Dragons reexamined

[oldkat]

(I think this ties in to Finarvyn's thread.)

I was researching dragons today in M&T and, , the only reference I could find about the # of attacks for dragons was on p.11--

...a score of 6 or less indicates the dragon will bite, but a 7 or better indicates it will breathe

I cannot find any other reference in OD&D regarding dragon attacks. I seem to recall in GH dragons were "rebooted", but if one is using original rules sans supplements, then AsIUnderstandThem, dragons only get 1 bite attack (for a d6 of damage) and/or a breath weapon up to 3 times per day. (Ignoring spells for the sake of argument)

So, is that it?
That can't be right!

[llenlleawg]

No, that is indeed right!

Don't forget that every otherwise lethal hit is one die of damage, equivalent to other otherwise lethal hits, whether from a dagger, a spear, or a sword. The kinds of attacks that do more than this are meant to be exceptional and rare, e.g. the bonus to an ogre's attack, attacks by giants and elementals, etc. Otherwise, as Smaug says in The Hobbit: "My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears ..."

Instead of seeing this as "one bite attack", it may help to think of this as "one opportunity to land a potentially lethal hit" every round of combat, whether by claw, teeth, or whatever. The dragon's hit dice and armor class will ensure that, against most (non-heroic) opponents, the dragon will prevail, especially since he can also deliver far more than one die of damage with his breath. Heroic and superheroic opponents, of course, can survive this battle, but this is as it should be. How else can we have Beowulf or St. George overcome their respective dragons (although, admittedly, Beowulf's dragon is an equal match for him!)?

Nothing, of course, should prevent you from making dragons more lethal, on the model of the increasing damage dice of giants, for example. You could even, if you wanted, decrease the damage for the breath weapon but allow its more frequent use. My only caution would be to allow a fighting man a chance to take on and slay a dragon. It should not require fist-fulls of MU spells to take out a dragon, cast from a safe distance, of course!

[Alex]

I actually like the effect this has. Dragons can be encountered anywhere, by anyone, not just 18th level parties (the 2E kind). It also helps if you envision your dragons the size of horses plus great bat wings and serpentine tails instead of flying mountains (again 2E). One one side of the table this makes the DM have to play them better to make them effective. On the other side of the table this makes the players weigh the options: fight and potentially die from dragon breath but possibly only get bitten/clawed as bad as that last orc gave, vs run away and not claim that H(oard) class treasure! One more thing, with those insanely big dragons, how many does a DM ever use? Probably only 1. The number appearing is 1-4 on all dragons! With these less deadly varieties, one might actually get to see 3 or 4 dragon encounters!

[geoffrey]

Nov 16, 2012 16:46:06 GMT -6 Alex said:

It also helps if you envision your dragons the size of horses plus great bat wings and serpentine tails instead of flying mountains (again 2E).

Indeed. I like dragons that can easily wander through 10' x 10' x 10' dungeon corridors! That also happens to be the size of the dragon that St. George slew.

[waysoftheearth]

I agree with Oldkat that it can seem a bit anti-climactic when an ancient red dragon (arguably the name monster of the entire game!) "savages" a 9th level fighter for 1-6 points of damage.

This issue isn't particular to dragons, either. I wrote an essay summarising the damage various monsters do here.


In my view it's fantastic that there are small dragons that be encountered in numbers, and even by 1st level PCs or on the 1st dungeon level. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be big dragons that will sorely challenge super-heroes as well. There should be.

According to the "pattern" observed throughout OD&D, monsters with 1-4 HD generally deal 1-6 points of damage, monsters with more HD tend to do more damage.

What is particular to dragons is that they don't follow the "usual" HD scale for determining hp. Other monsters have an average on 3.5hp per HD, but dragons have 1 to 6 hp per die, determined by their age category. Thus, the smallest dragons (5 HD) have just 5 hp, which is approximately equivalent to 1.5 HD @3.5 hp per die. The largest dragon (12 HD) can have 72 hp, which is approximately equivalent to 20 HD @3.5 hp per die.

So on the "normal HD scale" dragons range in size from 1.5 HD to 20 HD.

We can see that various other 15+ HD monsters detailed OD&D deal 3d6 or more damage with a "hit" (where a "hit" is the result of a full combat round of attack and battery), so why shouldn't the greatest dragons do likewise?

