[/b] +?	[b]Senses[/b] Notice +?
[U][b]Languages[/b] Draconic[/U]
[b]AC[/b] 49	[b]hp[/b] 1,000
[b]Immunities[/b] fire
[b]Vulnerabilities[/b] ?
[U][b]F[/b] +xx, [b]R[/b] +xx, [b]W[/b] +xx[/U]
[B]Space/Reach:[/B] 20 ft/20 ft
[b]Speed[/b] 40 ft (8 squares), fly 200 ft (40 squares)
[b]Free melee[/b] Tail slap +xx (damage plus knockback)
[b]Melee[/b] 2 claws +xx (damage)
[U][b]Ranged[/b] Fireball (fire damage plus cling)[/U]
[b]Special Actions:[/b] Breath weapon (standard?; x ft cone) inferno blast (free; 25 ft
	aura), draconic haste (free?; x/encounter?; gain 1 extra standard action/round)
[b]Immediate Actions:[/b] Breath Weapon (reduced below 500 hp), Tail Slap (against
	character moving into flanking position)
[b]Skills:[/b] ???
```
[/sblock]
Even if we assume the dragon did not use every ability it has...


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Hmm... I think that would be bad design: The difference between the best and worst class is a difference of 20 - the size of the dice used to roll meaning, that something, a wizard would only hit on a 20 (AC 30) would be an auto-hit for a fighter - that increasing gap was the reason, why epic levels use these wacky inherent bonuses, instead of continuing BAB (and because of the insane number of new attacks).
> 
> I think a gap topping out at 10 points difference (practically even more, due to different focus of feats and ability scores) is alread fine, so it'll probably look more like: Full BAB (topping out at +30), 5/6 BAB (topping out at +25) and 2/3 BAB (topping out at +20).
> 
> Cheers, LT.



Not necessarily bad design, you just have to make bad BAB players aware that its pointless for them to use BAB after about 15th level, and stick to magic instead (of course, all controller classes would have to be magical ones). I can make similar argument that your progression is a bad design because at first 10 levels the different between different progression is slim at best. (and IMO shouldn't be).


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2007)

Actually, percentage BAB needs to die, die, die.  It probably won't, but it really, really should.

What I mean by this- if a fighter gets BAB at 100%, and a rogue gets BAB at 75%, then eventually, if the levels drag on long enough, the rogue becomes incapable of hitting in combat.  At level 1, the rogue has only 1 less BAB than a fighter, so if a fighter hits on a 7, the rogue hits on an 8, ability score differences notwithstanding.  At 30 levels, the rogue will have a BAB of about 22.  If a fighter needs a 7 to hit a target, the rogue then needs a 15.

What we need to do is just have a BAB delay.  Declare that everyone gets BAB at every level, but that a rogue starts from -2.  Now the rogue always needs 3 more to hit than the fighter, no matter the level.  Start the wizard at -5, and you're set.

The exact differences could be worked out, but that's the basic idea.  It would also create complications with multiclassing, but these could also be worked out.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Actually, percentage BAB needs to die, die, die.  It probably won't, but it really, really should.
> 
> What I mean by this- if a fighter gets BAB at 100%, and a rogue gets BAB at 75%, then eventually, if the levels drag on long enough, the rogue becomes incapable of hitting in combat.



I'm working with an assumption that once you reach level 30, it is the End (i'm even calling it endgame level, just like in WoW  ). If the game is open ended like 3e then you're right by all means.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> What we need to do is just have a BAB delay.  Declare that everyone gets BAB at every level, but that a rogue starts from -2.  Now the rogue always needs 3 more to hit than the fighter, no matter the level.  Start the wizard at -5, and you're set.



It sounds like a good idea, but it would play hell with multiclassing.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Not necessarily bad design, you just have to make bad BAB players aware that its pointless for them to use BAB after about 15th level, and stick to magic instead (of course, all controller classes would have to be magical ones). I can make similar argument that your progression is a bad design because at first 10 levels the different between different progression is slim at best. (and IMO shouldn't be).



Touché! But my progression has exactly the opposite effect of yours, and I see that that's bad. Especially, since 4E wants to "preserve the sweet spot" as long as possible, however, I think that "sweet spot" also means that the controllers' can also try to hit something... with an at least reasonable chance of success.

