The Red Dragon

Let's take the toughest ancient red dragon in every edition and compare them. One thing to keep in mind is that in every edition of the game, the basic longsword weapon does the same damage in all of these games, 1d8 + STR mod.

Not all of the stats will be repeated here, just enough to get an overall power level of each creature in the rules. This is important when playing a module with a set of rules it wasn't designed for, normally you should "roll back" to the same monster in the original game if you have it.

AD&D

The AD&D red dragon felt really weak, and this is one of my problems with AD&D and B/X. Certain spells, if they hit, can wipe out an ancient red dragon in one hit. Magic and spell resistance here is standard, so dragons in AD&D are more vulnerable to spells and casters.

• AC -1
• 8 HD, hit points 88
• Three attacks (d8,d8,3d10)
• Breath weapon = current hp
• Magic use (2 spells of levels 1 to 4)

AD&D 2e

AD&D 2 has 12 dragon age categories instead of 8, and it looks like the influence of Dragonlance making dragons "boss monsters" has had an impact here. The hit points are only slightly higher, but the attack damage - especially breath weapon - has gone way up. Breath weapons can be used every three rounds.

I do like the AD&D 2 monsters a little better than the AD&D 1e classics, just because they feel play-tested and rebalanced for a better party challenge. Also, older dragons were given magic resistance, which could cause any spell to fail instantly. While casters hated this, my melee players loved being needed again.

• AC -11
• 23 HD, hit points 104
• Three attacks (d10,d10,3d10)
• Breath weapon = 24d10+12
• Magic use (caster level 9; wizard: 2 spells of levels 1 to 4, 1 level 5; priest: 2 level 1, 1 level 1)
• Magic resistance 65%

D&D 3.5

D&D 3 and 3.5 introduced multi-attacks for martial classes as characters leveled, which slowed down play and caused the game to "scale" higher-level encounters on a steeper curve. While the low-level game isn't too much different than B/X, the high-level game has this

Pathfinder 1e's version of this dragon is similar, with slightly fewer hit points, but far more special abilities, special attacks, defenses, and spells. Multiple attacks at that cumulative -5 modifier make their debut here, and you have to factor that into average per-turn damage. Of all the dragons in the D&D 3 through 5 eras, Pathfinder 1e's dragon is my favorite just because of the detail and design. At times those monster stats feel too complicated and overboard, but I appreciate the thought and effort that went into them.

Spell resistance replaces magic resistance and it is 1d20 + caster level, which works out to about the same level of magic resistance as AD&D 2e, but is modified for caster level (and punishes lower level casters harder).

• AC 41
• 40 HD (d12), hit points 660
• Attack modifier +49 / grapple +73 (avg. attacks 4d8, 4d6, or 2d8; +18 to all damage)
• Breath weapon = 24d10
• Magic use (caster level 19)
• DR 20 (magic), SR 32

D&D 4

With D&D 4 we never really felt the higher-level monsters were play-tested all that much. They kept changing and rebalancing monsters as the game went on, and the first version of the red dragon was this massive pile of hit points and relatively low damage attacks. Also, the lack of spell use just feels like an oversight and makes the monster feel like it was rushed through development and tossed in a book to mark the "red dragon" checkbox.

If two of these dragons fight each other, their average per-turn damage will be 82/turn (2 claws and tail slap), which will take 17 hits to win, or at a 50% hit-rate 34 turns. I am eliminating fire damage for auras and breath weapons here because of resistance.

No wonder Pathfinder 1e felt better designed, the monsters just have more care and love put into them. D&D 4 was a fun game from levels 1-10. At higher levels, things felt incomplete, sloppy, and not much design and attention was put into them to make them feel like the classic D&D monsters of old. The answer was "bigger numbers" and that was it, and the numerous turn-denial attacks and conditions made this a boring rinse-repeat loop of "take away monster turn" and "whittle down hit points."

We loved this game, which made it hurt all the more when we left and realized how broken and thoughtless some of the design elements were.

• AC 48
• Hit points 1390
• Fire resistance 40
• Attack modifier +37 (two claws, bite 2d12+12, bites do an extra 6d6 fire damage)
• Tail slap 4d10+12, reaction
• Breath weapon = 4d12+10, ongoing 15 fire damage
• No spells

D&D 5

I haven't played too much D&D 5, so I don't really have a good opinion on the red dragon here. It feels some care and balance went into the design, and the bounded accuracy feels like the numbers have been pulled way down. Hit points feel high like D&D 3.5, but I am feeling the damage scaling of the D&D 3.5 era is still around.

I do like this version of the ancient red dragon, but I feel the hit points are a bit high, like 3E due to damage scaling. Given the bounded accuracy of D&D 5 it feels like some care went into the design.