[Vile Traveller]

I can see dragons as possibly the only case where it is worth making an exception to the usual rules in this way. They are the one monster that should feature in just about any D&D campaign (IMO), so there should be dragon "versions" that can be thrown at any party level. Doesn't mean they have to be able to beat it - they can always try to run away - but I like dragons to be a challenge for PCs from level 1 to level X (I top out at 14, YD&DMV).

[geoffrey]

Nov 16, 2012 20:07:38 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

They are the one monster that should feature in just about any D&D campaign (IMO), so there should be dragon "versions" that can be thrown at any party level. Doesn't mean they have to be able to beat it - they can always try to run away - but I like dragons to be a challenge for PCs from level 1 to level X (I top out at 14, YD&DMV).

But aren't even dragons doing 1d6 damage per round in melee a challenge to high-level parties? A large, very old red dragon will do either 66 or 33 points of damage with its breath weapon, up to 3 times per day! Now imagine that dragon in its lair deep in the dungeon, with only a single 10' x 10' x 10' corridor leading into its chamber. Now imagine the following party (all with average hp) entering the room:

14th-level fighting-man (43 hp)
14-level magic-user (32 hp)
14th-level cleric (31 hp)
4th/8th-level elf (How to figure? But not more than 32 hp)
6th-level dwarf (21 hp)
4th-level hobbit (14 hp)

The dragon breaths on them. 5 out of 6 of them don't even need to bother rolling saving throws. They're dead even if they roll 20s. Only the 14th-level fighting-man would have a chance (80%, to be exact) to survive. And assuming he made his saving throw, our 14th-level Lord will be going toe-to-toe with a beast that has 66 hp while he has a measly 10 hp left. I'd bet on the dragon. ;D

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 16, 2012 23:00:22 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

imagine that dragon in its lair deep in the dungeon, with only a single 10' x 10' x 10' corridor leading into its chamber. Now imagine the following party (all with average hp) entering the room:

14th-level fighting-man (43 hp)
14-level magic-user (32 hp)
14th-level cleric (31 hp)
4th/8th-level elf (How to figure? But not more than 32 hp)
6th-level dwarf (21 hp)
4th-level hobbit (14 hp)

The dragon breaths on them. 5 out of 6 of them don't even need to bother rolling saving throws. They're dead even if they roll 20s. Only the 14th-level fighting-man would have a chance (80%, to be exact) to survive. And assuming he made his saving throw, our 14th-level Lord will be going toe-to-toe with a beast that has 66 hp while he has a measly 10 hp left. I'd bet on the dragon. ;D

That's quite true Geoffrey, but also rather unlikley. If a group of players ever actually employed those tactics then they deserve what they get.

Let's imagine another scenario...

The players are aware of the dragon lair before they approach, thanks to its fearsome reputation and the scouting efforts of their "burglar". They also know from local legends that the monster is an ancient red dragon.

The Elf uses his ESP spell to determine whether or not it is sleeping before they get anywhere near it. If it is sleeping, it's as good as over. Let us assume it is not.

The magic-user casts a Wizard Eye spell to confirm that there are no other nasty surprises in the lair, exactly where the dragon is and what it is doing, and whether there is any worthwhile loot in the hoard. If anything looks suspicious, the party withdraws to re-plan the engagement. If the hoard contains nothing they haven't already got, the cleric simply causes an Earthquake to cave in the lair, destroying the dragon without any risk.

However, assuming the party actually want to loot the hoard, they prepare to do battle.

The cleric (who already wears a ring of fire resistance) casts Protection from Evil 10ft Radius on everyone as a precaution.

The fighter uses his ring of wishes to gain utter invulnerability to fire. The others drink the potions of fire resistance which they had prepared specifically for this encounter.

Once this is done they are ready to engage. But they don't march in the front door do they? Oh no.

From a safe distance outside the lair, the magic-user uses a Conjure Elemental and send an Earth Elemental in to distract the dragon. The cleric summons an Insect Plague and does likewise.

Once that little "introduction" has stirred the dragon (and caused it to expend at least one of its breath attacks), the party attacks proper. They variously Teleport, Dimension Door, Passwall and use Oil of Etherealness to enter the lair so that they immediately surround the monster. With the dragon still engaged against the elemental, their sudden appearance is likely to earn them a surprise round. Even if it doesn't, the dragon can't attack all of them at once since they have it pretty much encircled.

