Why do the "dragon classes" not work?

[SangoProduction]

By dragon classes, i do mean classes which try and emulate dragons, such as the Dragon Disciple.

Well, the answer's pretty obvious: dragons are absolutely loaded with a bunch of incongruous abilities. Much like monks. A spell caster couldn't care less about +to Strength and claws, and a melee probably couldn't care about....well, most stuff. The natural attacks are kinda cool.

Also, there are a lot of abilities that dragons have, and that's more than most classes really want to include per level in "class features"...yet are still wanted to be included, so you sit around until level 15 for a 1d4 bite attack or something equally inane.

...This was originally a bit of a rant, and kinda asking for a good dragon class...But while i originally wrote this, i got inspired to fix the problems, and make one myself.

And of course, since it's me who's talking, I used the "build your class" style that Spheres of Power goes with to allow access to the large array of abilities without neccesarily bloating character. Here it is. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570762-The-Draconic-Ascendant-Base-class-Spheres-of-Power-PEACH&p=23416396#post23416396)

[16bearswutIdo]

They do work. It's just that these forums judge what "works" against the power level of a pure classed wizard.

Some stuff in 3.5 isn't the best mechanically, but is good flavor and absolutely fine if done at a similar power level to the rest of the table.

[ExLibrisMortis]

They do work. It's just that these forums judge what "works" against the power level of a pure classed wizard.

Some stuff in 3.5 isn't the best mechanically, but is good flavor and absolutely fine if done at a similar power level to the rest of the table.
Hey look, the standard anti-optimization reply. How useful. You realize that "fine if done at a similar power level" is tautological, right?

I think another problem with the Dragon Disciple is that it's all permanent/continuous/at-will powers, which are consistently overvalued by the developers.

[16bearswutIdo]

Hey look, the standard anti-optimization reply. How useful. You realize that "fine if done at a similar power level" is tautological, right?

I think another problem with the Dragon Disciple is that it's all permanent/continuous/at-will powers, which are consistently overvalued by the developers.

What was anti-optimization about my post exactly, mate? I'm saying Dragon Disciple works fine at what it does when it isn't at a table with high optimization. I didn't say anything about optimization being bad.

[Willie the Duck]

The Dragon Disciple proper has a problem with requiring spellcasting, but not progressing it. Dragons (or dragon-alikes) as PCs have the same problems as gishes in general.

[RoboEmperor]

The Dragon Disciple proper has a problem with requiring spellcasting, but not progressing it. Dragons (or dragon-alikes) as PCs have the same problems as gishes in general.

This.

Spellcasters > Dragon Disciple > Mundanes.

Because Dragon Disciple requires Spellcasting going Dragon Disciple is terrible. If it only needed BAB for entry like Divine Crusader then i could see it working.

Dragon Disciple does work however. I used it in my Nar Demonbinder build to give it extra 8th level spell slots so it has its niche uses.

[Pex]

3E and to an extent Pathfinder overvalues making an attack roll. Because of this they think it a powerful thing to give a sorcerer or wizard a melee attack by a class feature, such as a claw attack or magical dagger. You see this in prestige classes, archetypes, and ability choices for classes. For example the Arcanist can choose to imbue magic into a dagger and attack with it. The reality is these suck because the class has poor BAB so won't hit, low AC so will get hit back, and low hit points so will die quicker. They have no business being in melee. That's not their job. At best these abilities are for gishes where you have a warrior class and take a few levels of a spellcaster to grab these melee tricks. However, you're better off with a regular weapon and the abilities are still promoted as a good thing for the single class spellcaster.

These melee choices may fit thematically, but in actual game play are almost useless. The best you can use them is for roleplaying and non-combat-at-first encounters for an attack against a bad guy who also shouldn't be in melee so you're even.

[Troacctid]

I don't think it's terrible. Dipping into Bard on a Fighter type isn't amazing, sure, but it still gives you a lot of skill points and lets you use wands. And dipping into Sorcerer gives you some decent utility.

[Nifft]

Some don't work because they were just poorly done:
- Dragon Disciple over-values ability boosts, for example.
- Dragon Shaman over-values breath weapon and auras.

Dragonfire Adept on the other hand works great.

So it's more like: making a dragon-emulation class is difficult, and lots of them were messed up, but sometimes they did get it right.

[Eldan]

The best way for a dragon PrC to go would probably be a Gish class. There are perfectly fine Gish classes in D&D. Give it 3/4 casting, high BAB and some dragon goodies like natural armor and a breath weapon.

[mabriss lethe]

Diamond Dragon PrC is pretty good for gishy manifested with few powers known. Grants you a load of baked-in augmentable natural attacks alongside other dragony goodies, ties it to PP at the cost of 2 ML.

