|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 3, 2013 5:25:03 GMT -6
This particular dragon has probably influenced my perception of dragons more than any other: And most conveniently, we have here right before our eyes a Hobbit standing beside a dragon -- presumably an old or very old red dragon seeing that Smaug could breathe green and scarlet fire. It is worthwhile noting that Smaug is described as "vast", "huge", and "long". There he lay, a vast red-golden dragon, fast asleep; thrumming came from his jaws and nostrils, and wisps of smoke, but his fires were low in slumber. Beneath him, under all his limbs and his huge coiled tail, and about him on all sides stretching away across the unseen floors, lay countless piles of precious things, gold wrought and unwrought, gems and jewels, and silver red-stained in the ruddy light. Smaug lay, with wings folded like an immeasurable bat, turned partly on one side, so that the hobbit could see his underparts and his long pale belly crusted with gems and fragments of gold from his long lying on his costly bed.
—J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, "Inside Information" Looking at a the image blown up on my screen, Bilbo's shadow would would be approximately 25mm tall if it were upright. And, by curling a piece of string along Smaug's spine, it appears that he would be 250mm from snout to tail if he were uncoiled. Hence, if we assume Bilbo to be 3ft tall, then we might judge Smaug to have been approximately 30ft long
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jan 3, 2013 6:02:00 GMT -6
This thread made me reconsider feeling sorry for having not played with such high-level characters. I think my former hypothetical level limit rule (level nine tops) might be an actual limitation.
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 3, 2013 8:31:30 GMT -6
I don't mean to get us off track here, but I wonder what the justification is for the following claim: 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. There's no normal way to increase ability scores in OD&D, at least not after character creation. There's also no particularly good reason to assume either that a fighter of 10th level (or any level) has a 15+ Constitution, or that someone who rolled a 15+ Con will play a fighter. It is also not especially likely or unlikely that a fighter with Con<15 will not survive to 10th level (i.e. there's no reason to think that a fighter who survived that long must have a high Con). The main difference, it seems to me, is that the fighter is likely to have a magic sword, but even then, unless it has a special bonus vs. dragons, he will only be dealing 1-6 points of damage himself. All said, I don't see any game-breaking problem with increasing the damage output of dragons (to 2d6 or even 3d6 for the largest/oldest). By the same token, if you want dragons to be dangerous opponents, but the sort that you precisely seek out high-level characters to slay without excessive reluctance on their part, then the 1-6 damage seems fine.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 3, 2013 9:38:19 GMT -6
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. I have no textual reference for St. George's dragon. Every medieval depiction I've ever seen of that dragon, though, makes it smaller than the saint's horse.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 3, 2013 9:42:04 GMT -6
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. Awesome. I've been making that mistake, but no longer! It makes a lot more sense to assume that 1" = 1 yard rather than 1" = 10 feet.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 3, 2013 15:43:06 GMT -6
Bit off topic here, but... There's also no particularly good reason to assume either that a fighter of 10th level (or any level) has a 15+ Constitution, or that someone who rolled a 15+ Con will play a fighter. It is also not especially likely or unlikely that a fighter with Con<15 will not survive to 10th level (i.e. there's no reason to think that a fighter who survived that long must have a high Con). Rolling 15+ con is an incentive to choose the fighting class because fighters have the most HD. Therefore, fighters derive the most benefit from a high con score. I.e., a 10th level magic user has (roughly) half as many HD as a 10th level fighter, and therefore gets (roughly) half as many additional hp as would the 10th level fighter. All other things being equal, a fighter with more hp is more likely to survive a fight than one with fewer hp. Hence, the fighters who do survive a fight are more likely to have had more hp to begin with. I.e., more likely to have had a high con score. There's no normal way to increase ability scores in OD&D, at least not after character creation. If you are excluding all magical affects from "normal", then true. But from what I've seen, players benefit from wishes reasonably often. They also come across magic wells, pools, statues, altars and so on that "zap" ability scores up. They can benefit from blessings or boons that up ability scores. They can locate tomes or potions of good health in treasure hoards. And so on. None of this is guaranteed, of course. All I'm saying, is that by 10th level, a character will have had a pretty good shot at coming across any of above. And if he is a fighter with less than 15 con, he has a strong incentive (+1 hit point per HD) to adjust con where he has a choice, or to choose magic items that adjust con as his share in any treasure.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 3, 2013 15:51:16 GMT -6