Perhaps a new concept, different from fractional BAB? 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2007)

Even if the game isn't open ended, you still hit this problem eventually.  Look at right now.  A 3/4 BAB class is at an automatic -5 by 20th level.  No one worries about it because the fighter expects a guaranteed hit with his first attack, a reasonably likely hit with his second, etc, and this just means the 3/4 BAB classes are attacking like fighters on their second iterative attack- which is still good.  But in the next edition, it looks like having a near guaranteed hit on attack 1 out of your iterative attacks is going away, as there won't be iterative attacks.  So I assume that attack bonuses will be recalibrated to make your first attack have some risk of missing even at high levels for melee characters.  Which would mean that taking a -5 penalty in comparison to someone who's only hitting part of the time would be really, really painful.  Even worse once you got to level 30 and it was -8.

You could find a fix for multiclassing.  The most mathematically precise solution would be to use an averaging system.  I'm sure a more elegant one could be worked out.

Averaging system- Each level of low BAB is worth 6.  Each level of medium BAB is worth 3.  Each level of high BAB is worth 0.  Sum them up, divide by total levels, round.  That's your penalty below the top BAB.

Awkward, but it shows that a solution is possible.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 22, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> And, I am still wondering how the dragon "burst out in an inferno of flame".



Well, isn't that exactly what the Xorvintaal ability 'Energy Aura' in MM5 does?


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 22, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I don't like that a monster gets to make a special attack just because it reaches half hit points.  I don't like that the wizard heals, because the cleric hit the dragon.  Both to me are hokey.



I admit that we don't know enough yet to say anything definite, but the healing really seems to me like a divine spell from a divine spellcaster. Since it doesn't say much how it works, we can't be too sure whether it might have worked on a miss or a normal hit, but I feel that it probably would - since a healer role might want to stay back from melee a bit and not concentrate on it, it would be counter-intuitive to have its healing ability be fully linked to its melee capacity. As for the breath attack at half hp, well, I'd think of that much like natural reflexes, personally.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> And, I am still wondering how the dragon "burst out in an inferno of flame".



As I mentioned earlier, that may be related to the breath weapon attack (the dragon maybe breathes "downwards," so the flames travel across the ground, causing a burst of flame to surround it). Also, the dragon, being a creature of fire, may have attained some level of control over its breath weapon, allowing it to reshape it in some ways.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 22, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Its wasn't just that.  I don't like that a monster gets to make a special attack just because it reaches half hit points.  I don't like that the wizard heals, because the cleric hit the dragon.
> And, I am still wondering how the dragon "burst out in an inferno of flame".




You know...I originally thought the same thing. Much less fantasy and much more superhero.
But then I realized...they are fighting an ancient dragon, one of the nastiest critters in the game (assumption.) That means the party is most likely well within the epic levels (my guess is 25-30), so the powers of all involved will be stupendous compared to the current 'sweet spot (approx 4-14.)  If that's close to true, then I'm cool with it.

Now show me a fight of some 3rd level dudes against an appropriate (group of) foe(s). I think that will show more of the fantasy and less of the superpowers.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 22, 2007)

I don't think the dragon needs a logical reason to get a free breath weapon shot at half hit points.

You can do breath weapons in a lot of ways.  You can do every X rounds.  Or you can do "whenever the following conditions are met."  This has the disadvantage of being less realistic depending on your conditions, but the advantage of being more cinematic.

Here's how I'd do it if I wanted my dragon to be cinematic- I'd give it one breath weapon per fight, usable whenever it wants (so it can be strategic and aim this one).  Then I'd give it a breath weapon at half hit points.  Then I'd give it one more when its close to dead.

This has the advantage of looking cooler, and being really easy to run.  It works better if the players don't know about it though.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 22, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> And, I am still wondering how the dragon "burst out in an inferno of flame".



_It tences its mucles, flaming C'hi envelops it, it roars and then rips MAJOR ass! _

I can't be the only one who imagines the attack as a blast of fiery flatulence.

Fart out fire, spit flaming loogies, sounds like there is going to be a fair amount of humors this edition....


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 22, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Aye, I once overdone an encounter , a CR 21 encounter IIRC with monsters dealing about 400 damage from magic missiles each round! After I realized what I've done I made them go away leaving remaining surviving PCs to their sudden terror.



A quartet of spell weavers?! Ewwww!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I can't be the only one who imagines the attack as a blast of fiery flatulence.




Yes. Yes, you can.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> A quartet of spell weavers?! Ewwww!