In the first round the Dwarf and the fighter attack with their swords of dragon slaying calling out insults to ensure they get the monster's full attention, while the burglar fires arrows of dragon slaying from his short bow.

From relatively safe, dark corners, the magic-user fires his Disintegrate spell and the elf fire his Polymorph Other spell (turning the dragon into a newt). The cleric unleashes The Finger of Death.

The dragon's odds of surviving all this seem rather long.

If the dragon has any fiery breath weapon uses left after dealing with the conjured prelude, and manages to actually use its weapon, then it is most likely to hit either the fighter or the dwarf. In this case, it is 50% likely to waste its attack on the invulnerable fighter, but 50% likely to breath on the brave dwarf instead. With his dwarfishness, fire-resistance and protection from evil, he is pretty likely to save. Whether he saves or not, the damage will be reduced by 1 per die due to his potion of fire resistance. Even if the dwarf is killed, it won't matter overly, seeing that the cleric is on hand with his Raise Dead spell.


If it's still on after round one, the PCs will unleash all hell again in the second round.


Yes this is taking it to the other extreme. But one thing I've come to appreciate is: One must never underestimate the destruction a party of PCs can cause

[Finarvyn]

The twist here is the quote from p.5 of Monsters & Treasures which clearly states:
"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll."

My take on this is that of 5-12 HD would get 5-12 attacks against normal villagers and low-level characters. So ... who exactly does this include?

In my game, I look at the "fighting capability" from Men & Magic for this. Any character rated with "hero" status avoids this and it defaults back to a one-attack scenario. From M&M, I note that fighters of level 1-2 aren't heroes yet (level 3 is listed as "hero-1", which I count) and magic users of level 1-6 aren't heroes yet (level 7 is "hero-1"), and clerics of level 1-5 aren't heroes yet (level 6 is "hero-1").

I use the magic-user attack charts for Thieves, so they have the same FC as well (with the exception that "wizard" is tweaked on the chart).

[geoffrey]

Waysoftheearth, I agree with all of that. The thing is, in your scenario the dragon would still be toast even if it had 3 attacks per round doing 1-4/1-4/3-30 points of damage (instead of 1 attack doing 1-6 points of damage).

So either way, a mighty dragon having one attack/round for 1d6 still makes me happy. ;D

[waysoftheearth]

True, in either of those one sided examples it doesn't matter how much damage the dragon could cause. It's the grey area in between, where there is actually a contest, where the dragon's ability to deal combat damage becomes a factor.

But it matters not. Each to his own interpretation and everyone is happy

[Arminath]

Nov 11, 2012 0:23:27 GMT -6 oldkat said:

(I think this ties in to Finarvyn's thread.)
<snip>...but if one is using original rules sans supplements, then AsIUnderstandThem, dragons only get 1 bite attack (for a d6 of damage) and/or a breath weapon up to 3 times per day. (Ignoring spells for the sake of argument)

Just for the sake of making it easy on myself, I give dagons a damage bonus equal to their hit points per hit dice, so if they have 1 hp/HD, they do +1 damage...if they have 6 hp/HD, they have a +6. One thing I like to point out, yes all damage is based on what can kill a normal man, but doing 6 points to a 6 hp man wounds him enough to kill him, while that 6 hp/HD dragon that does 1-6+6 mangles him doing up to potentially double the physical damage he could take. Sometimes it should be numerically gory, not just descriptively so. YMMV though, just some food for thought that doesn't try to reinvent the wheel.

[blackbarn]

I think the breath weapon is the iconic feature of a dragon, and should be the most feared attack. Claws and teeth, not so much. I also agree with geoffrey that the smaller dragons fit through dungeon hallways, and resemble the ones usually depicted in the St. George legend. I'd think in any world where dragons did exist, people would hunt them down and slay them early, before they ever had a chance to grow into the larger ones, if at all possible. This allows the PCs to face them more often, too, which I suppose is only as good or bad as your own personal preference. I like it.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 11, 2012 0:23:27 GMT -6 oldkat said:

AsIUnderstandThem, dragons only get 1 bite attack (for a d6 of damage) and/or a breath weapon up to 3 times per day. (Ignoring spells for the sake of argument)

So, is that it?

Nov 11, 2012 4:41:00 GMT -6 llenlleawg said:

Don't forget that every otherwise lethal hit is one die of damage, equivalent to other otherwise lethal hits, whether from a dagger, a spear, or a sword. The kinds of attacks that do more than this are meant to be exceptional and rare, e.g. the bonus to an ogre's attack, attacks by giants and elementals, etc. Otherwise, as Smaug says in The Hobbit: "My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears ..."