Dragon Disciple is extra bad for practically every full caster. (Though you can use it to stretch the utility of classes like Assassin after exiting them. )

[Minion #6]

3E and to an extent Pathfinder overvalues making an attack roll.

This is the source of a lot of disparity between classes. Making an attack roll is one of the most basic ways in which a character can cause an effect in the world, and also one of the most flavourless due to the way HP works. Individual instances of damage don't actually do anything - only the last one has any meaningful effect. Weapon or fighting style choice doesn't feel like it matters much either, as it all comes down to that same routine of hit them til they fall over.

That's why things like Tome of Battle, Path of War and Spheres of Might are popular - putting riders on those attacks or allowing them to be used in new ways makes different attacks feel different from each other.

As to the various dragon classes (the actual topic of the discussion), they are actually less a casualty of this and more a casualty of dragons as creatures. As dragons are iconic and considered to be "powerful" - to the point where they're deliberately under-CR - it seems the designers are leery of that leaking over to the classes. At least, that's the impression of a lot of those sorts of classes I get while reading over them, YMMV.

[Sian]

Dragonfire Adept is very competent, as long as the group at large doesn't go out of their way to break the rules

a problem with many of the rest of the classes themed around Dragons is that they try to do too many things at once, often utterly failing at being good at any of them (although, to be perfectly frank, thats the case for many classes)

[ezekielraiden]

Often, I find the problem is that character features do not stack additively the way many designers think they do.

2 parts pure Fight + 2 parts pure Magic does not equal 4 parts "Fighting blended well with Magic." It's almost always worse than 4 parts of pre-packaged blend.

Even if you solve the disparity problem, this remains. And if you don't, this amplifies disparity problems, sometimes dramatically.

[Particle_Man]

Pathfinder has a feat (with a feat prereq) that allows one to advance a level of spellcasting in a prestige class that doesn't do that every level and you can take the feat once every "Dead" level. So for the price of 4 feats you can get a sorceror/dragon disciple with full caster advancement.

Other than that, sometimes the crunch doesn't live up to the fluff, a common problem. See Green Star Adept.

[OgresAreCute]

Pathfinder has a feat (with a feat prereq) that allows one to advance a level of spellcasting in a prestige class that doesn't do that every level and you can take the feat once every "Dead" level. So for the price of 4 feats you can get a sorceror/dragon disciple with full caster advancement.

Other than that, sometimes the crunch doesn't live up to the fluff, a common problem. See Green Star Adept.

To be honest, you can't expect too much power from a prestige class based on eating rocks.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hey look, the standard anti-optimization reply. How useful. You realize that "fine if done at a similar power level" is tautological, right?

But he's right.

Dragon Disciple is bad, yes. It was one of the earliest PrC's and WotC didn't make them, aside from like 2 or 3, particularly good. Looked at as a warrior w/ some special effects...as it should be looked at.... it's still the 2nd best non-caster core PrC after Horizon Walker.

Dragon Shaman is kinda boring, but it's better than Marshal (or at least, Dragon Shaman X / Marshal 1-2 is way better than Marshal X) and compared to other non-casters outside of Tome of Battle is pretty respectable.

Dragonfire Adept is a great class, and a bit stronger overall than the also perfectly fine Warlock that is of course its closest analogue, and (Warlock) is frequently cited as one of the best-designed splat book base classes in 3E.

[ExLibrisMortis]

What was anti-optimization about my post exactly, mate? I'm saying Dragon Disciple works fine at what it does when it isn't at a table with high optimization. I didn't say anything about optimization being bad.
(1) You claim that the forum's general dislike of the Dragon Disciple is based on an inaccurate comparison against the wizard, which is wrong. The Dragon Disciple falls short compared to anything but a fighter, which is just not a good place to be.

(2) You said "some stuff in 3.5 isn't the best mechanically, but is good flavor", which is a cop-out. We weren't talking about whether the flavour works. The flavour, taken by itself, can be made to work--that's called writing a story. What we're talking about is whether the class' mechanics encourage the class' fluff, because we're gaming a story.
For example: Peasants typically respond to dragons by running away and yelling "Dragon!". In D&D, you can't expect peasants to go "Dragon!" just because your class has the word "dragon" in the name (they can't read your character sheet), so we want the Dragon Disciple to be so dragony--mechanically speaking--that it's having a noticably dragon-like impact on the world, which the peasants then see and sets them running. It's basically "show, don't tell", but applied to D&D.
In my view, the Dragon Disciple doesn't have enough dragon about it (compared to actual dragons, dragon PCs, or even half-dragon PCs) to really support its fluff. Part of the problem is that "claws, STR, CON, NA, wings" is just fairly generic, and a large part of the problem is that they're just not powerful or magical, which I think are crucial properties of dragons.