Nope, there is this monster in Monsters of Faerun that casts Magic Missile as 9 level sorcerer or something. I had a swarm of, like 64 of them IIRC, resulting in CR 21 (it was cr 7 I believe and each doubling adds +2 to CR).


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 22, 2007)

I liked what I read in this article about the fight with the dragon.  I'm feeling pretty optimistic about the possibility that 4E will bring great improvement in game play.  The only thing I was really upset about in this article is the dragon drawing.  If that represents the red dragon, and all the chromatics have that ridiculous nose spike, I'll be really disappointed with the 4e art for dragons.  What would most bother me about that is that we'll be stuck with WOTC dragon miniatures that all have that silly nose spike.  Thank goodness most dragons were already produced as miniatures.  But I really wish we had gotten the rest of the 3e chromatic dragons as miniatures before the change to 4e.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 22, 2007)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I liked what I read in this article about the fight with the dragon.  I'm feeling pretty optimistic about the possibility that 4E will bring great improvement in game play.  The only thing I was really upset about in this article is the dragon drawing.  If that represents the red dragon, and all the chromatics have that ridiculous nose spike, I'll be really disappointed with the 4e art for dragons.  What would most bother me about that is that we'll be stuck with WOTC dragon miniatures that all have that silly nose spike.  Thank goodness most dragons were already produced as miniatures.  But I really wish we had gotten the rest of the 3e chromatic dragons as miniatures before the change to 4e.



It will only take a wire cutter and a tiny dab of paint to fix that nose spike on a DDM.


----------



## Andor (Aug 22, 2007)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Facing: I prey over the blood of a thousand sacrificial goats that this *never* comes back into D&D. Played it, hated it with a deep & burning passion which the strongest antibiotics cannot cure.
> 
> Something stabs me in the back & I can't even spin around for 6 seconds? It's like every combatant is stumbling around the battlefield with blinders on and polarized magnetic boots strapped to their feet that lock them into facing a single direction.




Who says that's how it works? If I personally had been involved in the design process you could take an immediate action to change your facing whenever an enemy closes to within melee range of you, or damages you if you weren't aware of the movement due to invisibility or a succesful sneak. Then you have the fun of decideing which threat to face or to split the difference.


----------



## Shade (Aug 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I can't be the only one who imagines the attack as a blast of fiery flatulence.




I wanted to make a clever link to that buffalo-like creature from mythology that leaves trails of flaming excrement...but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called.   Anyone?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> I wanted to make a clever link to that buffalo-like creature from mythology that leaves trails of flaming excrement...but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called.   Anyone?




Personally, I'd call it either a "buffa-load" or a "buffa-loaf," but I don't think that's what you were asking.


----------



## Shade (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd call it either a "buffa-load" or a "buffa-loaf," but I don't think that's what you were asking.




I'll never be able to enjoy hot wings the same way!


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 22, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I think you could safely ditch readying and delaying with appropriate definition and scope of immediate actions.




I was thinking the same... maybe they are ditching the Ready option.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 22, 2007)

So, somebody slap me if we've seen any sort of answer to this...but are iterative attacks really gone?


----------



## fuindordm (Aug 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I can't be the only one who imagines the attack as a blast of fiery flatulence.
> 
> Fart out fire, spit flaming loogies, sounds like there is going to be a fair amount of humors this edition....




That would be the catoblepas, according to medieval bestiaries. I can't believe Gary left that out!


----------



## charlesatan (Aug 23, 2007)

Yair said:
			
		

> [pet peeve]
> I HATE that standard actions are called standard actions.
> Player: "So, I attack. That's a standard action, right?"
> DM: "Well, it's part of it. A standard action is attacking plus moving. And taking a Swift action, too, really."
> ...




I just don't see how renaming Standard Actions to Main Action and Move Action to Secondary Action will change things. It's a change in terminology granted but that's it.

Saga Edition does what you just say. You have 1 standard action, 1 move action, and 1 swift. Standard actions are for attacking or doing special abilities. You can ditch it to become an extra move equivalent action. You can ditch all 3 actions to perform a full round action.


----------



## alaric (Aug 23, 2007)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> So, somebody slap me if we've seen any sort of answer to this...but are iterative attacks really gone?




If SWSE is a guide, then yes, you no longer get iterative attacks for free.  Instead their are weapons and feats that allow you to use a weapon more than once in a round at a minus.  The quote from the class preview about the fighter choosing the weapon because Rain of Blows gives him multiple attacks seems to fit with that idea.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 23, 2007)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> So, somebody slap me if we've seen any sort of answer to this...but are iterative attacks really gone?