Note that Smaug uses the plural forms; "swords" and "spears". He isn't saying his bite is equal to a sword. It's equal to many swords. Having just said that "My armour is like tenfold shields", one might speculate that he implies tenfold swords. And spears alike.

Speculation aside, even only two swords will deal 2-12 points of damage, and even just a single spear will deal 2-12 or 3-18 points of damage "if the force is sufficient". And what force in D&D could be more "sufficient" that an enraged dragon??

[cooper]

The rules do say that dragons will attack at double value if enraged. So there is already a mechanism for doing 2-12 damage. Remembering also that this is 0d&d and a 10th level fighter will have only about 35 hit points, a 10th level wizard 24 hit points. This isn't ad&d with a fighter with 100+ HP.

A 4th level hero facing his first dragon is going into battle with 14 HP. 1d6 dmg from the dragons bite looks sufficient in most cases especially since most all dragons, even the very young have at least a thac0 of 13, which means he hits our hapless hero in plate armor and shield on a 11+ and the hero only hits on a 15+

Truly the attack matrix subsumes the "ferocity and power" of the monster without having to rely on "hit dices" of damage.

[waysoftheearth]

I agree that a rather small "horse-sized" dragon is challenged by and is a challenge for a hero.

But by the time a fighting man reaches 10th level, there's every chance he will have (either stared with or since attained) 15+ constitution, so he would probably have 45 hit points. Not that his actual hit points matter overly much, seeing that he is likely to have an amazing AC, and also to be accompanied by at least one 10th level cleric who can raise dead three times a day and cure serious would three times a day -- and that's without considering any magical items he might have which produce additional salves.

The practical truth is, one dragon is no match for a party of experienced PCs. Even four dragons (two adults and two young with 1 hp per die) can't match the damage output of a prepared group of PCs.

The dragons have their breath weapons, but they can only use these thrice and even then require a successful die roll to do so. Besides which, their primary attacks can often be neutered with the correct precautions.

After that, 1-6 damage against a single target (assuming a successful hit!) doesn't even surpass a single cure light wounds spell. On the other hand, a company of four to eight, or perhaps even a dozen, players along with their various retainers and hirelings can cause far more damage.


BTB dragons are probably a reasonable threat to PCs around 4th to 6th levels. Against multiple PCs at 8th+ level, it's a very long stretch for the dragons.

[waysoftheearth]

It's interesting to see that a dragon is often being compared to a lone hero or superhero. Do you guys actually do that? I mean "solo adventuring"?

In my experience the PC party is usually a veritable warband, usually numbering around six PCs (but sometimes a lot more) with a pack of hired muscle in tow.

This would be very different to one or perhaps two PCs sneaking about carefully. Perhaps this would go some way toward explaining our different perspectives?

[cooper]

Well even with a large adventuring group, # encountered are 1-4 which are mated pairs and young and the young have the same HD as the adults just fewer hit points. So, I guess I see nothing wrong by scrapping the idea of multiple dragons and just making single colossus dragons a la 2nd edition. But with 0e hit points, pretty soon you're looking at insta-kills with bites alone if the bite is doing 4-24 damage as most PC's don't ever get close to 30hp. But to have # appearing be 1-4 and then bump their damage up is murder.

Another issue is subdual. The more powerful the dragon means at some point when a PC subdues one their pet is now quite powerful. Given the 3 men at arms in the dragon example all die on round two even after the surprise attack on the sleeping dragon, I'm still not sure dragons need to be beefed up in melee.

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 31, 2012 19:57:45 GMT -6 cooper said:

with 0e hit points, pretty soon you're looking at insta-kills with bites alone if the bite is doing 4-24 damage as most PC's don't ever get close to 30hp. But to have # appearing be 1-4 and then bump their damage up is murder.

By "ball park" reckoning, only the most fearsome dragon (i.e., a very old red) would deal 4-24 damage on a bite, which translates to an average of 14 points per hit. As we discussed above, a 10th level fighter could reasonably expect to have 35 to 45 hit points, so the dragon would, on average, have to maul him 3 or 4 times to slay him. The 10th level fighter's AC would likely be good enough that the dragon would require 5 or 6 or even 7 rounds to land those hits.

