Quote from: Bill;671208How often can the dragon use breath? And is the area big enough to get the job done?

The AOE for BW are pretty standard across editions, it seems to me.  I.e., in Next, the black's BW is an 80' line.  It has limited useages, but one thing that is new with Next is that for legendary creatures (like an ancient black) have an option to recharge it

From the most recent black dragon download:

At the end of each of its turns, it gets four legendary points that it can use for the below:

2 points: recharge acid breath
1 point: move at half speed at the start or end of another creature's turn
1 point: make a tail sweep at the start or end of another person's turn
1 point: detect hidden creatures within 50 feet

QuoteAlso, is the dragon tough enough to stay alive to use the breath more than once?

I would think so, with the caveat that I haven't played a dragon encounter yet in Next.  I say this because dragon lairs now grant a bunch of other special advantages for the dragon.  I'll link them here, because it's too wordy to retype in this box

So if someone is foolish enough to take on a dragon in its lair, they better be a lot more powerful because the odds are stacked against the party and even though the dragons in Next have hp similar to 2e, they still have a lot of staying power.  Even if you are smart enough to lure it out, it's still pretty tough.  Looking at the action mechanic above, a dragon could do up to 4 tail swipes at the start of 4 different character's turns.  That would be murder to any spell caster trying to cast a spell.  PCs would be flying everywhere, like that illio in the 1e DMG with the green dragon fighting the kobolds.




*edit*  on an unrelated note, whatever happened to fat dragons?  I've been painting my bones minis, and I noticed that every dragon mini is either slender or muscular.  There are no dragon minis that are fat like in that picture.  That's a damn shame.  I'd like some variation in my dragons please.

Sounds good.

In my experience two things usually allow pc's to own dragons. Both are the gm screwing up.

1) Poor dragon is all alone, exposed, and has inadequate area of effect capabilities.

2) Dragon is simply too weak to defeat the characters.

When this was first released, I know one person said their group of level 10 characters killed the black dragon in one round, so it was way too weak.  However, I strongly suspect that they were just doing a typical gladiator style of play.  Or in other words, this:

Quote from: Bill;6712301) Poor dragon is all alone, exposed, and has inadequate area of effect capabilities.
.

or they were just ignoring many of the dragon's special abilities, like it's immunity to being paralyzed, polymorphed, or put to sleep.  Or that for 4 times a day it automatically makes a saving throw.  Essentially making it immune to magic on the first round, so I don't know what the person was doing when they were playing it.  I'm still curious to see how that battle turned out.  I guess the WoTC crowd, being used to 500-1000 hit points, see 125 and automatically think "too easy" without actually playing the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671183It also eliminates the opportunity for some great memories.  I'll give an example of a campaign I was in back in the early 90s.  I was playing a Bard with the blade kit, and was somehow separated from the party.  Eventually I made my way into a huge cave to seek shelter from a storm.  Turns out the cave was home to a very large dragon.  Obviously combat wasn't going to be an option, and the dragon gave me a few seconds to explain my purpose before it ate me.  Using my bardic skill (I was of decent level by that time and somewhat known in the area), I managed to convince the dragon that if he let me seek shelter and let me go, I would spread the word far and wide about the wisdom, power, and strength of this great wyrm.

I basically talked my way out of that scenario by using the dragon's arrogance against him.  Never would have happened if all dragons were were stat blocks to be used in combat.

I'm not saying this shouldn't happen - quite the contrary.  And certainly I think that a good DM would have been happy with you as a clever player for coming up with an attractive bargain for this particular dragon.  But how did he decide that the dragon would

a) give you a chance to explain your purpose
b) decide that letting you live was worthwhile

Did the GM just decide those things, or were there rolls involved?  

If the GM just decided it was reasonable, he was making it a challenge that could be overcome.  

If there were rules on what it takes to influence the dragon (reaction rolls/diplomacy checks/reputation or some such) then you were probably just very lucky.  

For most parties, the Dragon (that is totally just an example of the type of thing that SHOULD happen in a Sandbox without necessarily killing the PCs everytime it DOES happen) doesn't have much to benefit by leaving the PCs alive.  They're edible; they're alone.  If they have treasure, he can take it just as easily from their corpses as from them as tribute.  Now the dragon might be afraid that the party is tougher than they look (they don't have signs on their head that say 15th level or 1st level), so he might be willing to accept tribute without having to worry about the possibility of getting hurt in a fight.  Dragons aren't known for trust; so why should the dragon trust the PCs to do something nice for him if he leaves them alive?  