We don't know yet.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 23, 2007)

Destil said:
			
		

> I'm guessing the slow is a side effect of whatever polar ray type effect the wizard used. Sounds like a good ability for a high level wizard: xd6 cold damage, fort save or be slowed for y rounds.
> 
> Mabye the slowing aspect is a per encounter ability, but the cold damage is at will? That would be pretty cool, one flexible attack that you have a lot of options with... (freeze a foe solid on a failed save and slowed even on a successful save if you use it as a per day?)




No no no!

Read it again. The Dragon isn't 'slowed' in any way.

The author is just using figurative language to say that the cold damage didn't significantly hinder the dragon (i.e. "it didn't slow it up")


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 23, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> That would be the catoblepas, according to medieval bestiaries. I can't believe Gary left that out!




No, the catobelopas had a heavy head on the end of a long neck and its gaze meant instead death.

The actual creature in question is the Bonacon (described by Pliny)

Cheers


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Maybe someone already pointed this out.

It doesn't appear that the dragon actually gets 2 standard actions.  It appears that he can once or more use an ability to gain an extra standard action.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 23, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> We don't know yet.



 Ha! OK. Just making sure I hadn't missed it. 

In any case, I hope they're still in in some form or another.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 23, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Nope, there is this monster in Monsters of Faerun that casts Magic Missile as 9 level sorcerer or something. I had a swarm of, like 64 of them IIRC, resulting in CR 21 (it was cr 7 I believe and each doubling adds +2 to CR).



Ah, not really. Doubling the numbers to get an EL +2 doesn't work infinitely. It works up to and until you get an EL that is 8 higher than the CR of the composite creatures. Take a look at the XP charts.
Using more than 16 monsters of a kind doesn't really increase the threat any further.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 23, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Ah, not really. Doubling the numbers to get an EL +2 doesn't work infinitely. It works up to and until you get an EL that is 8 higher than the CR of the composite creatures. Take a look at the XP charts.
> Using more than 16 monsters of a kind doesn't really increase the threat any further.



Not only it did, in this case, but it made the enemy almost unbeatable. The joy of magic missile


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 23, 2007)

On BAB for classes in 4th edition:


I have a feeling Rogues will now have full BAB, and that they will scrap 1/2 BAB.

This also relates to my belief that Touch AC will go bye bye, so wizards will not be screwed, as they now have the same BAB as a cleric etc.


----------



## Shade (Aug 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The actual creature in question is the Bonacon (described by Pliny)




Thank you!   Now I can sleep at night again.


----------



## Yair (Aug 23, 2007)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> I just don't see how renaming Standard Actions to Main Action and Move Action to Secondary Action will change things. It's a change in terminology granted but that's it.



Yep. It's the terminology I'm bitching about.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2007)

*Analyzing The Dragon Fight...*

So I reread the Dragon fight again, trying to pay particular attention to everything that was said about each action, as well as how it was said, and how it compared to similar actions performed later...     



> Here’s just a taste of what a fight against an ancient dragon might feel like




They never mention what color dragon... We're assuming red right? But they never say... Important?



> * On the dragon’s turn, the first thing it does is burst out in an inferno of flame, searing every PC within 25 feet—a free action. Then, with a standard action, it slashes out at the fighter and the cleric with its two front claws (even though they’re both 20 feet away). As another free action, it uses its tail to slap the rogue, who was trying to sneak up behind it, and pushes her back 10 feet. It’s getting angry at the wizard, so it uses a special ability to take another standard action: it spits a ball of fire at the wizard, setting him on fire. It has a move action left, which it uses to fly into a better position for its breath weapon. That ends the dragon’s turn.




So far, it seems like we will have 3 action types.

They are:


Free Action
Standard Action
Move Action

*Free Action-* It would appear that 4e makes free actions more powerful then 3.5... 
The Dragon does damage with it's free action. 

(Perhaps simulating that the fire burst happens WHILE it also attacks? (My guess is that as you increase in power, your ability to perform certain things as free actions grows...) 

*Standard Action-* Seems to work slightly different then in 3.5 The dragon makes multiple attacks as a single standard action. (Perhaps "combos" count as a single action? Or while you still get iterative attacks, they only count as one action...)