In case the dragon gets lucky and rolls high, the fighter has a cleric backing him up with a cure serious wounds spells, a wand of healing, or similar. In any case, the fighter himself carries a potion of extra healing for exactly this kind of encounter.

And lets not forget the rest of the party.

It is hardly going to be "insta kill"; it is going to be challenging. In my mind that makes for good times.

Dec 31, 2012 19:57:45 GMT -6 cooper said:

So, I guess I see nothing wrong by scrapping the idea of multiple dragons and just making single colossus dragons a la 2nd edition.

I'm not advocating the flying mountains of 3E, nor eliminating encounters with 1-4 dragons.

All I'm saying is I can't satisfactorily reconcile a world where the name monster of the game, the Red Dragon, hits for 1-6 points while a basic Ogre hits for 3-8 points.


And before we wheel out the old argument that "ferocity and damage are subsumed in matrices" again, let's have a look at the figures...

					Ave
		to hit		Ave	Dam/
Monster	HD	AC 2	p(hit)	Dam	Round
White Dragon	5	12	45%	3.5	1.575
Red Dragon	9	9	60%	3.5	2.1
Red Dragon	10	9	60%	3.5	2.1
Red Dragon	11	7	70%	3.5	2.45
Ogre	4+1	12	45%	5.5	2.475

What is actually "subsumed" in the attack matrix is that a 4+1 HD Ogre deals more damage per round than any of the chromatic dragons, and substantially more so than all of them bar the 11 HD red dragon.

If one wants to account for the manner in which dragon hit points are assigned, then a very old red dragon has as many hit points (66 of them to be exact) as would an average 19 HD monster (19 HD @3.5 hp per die ~= 66 hp).

Hence, a 4+1 HD Ogre deals MORE damage per round than does the 19 HD equivilent biggest baddest red dragon.


Does that sit right with you?


Okay, so let's forget all about dumbass Ogres. How do dragons compare to their genuine peers in the game?


Dragons, giants and elementals are arguably the "big bad guys" of OD&D.


. Giants are 8 to 12 HD. They deal 2, 2+1, 2+2 or 3 damage dice.
. Elementals are 8, 12 or 16 HD. They deal 1+1, 2 or 3 damage dice.
. Dragons are 5 to 12 HD*. They deal 1 damage dice.
(* but dragons have 2 to 19 "normal HD" worth of hp.)


Can you pick the odd one out?


Let's not forget that M&T tells us that "Large Animals" with between 2 and 20 HD deal 2 to 4 damage dice.


Greyhawk goes on to further detail dragon attacks as comprising two claw attacks each dealing 1-4 points, and a bite attack dealing between 2-16 (for white dragons) and 3-30 (for red dragons) points.

Given that Greyhawk inflated the normal HD from 1d6 to 1d8, we can reverse engineer 3LBB dragon damage with some basic arithmetic:


. The white dragon (base d8) deals 1-4 + 1-4 + 2-16 = 4-24.
The white dragon (base d6) deals...
4/8*6 = 3, and
24/8*6 = 18, so
3-18 = 3 dice (3-18).

. The red dragon (base d8) deals 1-4 + 1-4 + 3-30 = 5-38.
The red dragon (base d6) deals...
5/8*6 = 3.75
38/8*6 = 28.5, so
3-28 = 5 dice -2 (3-28).

I would assume that these very scary numbers are reserved for the largest, most terrifying of dragon kind. Lesser dragons would deal proportionately less damage, of course.

Dec 31, 2012 19:57:45 GMT -6 cooper said:

Another issue is subdual. The more powerful the dragon means at some point when a PC subdues one their pet is now quite powerful.

If the players can subdue a dragon, good luck to them! It won't serve forever, and M&T suggests that it will try to escape or kill its master as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

Dec 31, 2012 19:57:45 GMT -6 cooper said:

Given the 3 men at arms in the dragon example all die on round two even after the surprise attack on the sleeping dragon, I'm still not sure dragons need to be beefed up in melee.

It really depends on the scope of the individual game.

For play at PC levels up to 4 and possibly even up to 6 or so, I agree.

But higher level PCs need substantially more challenging opponents to keep the game interesting. 1-6 points of damage scarcely threatens a fighter with 35 to 45 hit points and an arsenal of magical healing on hand, far less a war party of similar fighters and their retinues.



edit: fixed broken quote.