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. Awesome. I've been making that mistake, but no longer! It makes a lot more sense to assume that 1" = 1 yard rather than 1" = 10 feet. Of note in monsters and treasure it says that, As can be seen in my pictures below, the scale-taken from S&S shows that no more than 8 man sized creatures can really stand around a dragon with the requisite 1" between figures. In one way, making dragons bigger actually makes them weaker as more foes can surround them the bigger they become! In the picture are 9 characters between 5/8" and 3/4" surrounding a 1 5/8" dragon. the far north east character is casting a lightning bolt using the lightning bolt length in a 1 yard scale. A fireball with a radius of 2" would just risk hitting everyone surrounding the dragon as total diameter there is about 4". Certainly at this scale a fireball is not taking out armies (as it was not designed to do that in CHAINMAIL.) I give dragons a full 360 degree attack (tail or wings in lieu of the bite) and ideally his breath would have hit the two characters or possibly 3 characters south of him. Dragons are at their most dangerous of course when not surrounded! But at this scale, breath weapon attacks are also usually not TPKs either unless the dragon gets them in a 10' hallway... Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 3, 2013 16:36:57 GMT -6
Rolling 15+ con is an incentive to choose the fighting class because fighters have the most HD. Therefore, fighters derive the most benefit from a high con score. I.e., a 10th level magic user has (roughly) half as many HD as a 10th level fighter, and therefore gets (roughly) half as many additional hp as would the 10th level fighter. Unless, of course, you rolled a low strength, or a high score in another stat, or just want to play another class, or want an MU with a slightly higher chance of surviving, etc. If you are excluding all magical affects from "normal", then true. But from what I've seen, players benefit from wishes reasonably often. They also come across magic wells, pools, statues, altars and so on that "zap" ability scores up. They can benefit from blessings or boons that up ability scores. They can locate tomes or potions of good health in treasure hoards. And so on. I guess what this all goes to show is how different play experience can be. I hardly ever run across wishes, and we have never (or hardly ever) used them, as I recall, to increase ability scores. The books, etc. that raised ability scores were very rare, so they hardly enter into the equation for me. Back on point, what is at stake here are expectations of what the dragon is supposed to be, what a 10th level character is supposed to represent, etc. If you want a dragon to be appropriate at all levels, and appropriately dangerous at all levels, then by all means scale away. If you always want them to be the most fearsome thing in town, use the damage from Greyhawk. If you want them to be threatening, but not overly so for experienced heroes, then leave them as they are. By way of comparison, consider the vampire. It's terribly dangerous, unless you have an 8th+ level cleric around. So, vampires are likely not going to attack directly any party of adventurers travelling in their haunt, but rather use charmed thralls, wolves, bats, etc. to spy and ferret out (a) if there is a cleric and (b) if s/he seems especially powerful. By the same token, any nearby villagers might be cowed into driving off any cleric who passes by, fearing the vampire's wrath should he discover a cleric has been given aid and comfort. So, likewise, a dragon will learn to be clever about his potential foes. If he has magic (like about 1 out of every 8 red dragons), he will use it to his advantage (e.g. invisibility, charm on locals, etc.) should he discover that powerful heroes are wandering about. Even if he doesn't, he can still be played intelligently, not simply waiting on his pile of treasure for a band of 10th-level lords to take it from him.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 3, 2013 19:29:52 GMT -6
Rolling 15+ con is an incentive to choose the fighting class because fighters have the most HD. Therefore, fighters derive the most benefit from a high con score. I.e., a 10th level magic user has (roughly) half as many HD as a 10th level fighter, and therefore gets (roughly) half as many additional hp as would the 10th level fighter. Unless, of course, you rolled a low strength, or a high score in another stat, or just want to play another class, or want an MU with a slightly higher chance of surviving, etc. Yep, so high con is an incentive to choose the fighting class, not a directive
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 22, 2013 7:41:03 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 10:27:51 GMT -6
Here's my idea for dragons:
Dragons do 1d6 points of damage but can make an attack against all enemies adjacent to him. (consider it wing, claw or tail attacks).