*Move Action*  Seems relatively unchanged...

Appears that something possibly similar to AOOs is in effect... The Dragon got to use it's tail to slap the Rogue away. But this AOO uses what appears to be a specialized dragon form of Bull Rush... 

Also uses a special ability that allows it to have another standard action... I wonder if it could have done that claw/claw routine we saw earlier? (Important to note, it didn't use a spell. It used a special ability...)

Also, Dragons appear to still have Breath weapons.



> It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. Oh—that gives the dragon the opportunity use its breath weapon as an immediate action. A huge cone of fire bursts from the dragon’s mouth, engulfing all four PCs. But at least the dragon is below 500 hit points!




Charge appears to be an option still. (Although perhaps the mechanics are different, or it was simply a description...)

They never mention anything about damage reduction. (Perhaps they failed to mention it?)

Another action type: 

*Immediate Action- *So we still have immediate actions. 

Triggering actions... When the dragon got to a point, x happened... I wonder if characters have these?



> Now the rogue moves around to flank with the fighter. Ordinarily, that would let the dragon use its tail slap again as an immediate action, but the dragon has used its immediate action already. That’s lucky for the rogue, who actually gets to make an attack this round! Unfortunately, she fails to hit the dragon’s AC of 49.




Again another sign that some sort of AOO is in effect... As the Rogue moves, it provokes a tail slap... But it never says "provokes" it simply says "would let." 

(Perhaps You choose when to use the immediate action... Maybe you can only use it as a response to something else, however, to prevent it from simply being another attack... This would sort of eliminate the need for knowing what provokes an AOO... It simply happens when the person thinks it should.)

Also indicates that Immediate actions "seem" to work similar to 3.5... You only get one per round, but they can be used at any time in the round...

Also seems to indicate the rogue only has one attack... 

The Dragon's AC is higher off the bat then in 3.5  This might be due to other factors... But I don't know...



> The wizard fails to put out the fire, so he takes more damage. Worse yet, the dragon’s breath scoured away the wizard’s fire resistance, so he takes the full amount. He blasts the dragon with a ray of freezing cold, but this isn’t 3rd Edition. The dragon takes normal damage, but it’s not enough to slow it down.




We know:

Fire Resistance can be "scoured away..." Perhaps energy resistance isn't permanent in 4e? Perhaps it works more like stoneskin? Perhaps this indicates Breath weapons do more then just a lot of damage? (They mentioned fireballs no longer being multiple d6s... perhaps the same is true for all "mega" attacks...)

The Wizard never makes a concentration check... (Perhaps they just didn't mention it?)

There seems to be no spell resistance... (Perhaps they failed to mention it?)

No longer has a vulnerability to cold...




> Finally, the cleric is up. Calling on the power of her god, she swings her halberd at the dragon—a critical hit! The damage isn’t bad, but even better, the wizard gets a nice surge of healing power.




Was "calling on the power of her god" just flair? Or was that indicating the use of some sort of power or ability? 

Did the healing come because of the crit?  They never mention the crit doing extra damage... (Maybe the cleric used the heal instead of getting extra damage?)



> He’s going to need it—it’s the dragon’s turn again.




The Dragon attacked a heck of a lot in that one round... Did more damage when it WASN'T it's turn it seemed...

Also... The Dragon never spoke... Maybe just a minor point, and he didn't speak because he didn't have to... But just in the way it acted made me feel like they are making Dragons more animalistic in nature?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 24, 2007)

Uh ...


----------



## occam (Aug 24, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Dragons with over 1,000 HP. I still hope the CR for the mightiest ones don't exceed ~24. I don't want generic dragons being able to compete 1-on-1 with Demon Lords and the like...




Who says demon lords will have CRs (or the equivalent) in the 20s?


----------



## occam (Aug 24, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Even if the game isn't open ended, you still hit this problem eventually.  Look at right now.  A 3/4 BAB class is at an automatic -5 by 20th level.  No one worries about it because the fighter expects a guaranteed hit with his first attack, a reasonably likely hit with his second, etc, and this just means the 3/4 BAB classes are attacking like fighters on their second iterative attack- which is still good.  But in the next edition, it looks like having a near guaranteed hit on attack 1 out of your iterative attacks is going away, as there won't be iterative attacks.