[geoffrey]

I'm OK with dragons dealing less melee damage than ogres and some other monsters. Check-out the terrifying beast that terrorized the countryside until St. George slew it:



To me, that is the iconic D&D dragon: A beast that can easily wander through 10' x 10' dungeon corridors. That sucker can hide under the bed. I regard it as part of the game's name not because it is the biggest and baddest monster, but because of it being encountered on a semi-regular basis all throughout the campaign, whether the PCs are 1st level or 15th level or whatever.

In short, its breath is worse than its bite. ;D

[runequester]

I think a big part of LBB D&D is that each monster tends to have some ability that is their primary threat. Ghouls can paralyze you, so their damage is somewhat irrelevant.
For an ogre, their higher damage IS their ability, ditto for Giants.

Dragons can fly, often cast spells,and have an incredibly damaging breath attack.. Hence, no boost to regular damage.

Now, I doubt anyone would get too fussed about higher dragon damage, but I don't think it's needed.

Other factors of course is morale of henchmen, the fact that dragons should fight intelligently, and that attacking the lair should of course mean numerous obstacles and defenses.

Besides, why is the dragon fighting to the death? Surely it's lair would have an escape path, and the PC's probably can't fly. If the fight looks remotely sour, the dragon takes to the air, spits out a last blast of acid and goes seek revenge and lick it's wounds.

[geoffrey]

Jan 1, 2013 9:59:56 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

To me, that is the iconic D&D dragon: A beast that can easily wander through 10' x 10' dungeon corridors. That sucker can hide under the bed.

That reminds me of one of the rooms in Judges Guild's old Tegel Manor:

A13 30'x25'x30' H Wand of Cold (10 charges) behind picture on wall. Female voice faintly chants, Mottled worm 15 HD, 56 HTK, AC 6, 2-4/bite nesting under bed.

Now that is hard-core old-school OD&D.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 1, 2013 9:59:56 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I regard it as part of the game's name not because it is the biggest and baddest monster, but because of it being encountered on a semi-regular basis all throughout the campaign, whether the PCs are 1st level or 15th level or whatever.

Exactly.

And what I've been trying to say is that 1-6 points of damage doesn't cut it against PCs of level 10+.

Regarding the illustration of George and the Dragon, it is clearly not to scale; George is bigger than his horse! So it's a case of history being written by the victor wherein the dragon is diminished by its small representation relative to the hero.

In D&D terms it may well have been a very young or young red dragon with 9 or 18 hit points. I do not see it as an example of the largest kind of red dragon.

I have no issue whatsoever with small dragons. These mule and horse sized specimens can fit easily in dungeon passages, hide under beds if you like, deal 1-6 damage, and are ideal for low level play (which is most play anyway).

What I am trying to communicate is that there is scope for these small sized dragons and for the larger ones too. And that the largest ones should cause damage appropriate to their stature, just like the other large monsters do.


runequester; I would say the "special" of giants is their ability to throw boulders 240ft for 2-12 (or 3-18) damage.

[talysman]

I've already gone on record as saying that I'd use 1d6 per 4 HD for dragons. But even if I stuck to 1d6, I wouldn't discount that breath weapon as being wimpy. Remember, there's no way to avoid damage from a red dragon's fiery breath; you either take full damage or half damage. That large, very old red dragon you mention will do 33 hits to that 10th level fighter even on a successful save; the 35 hit point fighter is going to be dead after one breath attack and one claw attack.

If you want to make dragons more fearsome, you really only need one change: drop the 3 times per day limit.

As an aside, I also have to take exception to calling giants, elementals, and dragons the big bad guys of OD&D. The real big bad guys are the purple worm and its cousin the sea monster. They swallow ogres. That swallow attack is far worse than anything a dragon or elemental can dish out. Their poison, unless you modify the rules, is the insta-death variety. The small purple worms have more hit dice than the largest dragon; sea monsters have double or triple the hit dice of a purple worm.

Fear the worm, not the dragon.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 1, 2013 16:49:31 GMT -6 talysman said:

I wouldn't discount that breath weapon as being wimpy. Remember, there's no way to avoid damage from a red dragon's fiery breath; you either take full damage or half damage. That large, very old red dragon you mention will do 33 hits to that 10th level fighter even on a successful save; the 35 hit point fighter is going to be dead after one breath attack and one claw attack.

I don't discount the breath weapon; it's fearsome for sure. But it's largely avoidable with adequate preparation. A ring or potion or spell or wish of fire resistance is your first option when you go red dragon hunting.

