Various types of Dragons

[Elfie]

So we have official stats for Dragonlings, Drakes, and Wyverns now. But nothing for Dragons or High Dragons.

I'm looking to somewhat replicate the Wyvern Hunt from Mark of the Assassin, so I want to throw together some Dragon stats. I feel like a Dragon should be a little better than a Drake, but not as good as a Wyvern. So I'm thinking I'll make it just like a Drake, except +1 Con, +1 Cunning, +1 Strength, and +10 hp. Plus it has the ability to fly.

My second thought is: Maybe they are statistically exactly the same as Drakes except for the ability to fly.

What do you think?

[Tiger's Heart]

We put them all in Esoterica's Bestiary, and there is also the Sea Dragon from the Set 3 Playtest.

+10 HP is one good hit from a warrior and perhaps not quite enough for a challenging fight, depending upon the levels of your players.

Flying will make quite a difference depending upon how you use it, unless it is like most of the CRPG's where the dragon gives one or two hits from the air and then conveniently lands close enough to be pummelled by the party.

Tiger's Heart

[Saisei]

A Dragon won the March Monster Madness last year

http://dragonageoracle.com/2011/04/14/m ... ve-dragon/

[Elfie]

Unfortunately the ones in Esoterica and on Dragon Age Oracle are incredibly OP compared to the existing official dragons. I would agree that an immature female could probably be stronger than an adult male, but not by the incredibly high margin presented in those examples.

[Hellebore]

Unfortunately the ones in Esoterica and on Dragon Age Oracle are incredibly OP compared to the existing official dragons. I would agree that an immature female could probably be stronger than an adult male, but not by the incredibly high margin presented in those examples.

While it's true that these examples are far beyond GR's basic drake (having fought against the bestiary's creatures I can say that they aren't as scary as they look - so I would say GR's stuff is underpowered instead), GR's animal stats are all over the place, which was why we redid them originally. Apart from the anemic nature of them (Even set3 had creatures with health of only 70 or so, including supposedly scary things like pride demons).

Currently a bereskarn is Str7 Con7 Health 70. A drake is Str5 Con5 Health55. Your proposed change would make a dragon Str6 Con6 Health65, which is still worse than a bereskarn.

Even given that the computer game was slightly abstracted, bereskarns were never depicted as town wasting monsters, yet GR has them as nastier than drakes by a wide margin (I recall drakes being at least as difficult to kill in the CG as a bereskarn, if not moreso).

Then there's the ogre with Str9 con8 Health80. Ogres were never shown to be scarier than dragons and high dragons wiped the floor with them. Following GR's monster advancement scheme like you've done where you put a pt here and there and add a bit of health, a Drake to high dragon would still fall short of their basic ogre - and then you can make an epic ogre on top of that which is even more nasty.

You should always do what you're comfortable with, so if that's the kind of dragon you want to fight then do it. But I find that GR's stats are not internally consistent (see ogre vs bereskarn vs drake) and that with the low levels of health that they have (players will have that much each by level 7 or so) you will either slaughter them in a few rounds or be required to fight 5 of them to make it interesting.

My personal preference is for scary things to stay scary, rather than multiplying the number to get the same result as characters level up.

Hellebore

[Lynata]

An understandable reasoning - imho dragons should always be the top of the food chain, even if it means it'll take the players many more months of gaming until they're ready to survive an encounter with one (at least provided they don't have any backup or access to siege weaponry like in the end battle of DA:O).

The scarier you make them, the more rewarding it'll feel when your players take one down!

[Elfie]

Just as a reminder for those who want dragons to always be epic beats of terribleness, a "Dragon" is Dragon Age is actually an immature female, not an adult high dragon. In the CRPG they were fairly easy to kill and were barely a notch above drakes. Obviously a High Dragon should be a huge and terrible thing (and yes, far more so than an Ogre).

[Hellebore]

Just as a reminder for those who want dragons to always be epic beats of terribleness, a "Dragon" is Dragon Age is actually an immature female, not an adult high dragon. In the CRPG they were fairly easy to kill and were barely a notch above drakes. Obviously a High Dragon should be a huge and terrible thing (and yes, far more so than an Ogre).

Drakes and dragons were nastier than bereskarn by a wide margin. Bereskarn were basically just elite blight wolves. Drakes and Dragons were quite nasty compared to other creatures in the game.

The GR bereskarn will eat a drake for breakfast.

Hellebore

[Loswaith]

Personally I would expect a drake to be atleast as dangerous as a bereskarn to give them equal odds (though the favour being on the drake) given an exotic pit fight between the two. (which actually gives me an idea for an adventure hook/ side distraction)

[Scion of Haven]

Personally I would expect a drake to be atleast as dangerous as a bereskarn to give them equal odds (though the favour being on the drake) given an exotic pit fight between the two. (which actually gives me an idea for an adventure hook/ side distraction)

Dragon+Bear fights: someone's been playing Thief.

[Loswaith]

I have played all the Thief PC games many times and dont recall ever seeing bears or dragons (unless you consider burruks dragons), A skyrim thing prehaps?
Though I dont tend to see a bereskarn as a bear, as much as I dont see a hurlock being human. Its a monsterous creature and pit fights between creatures is nothing all that new.

[Scion of Haven]

Bears are more like ghouls than darkspawn. They're former bears that were corrupted by the taint, from what I understand.

[Loswaith]

My point was both are irrevocably changed from what they are. As hurlocks are just birthed from a human mutated by the taint, while bereskarn are mutated by it directly.

They still however shouldn't be a considerable threat to dragons and only larger ones (or multiple) being a serious threat to a drake.

It does make me wonder though if drakes and/or dragons can actually be mutated in a similar manner as other creatures by the taint.

[Elfie]

Indeed they can.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Thrall

[Lynata]

And let's not forget the Archdemons themselves, of course.

[Loswaith]

Ahh.. I dont remember that fight in Oragins, thanks Elfie.

The archdemons I didnt figure were tainted high dragons so much as the high dragon equivlent of an abomination. Thus some rather powerful demon (or "old god") possesion type thing.

[Lynata]

It is said that the archdemons are so-called Old Gods (not sure if they can still be counted as high dragons - they seem to be another step above, or maybe it's just their age/intelligence?) that were tainted by the darkspawn the moment the latter reached these "hybernating" behemoths.
Of course this is Chantry lore, so ... take with a grain of salt.

I don't know of any contemporary direct connection between the darkspawn or archdemons and arcane corruption / demonic possession - but since the Blight seems to be the result of something that happened in the Fade, who knows!

[shonuff]

The archdemons, I believe, are also male, whereas high dragons are female.