If iterative attacks really are going away in favor of level-based damage bonuses, another way to balance less combat-intensive classes is by affecting their damage bonus, instead of or in addition to their attack bonus. You could even consider a system where everyone gets +1 BAB/level, and a good chance to hit, but with different damage potential.


----------



## Aegir (Aug 24, 2007)

Something to be kept in mind when you read the write-up about the dragon combat: its a rule of thumb even now in 3.x that solo monster encounters *never* play up to their CR, and from the sound of it they're designing most monsters in 4e to take that into account by making encounters more of a one monster to one PC affairs.

Dragons on the other hand are being designed as solo monsters, but taking the above rule of thumb into account, they need to be able to fight as a collection of monsters, thus the multitude of options it has. I don't really have a problem with this tactic, especially if it allows for a DM to actually have epic encounters with a single iconic monster (Beholder, Dragon, Tarrasque, etc) that ends up being an actual challenge.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 24, 2007)

Another example of an encounter you might have in 4E:

In 4E you will have a Monk class that is capable of scouting ahead and, when he encounters a group of monsters, can get their attention and run back to the party.  As the monsters chase after him, the Monk will be able to Feign Death.  When the Monk does this, it will appear to the monsters that he must have had a massive heart attack and died during his escape.  One by one, the monsters will wander back by their camp.  At this point, once one of the monsters is alone, the party Ranger will hit him with a bow shot and draw his attention to the rest of the party where he will get slaughtered.  Since his monster buddies went back to camp, he'll be alone and out numbered.

Also, you won't need to keep track of ammo in 4E.  You just purchase your ranged weapon, in the Ranger's case, a bow, and then effectively have "infinite ammo".  Saves on the bookkeeping, which is what 4E is all about!


----------



## Henry (Aug 24, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> ...One by one, the monsters will wander back by their camp.  At this point, once one of the monsters is alone, the part Ranger will hit him with a bow shot and draw his attention to the rest of the party where he will get slaughtered.  Since his monster buddies went back to camp, he'll be alone and out numbered.




TRAAAAIIIIN! 

I'll be playing my D&D, whatever version, a little more plausibly, thanks.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 25, 2007)

occam said:
			
		

> Who says demon lords will have CRs (or the equivalent) in the 20s?



We can assume that if the game goes to 30th level, the Demon Lords in the MM will not be much higher than the low to mid 30s themselves (which is what I assume they'll fall in). That should leave a good 6-10+ CR difference between the mightiest dragons and the Fiend Lords which feels about right.

Again, IMO even the _weakest_ Fiend Lord should be able to take down any generic dragon without too much trouble. Only the big names like Tiamat and Bahamut should be able to compete in their league...


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I don't think the dragon needs a logical reason to get a free breath weapon shot at half hit points.
> 
> You can do breath weapons in a lot of ways.  You can do every X rounds.  Or you can do "whenever the following conditions are met."  This has the disadvantage of being less realistic depending on your conditions, but the advantage of being more cinematic.
> 
> ...



Dave Noonan discussed this in a recent design and development on the WotC website. "Half hit points" is a handy trigger (from the metagame point of view,  because the GM is already tracking hit points) for making something happen in the middle of the combat (which is the desired in-game result).


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 25, 2007)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Again, IMO even the _weakest_ Fiend Lord should be able to take down any generic dragon without too much trouble.



Well, in my game there are no generic dragons (well except some of the very young). Each of them has a distinct personality, history and goals and considers itself lord over a region. They are definitely in the league of fiend lords.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 25, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Well, in my game there are no generic dragons (well except some of the very young). Each of them has a distinct personality, history and goals and considers itself lord over a region. They are definitely in the league of fiend lords.



Ahem... _officially speaking_, archfiends command entire *planes of existence* (or layers thereof), along with immeasurable millions of fiends. I daresay they are a bit more important than even the most powerful of dragons.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 25, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Ahem... _officially speaking_, archfiends command entire *planes of existence* (or layers thereof), along with immeasurable millions of fiends. I daresay they are a bit more important than even the most powerful of dragons.



Which is exactly my point. The only way they can believably hold onto their lofty positions is by being a significant cut above any standard race of monster.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 26, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Ahem... _officially speaking_, archfiends command entire *planes of existence* (or layers thereof), along with immeasurable millions of fiends.



That's why they're hiding on their layers:
If they dared to travel to the material plane they'd get a spanking by the dragons


----------