Not only that, the dragon has to roll 7+ on 2d6 to use its breath weapon at all. So it isn't like it's a surefire thing.



Even if the 10th level fighter cops a 66 point breath weapon in the face unprepared, he'll survive if he saves. He could count himself "unlucky" if he were destroyed outright in one round, but even if he was slain, his cleric buddy could use raise dead later. If he survives, he'll be reduced to a handful of hit points and then immediately healed in the following round by his friendly cleric, or with a wish, or the potion of extra healing he carries.

Jan 1, 2013 16:49:31 GMT -6 talysman said:

If you want to make dragons more fearsome, you really only need one change: drop the 3 times per day limit.

It's whether or not the dragon can use its breath weapon (by rolling a 7+) at the optimal moment that really matters.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 1, 2013 9:59:56 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

To me, that is the iconic D&D dragon

To me, these are the iconic D&D dragons:









And who could ever forget this one??

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2012 16:46:06 GMT -6 Alex said:

I actually like the effect this has. Dragons can be encountered anywhere, by anyone, not just 18th level parties (the 2E kind). It also helps if you envision your dragons the size of horses plus great bat wings and serpentine tails instead of flying mountains (again 2E).

did the huge-dragon notion really start with 2e?

In any event, horse-sized dragons make sense to me so long as they are relatively young. But for an old dragon to be that small seems odd to me. I like my powerful dragons to be the size of Glaurung.

[geoffrey]

In terms of an upper limit, I like to consider the heights of giants in M&T:

Hill giants (8 HD) are 12' tall.
Stone giants (9 HD) are 15' tall.
Frost giants (10+1 HD) are 18' tall.
Fire giants (11+3 HD) are 12' tall.
Cloud giants are (12+2 HD) 20' tall.

Using the above heights as a gauge of dragon length (by comparing hit dice), we get the following maximum lengths:

White dragons (5-7 HD): less than 12' long
Black dragons (6-8 HD): 12' long
Green dragons (7-9 HD): 15' long
Blue dragons (8-10 HD): 18' long
Red dragons (9-11 HD): 18' long
Golden dragons (10-12 HD): 20' long

I myself prefer to think of dragons as even smaller. Remember the purple worm (15 HD, 56 hp) under the bed in the scullery maid's room in Tegel Manor? Even doubled-over, that purple worm couldn't have been more than 12' long. That's how long I imagine even the largest dragons (i. e., 12 HD golden dragons) to be. Less mighty dragons I imagine even smaller, small enough to look like the dragon slain by St. George in the picture above.

Quick experiment: I have a tape measure stretched out to 12' on my living room floor right now. It's longer than you might think. I'm imagining a dragon that long. That would scare the devil out of me! It's big enough that 8 men (3 on a side, 1 at the head, and 1 at the tail) could attack it at once.

Of course, all the above is merely my druthers. Others will have their own preferences. ;D

[Deleted]

Well, a dragon of any size would scare the devil out of me

Other than the picture (which, as others have pointed out, is distorted), why do you think that the dragon St George killed was so small? Can you point me toward any text?

I can't recall any instances in fantasy literature––not just D&D literature, but Tolkien and earlier––where adult dragons are horse-sized or smaller. Of course, D&D doesn't have to perfectly imitate literature.

[cooper]

Dragons in CHAINMAIL are roughly the same size as giants (roughly 54" to a mans 30"). This also holds true for the 1e update to CM, swords and spells. The dragon was designed to go up against a single other hero unit. It was a powerful hero unit, but defeatable by a single wizard or superhero in combat. This is borne out in d&d and probably why the number appearing is 1-4.

If the fantasy supplement was indeed suppose to be at 1" to 1 yard, then the dragons head is roughly 1 1/2 feet wide at the base and the fire of his breath spreads out for 27 feet and 9 foot wide at the end of the cone. d&d does use 1" 10 feet for exploration, but in CM and as is evident in AD&D's combat rules as well, it was assumed that the individual combat scale was 3 feet. Most gamers are probably making dragon breath too large, unless they are putting 1 PC per 10" square.

Relatedly the Hydra is the size of a "large dinosaur". A brontosaur with a shorter neck and larger head would seem about right for a largish dragon as well. Dragonlance art probably best represents their size.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The largest possible interpretation is that of 1" = 10 feet, which puts a red dragon head 5 feet wide.