But when those types of things are decided by the DM (which I think they should be) the DM is making it possible to overcome the challenge.  There's nothing wrong with that.  

If the party is stupid, the dragon can still eat them.  

Having a chance is fun.  Not having a chance is boring.  

Good GMs try to make sure that every challenge can be overcome.  So when a good GM rolls a random dragon encounter, he DECIDES that the dragon is on his way back from a heavy meal; not on his way to find one.  The DM gives the party an interesting encounter that doesn't necessarily involve fighting.

If the PCs start a fight, they all get killed.  

The GM can set up challenges for the party to overcome without letting them win every combat.  Not every encounter has to devolve into combat.  By having other ways to 'win', the GM is signalling that he wants the PCs to overcome the challenge.  

Good GMs are rooting for the players, even while they run the opposition.

Quote from: Bill;6712302) Dragon is simply too weak to defeat the characters.

How is this the DM screwing up? The dragon is what it is. It might be too powerful for the PCs to defeat or it might be somewhat easy.

Quote from: Bill;671230Sounds good.

In my experience two things usually allow pc's to own dragons. Both are the gm screwing up.

1) Poor dragon is all alone, exposed, and has inadequate area of effect capabilities.

2) Dragon is simply too weak to defeat the characters.

BTB you can subdue dragons. It's actually something that is not easy to do, and pretty cool when it happens in-game.

It occurs to me that I overlooked a simple fact - OD&D doesn't use 'levels' at all.  Or at least not levels that are comparable to any other types of levels.  Can you build a 4th level encounter not knowing if you have two thieves or a fighter and a magic user?  Not really.

So that would make it fundamentally different enough to put it in its own category.

My Savage Worlds game is in that same boat, and some of the "always fight" design of the Paizo material I have been running has been hard to roleplay out.  But using some of the insights from this very thread, I think I was able to turn that corner pretty well.

That said, I still tailor encounters for what feels appropriate.

Someone should work up a set of terms and matrices to quantify this stuff.  Would make it easier to discuss.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;671250I'm not saying this shouldn't happen - quite the contrary.  And certainly I think that a good DM would have been happy with you as a clever player for coming up with an attractive bargain for this particular dragon.  But how did he decide that the dragon would

a) give you a chance to explain your purpose
b) decide that letting you live was worthwhile

Did the GM just decide those things, or were there rolls involved?  

If the GM just decided it was reasonable, he was making it a challenge that could be overcome.  

If there were rules on what it takes to influence the dragon (reaction rolls/diplomacy checks/reputation or some such) then you were probably just very lucky.  

Or maybe he had the dragon's personality already determined long before I ever got there, and the DM just played out the dragon as if it were it's own unique intelligent creature.  Maybe it wasn't a challenge at all.  It was just a scenario I happened to stumble upon and we role-played it out the same as we would with anything else.  Depending on my actions, it could have become a challenge, but perhaps it never started that way.

Seriously man, open the door.  Take off the blinders.  Not everything in an RPG has to be shackled to some rule or guideline.

Quote from: Bill;671208Also, is the dragon tough enough to stay alive to use the breath more than once?

When I played DDN with the Isle of Dread, the 4 characters were 6th level when they fought the green dragon.  The party was prepared and beefed-up-to-the-gills for the fight.  We were all tired of the island and mainly interested in seeing how the rules flowed, so I did not play it very tough.  And I rolled randomly to see if the dragon was prepared, she was not.

Through good use of controlling the terrain, the party whacked the dragon down in about 3 or 4 rounds of combat.  The wizard was on the ground twitching and the paladin hurt bad.  The barbarian and the ranger were hardly touched.  The party as a whole never feared defeat.

Had I played it more seriously with the dragon being cunning, having minions, used terrain to advantage, it could certainly have taken the party down.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671183It also eliminates the opportunity for some great memories.  I'll give an example of a campaign I was in back in the early 90s.  I was playing a Bard with the blade kit, and was somehow separated from the party.  Eventually I made my way into a huge cave to seek shelter from a storm.  Turns out the cave was home to a very large dragon.  Obviously combat wasn't going to be an option, and the dragon gave me a few seconds to explain my purpose before it ate me.  Using my bardic skill (I was of decent level by that time and somewhat known in the area), I managed to convince the dragon that if he let me seek shelter and let me go, I would spread the word far and wide about the wisdom, power, and strength of this great wyrm.