If a dragon roll a 20 to hit, in addition to the die of damage, he can either grab or bite the opponent. Grabbed characters can only attack with light weapons and can't cast spell. Flying dragons will drop them from heights if possible. A bitten character will take damage each round automatically. The biting dragon, however, can't breath (or, alternately, if can but the unlucky bitten PC takes all the damage with no save).
This makes dragons deadly to large numbers of flunkies but not so much to a mighty hero.
|
|
|
Post by runequester on Jan 28, 2013 22:17:08 GMT -6
I really like the idea of dragons and other large beasties getting an attack roll against every adjacent enemy
|
|
|
Post by ishmann on Feb 9, 2013 8:05:01 GMT -6
I always liked this Larry Elmore artwork depicting a group of adventurers with their first dragon kill. When I think of OD&D dragons this is what I think of. Attachments:
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Feb 11, 2013 4:52:09 GMT -6
This thread's got lots of good opinions about. I like having a number of unique dragons made up beforehand, and then roll with any vanilla sort as the dice make them. To add to this discussion, consider one of the entries regarding dragons from the FFC (pages 61 - 62). While a number of similarities of the 0ed version continue, look at the Hit Dice involved here, and for interest's sake, treasure determination and alignment chances instead of what we know. I particularly enjoy the x6 multiplier to combat strength (!) for the mother at sight of her dead young. Now that's fight!
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 25, 2014 15:58:11 GMT -6
An entry on dragons from a medieval bestiary: "The dragon is bigger than all other snakes or all other living things on earth.... The dragon, it is said, is often drawn forth from caves into the open air, causing the air to become turbulent. The dragon has a crest, a small mouth, and narrow blow-holes through which it breathes and puts forth its tongue. Its strength lies not in its teeth but in its tail, and it kills with a blow rather than a bite. It is free from poison. They say that it does not need poison to kill things, because it kills anything around which it wraps its tail. From the dragon not even the elephant, with its huge size, is safe. For lurking on paths along which elephants are accustomed to pass, the dragon knots its tail around their legs and kills them by suffocation. Dragons are born in Ethiopia and India, where it is hot all year round."
|
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 68
|
Post by Elphilm on Sept 30, 2014 13:57:14 GMT -6
I have no textual reference for St. George's dragon. Every medieval depiction I've ever seen of that dragon, though, makes it smaller than the saint's horse. Western medieval art doesn't have the framework of linear perspective and correct proportion, though. The proportions of the figures are hierarchical rather than realistic; St. George is always larger than the dragon because he is more important than the beast.
|
|
|
Post by gallowglacht on Oct 1, 2014 14:46:50 GMT -6
I've sometimes wondered, but not yet tested, if halving the Dragons breath weapon damage, but increasing it's hit points would make Old School dragon fights feel a little less like rocket tag? That way a Dragon with advantage is less likely to wipe out most of the party before they act, but a dragon caught at a disadvantage has more chance to survive a party wailing on it in one go. edit; I have no idea why I sometimes capitalise Dragon and sometimes I don't. Possibly something to do with a sick teething baby....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 20:21:44 GMT -6
I've sometimes wondered, but not yet tested, if halving the Dragons breath weapon damage, but increasing it's hit points would make Old School dragon fights feel a little less like rocket tag? Richard Snider (who seems to have done the yeoman's work developing the dragon rules) had two different methods for a dragon's breath weapons in the FFC. The first was a Xd6 die roll for damage based on the dragon's color and age. The second method was to roll a d100 and use that as a percentage of the dragon's hit points for determining damage. The OD&D rules seems to have taken this percentage roll and just maxed it out. I prefer the Xd6 method.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Oct 2, 2014 6:45:43 GMT -6
Of note in monsters and treasure it says that, ...the scale-taken from S&S shows that no more than 8 man sized creatures can really stand around a dragon with the requisite 1" between figures. In one way, making dragons bigger actually makes them weaker as more foes can surround them the bigger they become! ...9 characters between 5/8" and 3/4" [are] surrounding a 1 5/8" dragon. the far north east character is casting a lightning bolt using the lightning bolt length in a 1 yard scale. A fireball with a radius of 2" would just risk hitting everyone surrounding the dragon as total diameter there is about 4". Certainly at this scale a fireball is not taking out armies (as it was not designed to do that in CHAINMAIL.) I give dragons a full 360 degree attack (tail or wings in lieu of the bite) and ideally his breath would have hit the two characters or possibly 3 characters south of him. Dragons are at their most dangerous of course when not