(1) and (2) are typical signs of the Stormwind Fallacy being just around the corner, which is usually brought up (on these forums) with an anti-optimization slant to it. I suppose I'd call your post "anti-optimization-adjacent".

Edit: I don't mean to single you out, 16bears. This sort of reply comes up in nearly every thread of this kind, and every now and then, I have to protest.


But he's right.
It's a tautology. Of course he's right.

Balance means not being out of line with the rest. "It's balanced amongst classes of a similar power level" is basically saying that "it's not out of line with classes that are not out of line with it", which--if you're generous--might be read as "balance is a symmetric relation". It's not a contribution to the discussion, it's stating the obvious and dismissing the OP's point as not worth discussing.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's a tautology. Of course he's right.

Balance means not being out of line with the rest. "It's balanced amongst classes of a similar power level" is basically saying that "it's not out of line with classes that are not out of line with it", which--if you're generous--might be read as "balance is a symmetric relation". It's not a contribution to the discussion, it's stating the obvious and dismissing the OP's point as not worth discussing.

Two aren't casters at all (albeit one requires some casting to enter), and the third is a pseudo-caster. So yeah, they're not going to be as powerful as a caster. They still fit well balance-wise compared to other classes within their respective specialties / roles / archetypes.

If to you, a draconic class is a design failure unless it's really super powerful, "cause dragons are awesome!" (the only argument I can see you having with the above otherwise...), then...you still have sorcerer. Which over time rather explicitly became a draconic class in its own right w/ the draconic heritage stuff, and is at the top of tier 2.

[ericgrau]

By dragon classes, i do mean classes which try and emulate dragons, such as the Dragon Disciple.
What's your goal though?

Dragon disciple is the strongest core melee PrC. It makes for a good dip gish: i.e., A primary fighter who dips 1 caster level. He can use wands and staffs but can't really cast much otherwise. Once you get into splatbooks there are many better PrCs though. It's more like a bit of a trap for those who try to enter as a full caster.

[Nifft]

Dragon disciple is the strongest core melee PrC.

Eldritch Knight and Horizon Walker dispute that.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Eldritch Knight and Horizon Walker dispute that.

I'm not sure it's fair to count EK as a "melee PrC." Yes, technically it is. But it's not powerful because of what it can do with a melee attack, and you and I both know it. :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

Also a wand of dimension door mostly replaces the best part of horizon walker. Which a dragon disciple can use and afford by the time HW gets it. And is more versatile in being able to use other wands/staffs. If you want skill points, be a ranger/bard/dd. Other than ddoor, HW is pretty suck. The famous build that uses it does plenty of nice tricks which you can port over to DD just fine. The one big flaw in that build is the HW levels.

[weckar]

I'll voice an unpopular opinion: They do not work because they are too closely tied to lore - in this case dragons. If you find dragons boring, no matter how good or interesting they would be mechanically, you would not play them. The class just implies much too much about background and personality.

[RaiKirah]

To be honest, you can't expect too much power from a prestige class based on eating rocks.

Starting with Ur Priest you can become an immortal 9th level spell divine caster god-hating golem with Green Star Adept, though that's probably saying more about Ur-Priest to be fair.

[rel]

My general solution to a player wanting to play a dragon is to simply have them build a dragon (the monster) of appropriate power to match the party.
You then give the dragon PC retraining, HD and age categories to keep them approximately inline with the rest of the party in terms of power as they level up.

[Nifft]

I'm not sure it's fair to count EK as a "melee PrC." Yes, technically it is. But it's not powerful because of what it can do with a melee attack, and you and I both know it. :smalltongue:

The EK's abilities aren't limited to melee. But the EK can thrive at melee range, and it is a Core PrC -- since it's just fine in that role (if built & prepared correctly of course), I don't think it's dubious or cheating to call it out as such. The Dragon Disciple uses his own arcane blood to turn himself into a half-dragon forever; the EK uses an empty cocoon to turn herself into a hydra for a few minutes.


Anyway, the best Core use I've seen for Dragon Disciple in a real game was to amp up Paladin spell slots -- it was Paladin X / Sorc 1 / DD 10, where X was at least 8 (for level 2 slots) and might have been as high as 14 (for level 4 slots) -- but those were NPCs, some kind of royal guardian knights. I suspect they'd thrive in any game where a high-level Paladin is viable. But also, I suspect a Barbarian 10 / Blackguard 10 would kick their butts at melee, to say nothing of a Barbarian 20 or a Ranger 5+ / Horizon Walker 6+ who just dimension doors out of any possible melee range every few turns.