• AC 22
• 546 hit points
• Bite = +17, 2d6 + 10
• 2 Claws = +17, 2d6  +10
• Tail = +17, 2d8 + 10
• Breath weapon = 26d6 (91) damage
• Magic use is a variant rule.
• Legendary resistance, CR 17, 3/day

Castles & Crusades

C&C has a nice red dragon that feels like an AD&D 2e dragon, and one that has a higher damage output as well. The spell resistance is a 6 (on 1d20, 1-6 makes the spell fail), so while there is some magic resistance there isn't enough to make a majority fail.

While hit points are lower, you do not have the plethora of multi and special attacks you have in games after AD&D 2e. I like the original damage scale where a 1d8 longsword still means something.

The breath weapon is epic, and almost feels like too much damage, but it is something that should be feared. Of all the AD&D 1e, B/X, and 2e red dragons, this one is my favorite. I do feel the spells are a little on the lower side, but this could be house-ruled for dragons who may have studied magic and are more full casters.

• AC 32
• 34 HD, 156 hp
• Full fire immunity
• +34 to-hit
• 2 claws (1d8+12), wing (1d10+12), tail (1d10+12), and bite (4d10+12)
• Spell resistance 6
• Breath weapon = 34d10
• Twelve 1st level spells, three 2nd level spells

D&D 5: Monster Manual, First Impressions

So guess what came in the mail today? The D&D 5 Monster Manual, and now my players playing my monster-less Forgotten Realms campaign can breath a sigh of relief, right?

Nah, I think I'll keep it that way, intelligent NPCs with character classes are all the monster I need in that game. It's a fun take on a D&D world where the world has been "farmed clean" of most of the standard evil critters (they are rare or in legend only), and the intelligent races turn on each other with backstabbing, dark gods, and political intrigue. It also keeps the world different from my other creations, and lets us start a fresh game somewhere else.

This book really opens up Greyhawk and other worlds, where monsters are a must. So let me flip through this book and pull a HP Lovecraft on the World of Greyhawk, and see what we come up with. I can't do a full review of this book yet, so today's article will just be first impressions, reactions, and thoughts as I flip through the book.

The art is amazing, spectacular at points. Wow, I am impressed. Just as a D&D monsters coffee-table book this is an impressive looking work. All the stops were pulled out in the art department, and it shows. Nice job, Wizards, this is one of the best-looking books you have ever made.

The art is really prominent, to the point where I am concerned that there isn't enough mechanical crunch to the monsters. This version of D&D feels decidedly anti-crunch, and lets the DM make a lot up as they go along. This is both good and bad. It's good in that an experienced DM will know what these monsters can do from previous editions, and have a bag of "dirty tricks" for combat tactics in mind during play. Less-experienced DMs will run these monsters as-is with less powers and tactics, and the 'play experience' between an experienced DM and an inexperienced on may be vastly different.

It's a worry I have, and you saw them try to address this in the "combat scripts" in the 3E and Pathfinder bestiaries. In those games, monsters are list after list of feats, special abilities, special defenses, and attacks - it feels like the DM is turned into a C++ compiler trying to figure out what a monster can do from turn-to-turn. I hate running monsters in 3E and Pathfinder, especially high level ones, because they are  so darn complicated you can only really have one or two before mental gridlock sets in and you are fudging most of it anyways.

This is a step in the right direction for complexity, but in some of these monsters I feel a little is missing. I feel there is this danger of them turning into 'easy mode' bags of hit points without special ways to fight back against clever and resourceful players. I am not feeling that low-level OGR old-school danger, especially with higher-end monsters. This is just a first feeling, I will need to play with these monsters and report back on our group's experiences.

Hit points are lower than 4E, but still above the OGR games by about twice.

I am not seeing how to apply class levels to monsters, Unless I am missing something, this part feels like an omission and something I need to run challenging humanoid monsters with class levels. There is a blurb saying "monster modification will be in the DMG," so I hope we get full humanoid class support very soon. Of course, I could just take a set of class abilities and apply it over the top of a monster, but I want to see the official ruling on this along with challenge level adjustments.

In their current forms, most humanoid monsters are the basic level one versions, and while this may be great starting out, I never want my players to dismiss an orc just because they are presented as a low-level monster in the MM. All races, even monster races, have equal opportunity to level up in classes and cause trouble in my game worlds. This is a requirement of how I play, and I like things to be dangerous in my worlds.

Azeroth's loveable orcs have come home to D&D! Wow, even the shoulder-pads on these guys look familiar. I take back all that stuff about D&D 5 feeling like Lord of the Rings in this regard. If there is a misstep in the art, I think this is it. Maybe it is intentional, maybe because of World of Warcraft's cultural influence it is hard for anyone to see orcs as anything different than their zug-zug, lok-tar, angst-filled warmongering emo selves.