surrounded! But at this scale, breath weapon attacks are also usually not TPKs either unless the dragon gets them in a 10' hallway... Given the nebulous nature of combat in OD&D, i.e. one combat turn doesn't equate to a single sword swing, does it make sense to limit a dragon's breath weapon to a given arc? Wouldn't the dragon swing his head from side-to-side to provide the most coverage? Perhaps not a 360° arc for breath, but maybe a 180° one? More for cone based attacks, such as the red's fire or the white's ice. Less for line based attacks, like the black's acid or the blue's lightning (90°, maybe?). If there are any Diablo fans out there, in Diablo II, if I recall correctly, when fighting Diablo he threw lightning in a 90° arc. I could see it as something like that. I've sometimes wondered, but not yet tested, if halving the Dragons breath weapon damage, but increasing it's hit points would make Old School dragon fights feel a little less like rocket tag? Richard Snider (who seems to have done the yeoman's work developing the dragon rules) had two different methods for a dragon's breath weapons in the FFC. The first was a Xd6 die roll for damage based on the dragon's color and age. The second method was to roll a d100 and use that as a percentage of the dragon's hit points for determining damage. The OD&D rules seems to have taken this percentage roll and just maxed it out. I prefer the Xd6 method. Interesting table. Led me to a train of thought that is a bit off topic... I couldn't help but think, while reading it, see the words "maximum damage", which sparked off a thought that perhaps each player affected would roll the nd6 damage. Therefore each player would take differing amounts of damage, depending on what each rolled, halving by saving throw, of course.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 2, 2014 17:39:50 GMT -6
Richard Snider (who seems to have done the yeoman's work developing the dragon rules) had two different methods for a dragon's breath weapons in the FFC. The first was a Xd6 die roll for damage based on the dragon's color and age. The second method was to roll a d100 and use that as a percentage of the dragon's hit points for determining damage. The OD&D rules seems to have taken this percentage roll and just maxed it out. I prefer the Xd6 method. That's a great information, thanks @hedgehobbit. It seems to me the second method (roll d100 and use that as a percentage of the dragon's hit points for determining damage) might, on average, produce approximately the same result as the published OD&D method. (Assuming it's always a percentage of the dragon's maximum hp). If we think of a dragon's current hit point total as "some fraction" of its maximum hit points, then the "current hit point percentage" simply replaces the "d100 percentage"--one roll has been eliminated, and (importantly) the dragon's breath weapon effectiveness becomes proportional to health instead of random. Another potential option I've been thinking about is whether breath weapons (and possibly all area effects that deal hp damage?) could be handled more like the Final Strike function of staves of power and wizardry. In that scenario the total damage would be distributed among targets, rather than applied to all of them. I'm not suggesting this is implied in the 3LBBs (I don't think it is), but it kinda makes some sense if you imagine the nearest targets "soaking up" some of the blast and sheltering those further back. A 60 hp Red Dragon could still incinerate 17 normal men (with an average of 3.5 hp each) with one use of its breath weapon, but only three figures with 20 hp each. The same logic might be applied to fireball and lightning bolt spells, perhaps causing other spell selections to look more appealing?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 2, 2014 18:51:11 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote:While I love Tolkien for his prose about a dragon, my visual sense of the scale of a dragon is probably derived from... or... I would venture to guess this dragon from tail to snout is probably just over a 100' in length. Talysman wrote: You could also interchange the probability for the wyvern (11 M&T) to use its tail for the chance the dragon will breathe fire, e.g if keeping with 2d6…a score of 8 or less (33 1/3%) indicates a dragon will employ its breath weapon, while a 9 or better indicates it will bite. Uriel wrote: Seems reasonable to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 7:11:58 GMT -6
I'm not suggesting this is implied in the 3LBBs (I don't think it is), but it kinda makes some sense if you imagine the nearest targets "soaking up" some of the blast and sheltering those further back. A 60 hp Red Dragon could still incinerate 17 normal men (with an average of 3.5 hp each) with one use of its breath weapon, but only three figures with 20 hp each. The same logic might be applied to fireball and lightning bolt spells, perhaps causing other spell selections to look more appealing? I was talking about this same thing on Dragonsfoot. I've been doing this with magic spells but the players haven't encountered a dragon yet.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Oct 3, 2014 7:32:34 GMT -6
sepulchre, I love that movie. The DVD eludes me, but it was Netflix for a short time. I got the book for 75 cents a few years back.