You might be able to do something similar with top-level Trapsmith slots or some other own-casting PrC like Assassin -- hmm, I think you could do Rogue 5 / Assassin 5 / Dragon Disciple 10 (minimum for cross-class K:Arc 8) and get a whole slew of level 3 Assassin slots (which aren't very good in Core -- the best Core Assassin spells seem to be clustered at spell levels 2 and 4). Splatbook Assassin gets wraithstrike at level 3 which seems pretty worth it, especially if you're a Strength-based Rogue with 10 levels of Dragon Disciple on top -- you effectively get a full-attack Smite Everyone (wraithstrike + Power Attack), and each +1 slot is another daily use -- and that's on top of +6d6 sneak attack, which makes melee significantly more rewarding. Throw on Improved Unarmed Strike / Superior Unarmed Strike / Beast Strike and you've got a set of half-decent iteratives plus a Claw / Claw / Bite sequence as icing. If my back-of-the-envelope math is right, that compares pretty well with a Whirling Frenzy chain-tripper, but not with an Uber-Charger.

[RaiKirah]

...hmm, I think you could do Rogue 5 / Assassin 5 / Dragon Disciple 10 (minimum for cross-class K:Arc 8) and get a whole slew of level 3 Assassin slots (which aren't very good in Core -- the best Core Assassin spells seem to be clustered at spell levels 2 and 4). Splatbook Assassin gets wraithstrike at level 3 which seems pretty worth it, especially if you're a Strength-based Rogue with 10 levels of Dragon Disciple on top -- you effectively get a full-attack Smite Everyone (wraithstrike + Power Attack), and each +1 slot is another daily use -- and that's on top of +6d6 sneak attack, which makes melee significantly more rewarding. Throw on Improved Unarmed Strike / Superior Unarmed Strike / Beast Strike and you've got a set of half-decent iteratives plus a Claw / Claw / Bite sequence as icing. If my back-of-the-envelope math is right, that compares pretty well with a Whirling Frenzy chain-tripper, but not with an Uber-Charger.

That actually sounds like a lot of fun to play, both mechanically and fluff-wise

[SangoProduction]

I'll voice an unpopular opinion: They do not work because they are too closely tied to lore - in this case dragons. If you find dragons boring, no matter how good or interesting they would be mechanically, you would not play them. The class just implies much too much about background and personality.

The entire reason that anyone even wants to play a dragon class is because they think dragons are cool. But regardless of the inherent fluff of being "dragon-like", getting something inane in the levels where you should be approaching the power levels of the most mythic of heroes who could challenge gods...

And this is why Dragonfire Adept works. It doesn't try and somehow squeeze every single part of being a dragon in to being a single class. It chooses one part of the dragon, and uses that as its basis. It has no particular use for natural weapons, so doesn't pretend to progress them. It keeps its theme not only active and effective, but also cohesive.

[Nifft]

That actually sounds like a lot of fun to play, both mechanically and fluff-wise Yeah I was aiming to shoot it down but I ended up making it somewhat better.


And this is why Dragonfire Adept works. It doesn't try and somehow squeeze every single part of being a dragon in to being a single class. It chooses one part of the dragon, and uses that as its basis. It has no particular use for natural weapons, so doesn't pretend to progress them. It keeps its theme not only active and effective, but also cohesive. It's also the evolution of how WotC valued & priced breath weapons. Initially they were convinced that breath weapons were these amazing things that deserved to be expensive & exlusive -- and even once you paid for the overprice Half-Dragon template, it was just 1/day because using a breath weapon more than that would be just too awesome.

Then with the Warlock they discovered that at-will powers weren't necessarily broken.

Then with the Dragon Shaman they discovered that a weaksauce breath weapon at-will wasn't particularly strong, let alone broken.

Then finally the Dragonfire Adept brought together a bunch of lessons they'd learned from mistakes with the Half-Dragon template, the Dragon Shaman, and probably even stuff like Dragon Samurai and Binder and those weird 1/minute Incarnum Soulmeld breath weapons.

Races of the Dragon belatedly corrected the Half-Dragon usage restriction with a feat that lets you breathe at-will. Same lessons, same publication year as the Dragonfire Adept (2006).

[Zaq]

Then with the Warlock they discovered that at-will powers weren't necessarily broken.


I completely agree with the rest of the post, but this part made me think about what it must have been like at WotC headquarters as one or more devs was arguing to let the Warlock exist (and presumably encountering some resistance from one or more other devs). It’s obvious in hindsight that the Warlock really isn’t OP at all, but it really is a fairly radical shift in design away from the vast majority of what the game had been like up to that point. Don’t you think it must have been fascinating to hear how those discussions and those early playtests went?

[AvatarVecna]

So, I don't wish to stir the pot too much, but Dragon Disciple is objectively terrible even in core when compared to the absolute most comparable build.