I basically talked my way out of that scenario by using the dragon's arrogance against him.  Never would have happened if all dragons were were stat blocks to be used in combat.

this is a great example of a really cool D&D moment where the DM did their job and let the player win through skill and roleplaying.
This prooves rather than disproves the OP.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671179Are you serious?

All attack all the time is the most boring fucking D&D imaginable.  All the wonder, the mystery, the possibilities involved in exploring a fantasy world swept away and replace by....round 1- FIGHT!!!.

Fuck that noise. If I'm going to play an all combat game then I'll pick something a lot less abstract than D&D to do it with.

This scenario is a good example of why a CHA in TSR D&D wasn't a dump stat. A decent reaction roll could be the difference between life and death. The game was designed to work around the fact that sometimes the PCs might encounter something that could flat out kill them in an open fight.

Luck plays role in the outcome of such encounters but so does player intelligence. Mashing the attack button nonstop from either side of the screen is not what the game was designed to do best.

Charisma as a reaction roll is actually a bit crazy. Charisma is charm, personality and looks, but if a Dragon spots a party of armed adventures on her patch why would the fact that the knight at the front of the party under his helmet and armour has a great physique, really good skin and cheekbones to die or that he was a great guy to hang with or a caring and considerate lover make her not want to eat him if she was peckish ?
Considering your reaction to social skill checks being able to influence NPCs with considerable roleplaying effort from the player I am suprised that you would allow  a social check like 'reaction' to be so influential with out any roleplaying effort on the part of the players at all.

Surely a more effective way to randomly determine the mindset of a dragon or anything else would be to have a 'state' roll for the monster that was modified by its intelligence, ferocity and other 'personality' factors or environmental concerns. You could even modify it based on the actions of the party, if they have a mob of hirelings all carrying pitchforks and burning torches then the vampire in the castle is , based on historical precedent alone, going to treat them as a threat from the get go.

Of course you could just choose how the dragon reacts based on what you think would make the best game for everyone but that might be a little too non Old school for you. If you did I suspect most people would agree that 'letting the players win' is the best game outcome and that would fit into your own prediliction for dragons that aren't all about combat.

Quote from: Old One Eye;671392When I played DDN with the Isle of Dread, the 4 characters were 6th level when they fought the green dragon.  The party was prepared and beefed-up-to-the-gills for the fight.  We were all tired of the island and mainly interested in seeing how the rules flowed, so I did not play it very tough.  And I rolled randomly to see if the dragon was prepared, she was not.

Through good use of controlling the terrain, the party whacked the dragon down in about 3 or 4 rounds of combat.  The wizard was on the ground twitching and the paladin hurt bad.  The barbarian and the ranger were hardly touched.  The party as a whole never feared defeat.

Had I played it more seriously with the dragon being cunning, having minions, used terrain to advantage, it could certainly have taken the party down.

Which is again totally supporting the OP quote. The best outcome is to have the players win. Now personally I play the monster to the hilt, the competative bit implied by the OP, but if the party suprised it and it was not expecting a fight and what not they should be able to take it down.

Quote from: jibbajibba;671434Charisma as a reaction roll is actually a bit crazy. Charisma is charm, personality and looks, .

Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical
attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism

why do people keep forgetting this part?

Quote from: Benoist;671279BTB you can subdue dragons. It's actually something that is not easy to do, and pretty cool when it happens in-game.

Subduing dragons is a little silly in a game where you can't subdue anything else don't you think?
If D&D has a subsystem called subduing monsters, even highly intelligent ones that can use spells, then it might have made sense. As a throwaway rule it seems incongruous that only dragons can be subduded and not basilisks, or wyverns, or unicorns or Theon Greyjoy

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671438Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical
attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism

why do people keep forgetting this part?

no I was summing that up in what I though was an amusing way
Still not sure how personal magnetism shines forth through a suit of plate mail covered in 30 days of trail dust, a closed helm and a kite shield when you are surrounded by half a dozen guys armed to the teeth ..... or how persuasiveness comes through before you actually speak... probably a thesis for Desmond Morris in that one...
just sayin.....