Then again, I shall point you towards an excellent game, Shadows of Mordor, and say Middle Earth's orcs still can kick ass, look unique and awesome, and have fight in them yet. I will even go as far to say Shadows of Mordor's orcs look cooler and could kick more ass than Blizzard's orcs. Check the game out, they are just cool enemies, true to the original, and full of character and bile with a unique and eye-catching sense of design.

Could Wizards have taken a different 'take' on orcs? I don't know, D&D has always sat at the crossroads of pop-culture, so it is not immune to popular influences of the day. This applies to all the monsters really, they are all pulled in from different fantasy sources, pop-culture, Lord of the Rings, and any other fantasy influence de jour. D&D is an agglomeration, a crossroads, and it can't escape the gravitational pull of pop culture. The only parts that are immune to this force are the D&D trademark iconic monsters and features, mind flayers, beholders, drows/Lolth and the like. Wizards sets the cultural direction on these, and it is the brand's strength.

Wow. World of Warcraft orcs. Now I have a headache on how I am going to play these. Of course, I don't have to play them this way, but um, I can't get them out of my head looking at those images. Okay, Greyhawk is out, that is too old-school in my head to zug-zug with like that. I can't do straight Azeroth as well, too many damn pandas. An old-school Warcraft I-III inspired world where some crazy god tried to mix D&D with an RTS, of which I shall call Shadows of Dangeroth? Okay, that I can do.

Damn, the nightmare is impossible to ride without getting a flame full of face. Maybe I'll rule that to be 'orange hair' instead of something the NTSB will issue a recall over.

Page 206, Frank Castle versus the werewolf.

Pager 50, one of the best, most evocative pieces in the book.

Overall? Not a bad purchase, and great as an inspiration book. I would recommend this, but keep an eye out for monsters the MM says are weak, and be prepared to house-rule, add powers, and mod them as you see fit. They feel a bit on the weak and under-cooked side overall, so be ready to spice them up on your own, and put your own finishing touches on each one. I cannot see myself using them straight out of the book, I shall tweak, I shall mod, and my players will never know what hit them.

More later, but those are my first feelings on the D&D 5E Monster Manual.

Pathfinder: Mundane Monsters Into Awesome Monsters

One of the most important things to remember in Pathfinder and other 3.x fantasy games is that humanoid traces such as goblins, orcs, gnolls, kobolds, and others do not possess racial hit dice - they are full characters. The monsters in Pathfinder Bestiary 1 are typically "warrior level one" versions of the monster, and using them straight does a disservice to the challenge level and interest of your game.

To be fair, you need to include a range of levels and classes in your encounter, and this includes specialists, support classes, and casters. If you have Hero Lab it takes just a couple minutes to create a kobold shaman and kit him out with a basic spell list. An encounter with six kobolds is one thing, but three kobold warriors, a kobold shaman, and two kobold rangers is quite another, and in fact, much more interesting and memorable.

Let's give those kobold rangers masterwork shortbows and weak-poison tipped arrows? Great idea. Let's give the warriors caltrops and have them toss those under the character's feet? Even better. Have the shaman try to blind characters and have them step on the spikes? Fun. Even if those special attacks and pieces of gear never amount to anything, when the players remember back to those crafty kobolds that tried all sorts of silly tricks as something cool and memorable.

The six by-the-book kobolds with no armor and shortswords? Bland and uninteresting, and a disservice to your masterpiece of an adventure. The care you put into encounter creation shows your attention to detail and crafting your adventure. I know it takes a bit of work, and there is probably a need for pregens, but if you give yourself a rule "never use a monster straight from the book" - you will be in a lot better place when you are at the table with players.

Plus, from my experience, players love that attention to detail. Anybody can defeat stock by-the-book monsters, and in fact, many-many people do every day. That's what everybody does, so why follow the crowd? This is your game, the time your players are spending with you is special, so show them some love and customize your humanoid monsters with all the equipment, classes, feats, and spells that players use. Pull out your bag of "dirty tricks" and come up with some memorable attack combos for each encounter.

You could go even further, and customize most every monster, especially the intelligent ones. This is very fun, and it gives your campaign world a sense of difference and wonder where a wyrmling green dragon can have a couple ranger levels, adding a natural weapon feat for the claws to up damage, a favored terrain of the forest for stealth and tracking, some ranger powers and possibly an animal companion, and you have turned a stock monster into something very cool and interesting. Again, the capability of makes Hero Lab an incredible tool and worth investing in to increase your enjoyment of the game.

It turns the mundane monsters into the awesome, and gives you a whole new perspective on Pathfinder's character builds and flexibility. Yes, you can and should use class levels for monsters, and doing so customizes and "powers up" your game. It lets you put incredible creativity into your game, and makes every one of your encounters memorable and cool for your players.

Don't be by-the-book, be awesome.