BAB +2
Base Saves: Fort +3/Ref +1/Will +6
HP: 5d4+1d12+{6*Con}

Class Features:
Spellcasting (Cha, spontaneous)
Caster Level 5
Spells Known: 6/4/2
Spell Slots: 6/6/5 (+Cha bonus slots)
Natural Armor Bonus +1

BAB +1
Base Saves: Fort +1/Ref +1/Will +3
HP: 3d4+{3*Con}

Template/Class Features:
Spellcasting (Cha, spontaneous)
Caster Level 3
Spells Known: 5/3
Spell Slots: 6/5 (+Cha bonus slots)
Natural AC Bonus +4
Str +8/Con +2/Int +2/Cha +2
Primary Natural Attack (Bite, 1d6)
Secondary natural Attack (2 claws, 1d4)
6d8 breath weapon
Low-light Vision
Darkvision 60 ft
Immunity (sleep, paralysis)
Immunity (energy your breath weapon does)

Dragon Disciple

BAB +1
Fort +2
Will +3
HP +2d4+1d12+{3*Con}
Caster Level +2
Spells Known: 1/1/2
Spell Slots: 0/1/5 (+2nd lvl Cha bonus slots)

Half-Dragon

Natural AC Bonus +3
Str +8/Con +2/Int +2/Cha +2
Primary Natural Attack (Bite, 1d6)
Secondary natural Attack (2 claws, 1d4)
6d8 breath weapon
Low-light Vision
Darkvision 60 ft
Immunity (sleep, paralysis)
Immunity (energy your breath weapon does)

BAB +9
Base Saves: Fort +8/Ref +4/Will +11
HP: 5d4+10d12+{15*Con}

Class Features:
Spellcasting (Cha, spontaneous)[list]
Caster Level 5
Spells Known: 6/4/2
Spell Slots: 6/10/7 (+Cha bonus slots)
Natural AC Bonus +4
Str +8/Con +2/Int +2/Cha +2
Primary Natural Attack (Bite, 1d6)
Secondary Natural Attack (2 claws, 1d4)
6d8 breath weapon
Low-light Vision
Darkvision 60 ft
Blindsense 60 ft
Immunity (sleep, paralysis)
Immunity (energy your breath weapon does)
Flight speed equal to base land speed

BAB +6
Base Saves: Fort +4/Ref +4/Will +8
HP: 12d4+{12*Con}

Template/Class Features:
Spellcasting (Cha, spontaneous)[list]
Caster Level 12
Spells Known: 9/5/5/4/3/2/1
Spell Slots: 6/6/6/6/6/5/3 (+Cha bonus slots)
Natural AC Bonus +4
Str +8/Con +2/Int +2/Cha +2
Primary Natural Attack (Bite, 1d6)
Secondary natural Attack (2 claws, 1d4)
6d8 breath weapon
Low-light Vision
Darkvision 60 ft
Immunity (sleep, paralysis)
Immunity (energy your breath weapon does)

Dragon Disciple

BAB +3
Fort +4
Will +3
HP +(10d12-7d4)+{3*Con}
Spell Slots: 0/4/1
Blindsense 60 ft
Flight speed equal to base land speed

Half-Dragon

Caster Level +7
Spells Known: 3/1/3/4/3/2/1
Spell Slots: 0/0/0/6/6/5/3 (+3rd-6th Cha bonus slots)

At ECL 6, the biggest reason not to go Half-Dragon Sorcerer is honestly the hit points; you've got so few of them at that point that it's quite a loss, and the slight Con boost from the template doesn't fully make up for that. But hell, if you have to choose between "2nd lvl spells" and "1st lvl spells + halfdragon", the latter is still the easy choice even if there's other things you're losing.

At ECL 15, the DD has caught up on template bonuses (and gained Blindsense/flight to boot), but in exchange has almost completely avoided boosting casting. Now, instead of "2nd lvl spells" vs "1st lvl spells +halfdragon", this time it's "6th lvl spells + halfdragon" vs "2nd lvl spells + halfdragon"...which once again is an obvious choice. At this point, the biggest upset is probably not having flight, but if that's really a problem you could get an item...or cast Overland Flight?

EDIT: Of course, this gets even more one-sided if we add in LA Buyoff.

[Nifft]

I completely agree with the rest of the post, but this part made me think about what it must have been like at WotC headquarters as one or more devs was arguing to let the Warlock exist (and presumably encountering some resistance from one or more other devs). It’s obvious in hindsight that the Warlock really isn’t OP at all, but it really is a fairly radical shift in design away from the vast majority of what the game had been like up to that point. Don’t you think it must have been fascinating to hear how those discussions and those early playtests went?

Yeah, I'd've loved to hear those discussions.

Plus it's in the same book as Warmage, another radical departure from conventional Vancian casting.