"Blacksmith, have you ever forged a weapon?"
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Oct 3, 2014 7:42:53 GMT -6
@ sepulchreI try to avoid any sort of dragon from film. It seems that hollywood can't seem to shake the idea that bigger is better, which is nonsense. Take a look at the Godzilla movies. It just gets bigger and bigger. Personally, I love the idea of having smaller dragons. A big dragon, ecologically, is more difficult to justify than small ones. I like the idea that several small dragons could band together for strength against marauding adventurers who are trying to steal their horde. I like the idea that they can use team tactics against the party, or against a bigger dragon to take his horde. This really opens up more role playing opportunities, IMO. With a dragon who is the size of a skyscraper (looking at you 2E, 3E, etc.), then there's not much of a reason for a party to hunt one down except to kill it. Why would such a powerful and dangerous creature parlay with adventurers...or surrender even (I can, of course, thing of several reasons, but they seem...weak )? By contrast, smaller dragons might be willing to unite with a party for mutual gain.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 4, 2014 13:12:17 GMT -6
Fearghus wrotewww.ebay.com/itm/Dragonslayer-DVD-2003-/141423399523?pt=US_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray&hash=item20ed7dd263I will consider that! Brilliant. Uriel wrote: A fair statement, though the dragon of Dragonslayer might not be so heavy-handed for consideration. He is definitely one that can be ridden. Maybe I was over zealous in my estimation of scale. This dragon might be more like 66' long from tail to snout. Admittedly, that is about 20' longer than most dragons in the MM, but maybe that's not an overreach for a very old or ancient dragon. The diet of dragons might be open for interpretation, flesh or gems for instance, but agreed smaller ones might be more likely to leave intact flora and fauna should they find one delectable. Though it's not necessarily the stuff of high fantasy, my bias would be that dragons are loners, and that they are a survival, much like a superstition, rarely awakened from the sleep of ages that is their slumber. The idea of dragons parleying with a party for mutual gain is one that I like, though I have never seen much reason for them to need humans outside of companionship as might a good dragon. I once ran a campaign with a dragon who gained the advantage of a crime organization to deliver him treasure in a lair below the city as part of a pact with civil authorities to not harass the trade routes or disrupt commerce on the whole. Chaotic or evil dragons are rather capricious and this agreement saw the loss of many bearers, handlers and sometimes hapless individuals rumored to have 'disappeared', yet overall the dragon was kept in check by a cabal of wizards who otherwise feared fire and ruin upon the city should they seek his destruction. As one might imagine a company of adventures could be at great peril should they discover this arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Oct 4, 2014 13:56:08 GMT -6
Don't forget that dragons are vain , and ever the biggest baddest dragon can be lured into parley by flattery and riddles
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 4, 2014 14:08:17 GMT -6
Ah yes, I did overlook vanity, thank you Mr. Tolkien...something my hapless adventurers had not the wit to appreciate...
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 16, 2015 15:28:04 GMT -6
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. I love that. For years now it has echoed in my imagination: "Fear the worm, not the dragon." (And let us not forget the note regarding purple worms on page 15 of M&T: "These huge and hungry monsters lurk nearly everywhere just beneath the surface of the land.")
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Mar 16, 2015 18:20:21 GMT -6
I really like the Dragonlance art. I think that is the image from Legend of Huma; one of the first DL books I read. That dragon's wings, while I like the style, are peculiar.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 16, 2015 19:10:20 GMT -6
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. I love that. For years now it has echoed in my imagination: "Fear the worm, not the dragon." It's why the background for my own game world has become "medieval civilization rebuilt after an apocalypse of worms." (And let us not forget the note regarding purple worms on page 15 of M&T: "These huge and hungry monsters lurk nearly everywhere just beneath the surface of the land.") Just beneath the surface. Makes you wonder how deep "just beneath the surface" is...
|
|