[zergling.exe]

To anyone thinking that DD was designed for serious spellcasters, I'mma just leave this here:

Dragon disciples prefer a life of exploration to a cloistered existence. Most are barbarians, fighters, or rangers who have dabbled as sorcerers or bards. Occasionally, a serious spellcaster explores the path to further a goal of finding out more about his draconic heritage, though at the expense of most of his arcane studies

Quite clearly DD was designed for martial characters that took a level or two in sorcerer or bard.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, I'd've loved to hear those discussions.

Plus it's in the same book as Warmage, another radical departure from conventional Vancian casting.

Warmage originated in the Miniatures Handbook, though, before it was republished in Complete Arcane (which was, I think, a year or so later?). It's definitely still a stand-out, but at least as of CA it had precedent.

[SangoProduction]

Oh right, I never posted the dragon class I came up with.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570762-The-Draconic-Ascendant-Base-class-Spheres-of-Power-PEACH&p=23416396#post23416396

[Serafina]

Making a good dragon class shouldn't be hard. Just take a look at what dragons do:

- they attack with natural weapons, instead of manufactured ones
- they rely on natural armor, instead of normal armor
- they can fly
- they have a breath weapon
- they have some magical abilities
That's basically it. None of that is particularly out of line for a class, and we already have all the mechanical components to represent each of those abilities:
- Monks already do "attack without weapons" pretty well. We just do that, and give you options based on the attack you're using - a bite can grapple, claws can rake, wings can knock back, and a tail can trip.
- you can also give natural armor based off monk mechanics. The only slightly tricky part is making sure your Dragon class doesn't need high Dexterity - simply make the natural armor a bit higher, but limit the amount of Dexterity that can be added to it, for example-
- Flight just gets added at some appropriate level, simple as that
- Breath weapons are simple level-appropriate blasting spells that are already limited by shape and energy type, unless you invest feats or something into it. 1D6/level with a decent cone or line once per combat is hardly overpowered.
- dragon types have various supernatural and spell-like abilities. Design a bunch of class talents around those, and voila
- also give them some spellcasting. I'd go with 4th-level spells personally. If you want them to have access to higher-level magical effects, that's what the class talents are for.

So all in all, I'd go with something like this:
- D12 HD, full BAB, 4+Int skill points, good Fortitude and Will save, martial weapon proficiencies but only light armor proficiencies
- up to 4th-level spontaneous spellcasting, but with talents that support using high-level scrolls and staves
- as an extraordinary, infinite duration, at-will dismissable effect, gain natural armor equal to your Charisma modifier + 2 (+1/3 levels). While this effect is active, you can add no more than +2 to your AC from Dexterity. Non-stacking with armor obviously.
- grow natural weapons at will, as a swift action, with no limited duration. You can make a number of attacks as shown in the class table - two at first level, three at 5th level, four at 10th level, five at 15th level, six at 20th level - as a standard action with a -2 penalty. These attacks can use a mix of all your available natural weapons from this class, and a weapon can be used to attack more than once. All weapons grow in damage as you level, and become magical etc.
- you start with two Claws (1D6), which gain Rend (=Claw Damage) at 5th level or so
- you gain a Bite (1D8) at 5th level with the Grab ability (if you are using your bite to grapple, you can't attack with it)
- you gain a Tail (1D6) at 7th level (or so) that can give a swift-action Trip attack
- you gain two Wings (1D4) at 9th level (or so), if two Wing-attacks hit a target you get a free Bull Rush with a bonus
- Breath Weapon is gained at 5th level or so, doing 1D6 damage per level and runs off a Grit/Panache-like pool based off Charisma that is refilled by defeating opponents, some other triggers, and some appropriate roleplay-actities. That way, it's not infinite-use, but basically all-day-long if the other triggers are balanced appropriately
- gain Dazzling Display for free, use it as a standard action, and don't need the weapon focus prerequisite for any feats that have it as a prerequisite, at some appropriate empty level. Draconic fear aura! also good Charisma synergy, and a good trigger for pool-refill
- gain a Draconic Power either every two or three levels. Use this for stuff like extra breath weapon energy types, extra effects on your breath weapon, spell-like abilities, using your Panache-pool to use scrolls without using them up, and stuff like that.

[Willie the Duck]

My general solution to a player wanting to play a dragon is to simply have them build a dragon (the monster) of appropriate power to match the party.
You then give the dragon PC retraining, HD and age categories to keep them approximately inline with the rest of the party in terms of power as they level up.

Well sure. Just about every problem with build or class balance can be solved by coming at it from the other side of the equation.



I completely agree with the rest of the post, but this part made me think about what it must have been like at WotC headquarters as one or more devs was arguing to let the Warlock exist (and presumably encountering some resistance from one or more other devs). It’s obvious in hindsight that the Warlock really isn’t OP at all, but it really is a fairly radical shift in design away from the vast majority of what the game had been like up to that point. Don’t you think it must have been fascinating to hear how those discussions and those early playtests went?

Yeah, I'd've loved to hear those discussions.

The way that certain things (like, for example, fast healing) were gatekept behind huge ECL gates (well after people were just buying bulk wands of clw for ooc healing) clearly indicate to me that at that time the designers were still designing for people who were playing 3e like it was 2e, and things like at will blasting or continuing slow healing would be powerful alongside those people who were playing fireball-wizards and cure serious wounds-clerics.


And this is why Dragonfire Adept works. It doesn't try and somehow squeeze every single part of being a dragon in to being a single class. It chooses one part of the dragon, and uses that as its basis. It has no particular use for natural weapons, so doesn't pretend to progress them. It keeps its theme not only active and effective, but also cohesive.


Making a good dragon class shouldn't be hard. Just take a look at what dragons do:

- they attack with natural weapons, instead of manufactured ones
- they rely on natural armor, instead of normal armor
- they can fly
- they have a breath weapon
- they have some magical abilities
That's basically it. None of that is particularly out of line for a class

Agreed that it isn't out of line for a class, but as Sango points out, it really isn't cohesive. It's not a class, it is a laundry list. Much like a monk, there is a theoretical version of it that is useful and can contribute -- at being some kind of generalist (and generalist isn't rewarded in 3e), possibly with a unique trick or two.

And that's the greater problem with dragon classes. Not that they aren't cohesive (although that is a problem for a lot of specific dragon classes), but that they aren't coherent. They don't do a specific thing. They are spellcasters, area-effect attackers, melee bruisers, and fliers. It works on the monsters because they are supposed to be multi-purpose threats (and if a given dragon wastes some of its effectiveness because it can't use it all at once, that's fine, they are deliberately under-CR-ed anyways). For a PC, it's hard to thread that needle of giving them enough of each of their things to make them useful without being actually overpowered.

[weckar]

The entire reason that anyone even wants to play a dragon class is because they think dragons are cool. But regardless of the inherent fluff of being "dragon-like", getting something inane in the levels where you should be approaching the power levels of the most mythic of heroes who could challenge gods...

I unfortunately fall in the opposite camp where I love them mechanically, but find dragons boring. More than any other base class they are tied to such specific lore... Oh well.

[ShurikVch]

Because Dragon Disciple requires Spellcasting going Dragon Disciple is terrible.
Dragon Disciple is extra bad for practically every full caster.
Dragon Disciple is bad, yes.
So, I don't wish to stir the pot too much, but Dragon Disciple is objectively terrible even in core when compared to the absolute most comparable build.Actually, Dragon Disciple is pretty good for a full caster - as long as you enter it after the 18th level: you wouldn't get any bonus spells after the 20th level, and Dragon Disciple have Bonus Spells CF

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Making a good dragon class shouldn't be hard. Just take a look at what dragons do:

- they attack with natural weapons, instead of manufactured ones
- they rely on natural armor, instead of normal armor
- they can fly
- they have a breath weapon
- they have some magical abilities
That's basically it. None of that is particularly out of line for a class, and we already have all the mechanical components to represent each of those abilities:
- Monks already do "attack without weapons" pretty well. We just do that, and give you options based on the attack you're using - a bite can grapple, claws can rake, wings can knock back, and a tail can trip.
- you can also give natural armor based off monk mechanics. The only slightly tricky part is making sure your Dragon class doesn't need high Dexterity - simply make the natural armor a bit higher, but limit the amount of Dexterity that can be added to it, for example-
- Flight just gets added at some appropriate level, simple as that
- Breath weapons are simple level-appropriate blasting spells that are already limited by shape and energy type, unless you invest feats or something into it. 1D6/level with a decent cone or line once per combat is hardly overpowered.
- dragon types have various supernatural and spell-like abilities. Design a bunch of class talents around those, and voila
- also give them some spellcasting. I'd go with 4th-level spells personally. If you want them to have access to higher-level magical effects, that's what the class talents are for.

So all in all, I'd go with something like this:
- D12 HD, full BAB, 4+Int skill points, good Fortitude and Will save, martial weapon proficiencies but only light armor proficiencies
- up to 4th-level spontaneous spellcasting, but with talents that support using high-level scrolls and staves
- as an extraordinary, infinite duration, at-will dismissable effect, gain natural armor equal to your Charisma modifier + 2 (+1/3 levels). While this effect is active, you can add no more than +2 to your AC from Dexterity. Non-stacking with armor obviously.
- grow natural weapons at will, as a swift action, with no limited duration. You can make a number of attacks as shown in the class table - two at first level, three at 5th level, four at 10th level, five at 15th level, six at 20th level - as a standard action with a -2 penalty. These attacks can use a mix of all your available natural weapons from this class, and a weapon can be used to attack more than once. All weapons grow in damage as you level, and become magical etc.
- you start with two Claws (1D6), which gain Rend (=Claw Damage) at 5th level or so
- you gain a Bite (1D8) at 5th level with the Grab ability (if you are using your bite to grapple, you can't attack with it)
- you gain a Tail (1D6) at 7th level (or so) that can give a swift-action Trip attack
- you gain two Wings (1D4) at 9th level (or so), if two Wing-attacks hit a target you get a free Bull Rush with a bonus
- Breath Weapon is gained at 5th level or so, doing 1D6 damage per level and runs off a Grit/Panache-like pool based off Charisma that is refilled by defeating opponents, some other triggers, and some appropriate roleplay-actities. That way, it's not infinite-use, but basically all-day-long if the other triggers are balanced appropriately
- gain Dazzling Display for free, use it as a standard action, and don't need the weapon focus prerequisite for any feats that have it as a prerequisite, at some appropriate empty level. Draconic fear aura! also good Charisma synergy, and a good trigger for pool-refill
- gain a Draconic Power either every two or three levels. Use this for stuff like extra breath weapon energy types, extra effects on your breath weapon, spell-like abilities, using your Panache-pool to use scrolls without using them up, and stuff like that.A swordsage focusing on Desert Wind and Tiger Claw sounds like a good fit, actually.

[Troacctid]

I recently updated my houserules to give the Dragon Shaman the bard's spell progression with the sorcerer's spell list and one Sovereign Archetype of their choice. I think it makes the class a lot more attractive.

[Nifft]

Warmage originated in the Miniatures Handbook, though, before it was republished in Complete Arcane (which was, I think, a year or so later?). It's definitely still a stand-out, but at least as of CA it had precedent. Ah, you're absolutely right. Thanks.


The way that certain things (like, for example, fast healing) were gatekept behind huge ECL gates (well after people were just buying bulk wands of clw for ooc healing) clearly indicate to me that at that time the designers were still designing for people who were playing 3e like it was 2e, and things like at will blasting or continuing slow healing would be powerful alongside those people who were playing fireball-wizards and cure serious wounds-clerics. It's interesting that it took ~18 months from the release of the Warlock to see the Dragon Shaman and Binder, and then ~6 months from those two to see Dragonfire Adept and [Reserve] feats.

The Warlock was pretty clearly the canary in that mine.

(... though Incarnum is an out-of-place oddball which I can't explain.)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Ah, you're absolutely right. Thanks.

It's interesting that it took ~18 months from the release of the Warlock to see the Dragon Shaman and Binder, and then ~6 months from those two to see Dragonfire Adept and [Reserve] feats.

The Warlock was pretty clearly the canary in that mine.

(... though Incarnum is an out-of-place oddball which I can't explain.)

Every edition's late-edition books have basically been playtest books to try out potential new or different mechanics for the next edition. 1e's Unearthed Arcana introduced a bunch of races and classes that would become standard later on plus a weapon specialization system that would later become feats, 2e Player Options led to the more modular nature of 3e with its point-based skills and class customization, and 3e's "alternate magic system" books were introducing possible changes to the magic system in the leadup to 4e.

Binder was testing packaging abilities together into thematic bundles, Shadowcaster was testing individual uses for mysteries instead of choose-your-loadout spell slots, Truenamer was testing skill-based magic, and Incarnum was testing round-by-round resource allocation and upgrading your low-level abilities as you level. The shadowcaster's individual mystery uses sort of turned into 4e's "you can use every daily power exactly once" (though a direct copy would have resulted in lower-level powers having multiple uses), but otherwise none of them really made it into 4e, just as most things in UA and Player Options didn't make it into 2e and 3e. (ToB wasn't a test for 4e, by the way, it was actually based on an early 4e draft.)

So if it feels like Incarnum is a bundle of interesting mechanics with some lackluster blue-tinted flavor slapped on as an afterthought...well, yeah, it basically was. :smallwink:

[liquidformat]

They do work. It's just that these forums judge what "works" against the power level of a pure classed wizard.

Some stuff in 3.5 isn't the best mechanically, but is good flavor and absolutely fine if done at a similar power level to the rest of the table.

As has already been said the reason a dragon disciple is terrible is you are making a half-dragon 3la template into a 10 level prc without adding anything noticeable. If this had been a 7/10 caster progression it might be interesting, or if it was a full bab 3 good saves, nix the caster prerequisite, and add in spell levels 1-4 it would be good. But as is, it is just a steaming pile of terrible a class.

[Manyasone]

...

So if it feels like Incarnum is a bundle of interesting mechanics with some lackluster blue-tinted flavor slapped on as an afterthought...well, yeah, it basically was. :smallwink:

Well, they did love their smurfs when designing it.
I did give us "Akashic Mysteries" on the other hand which is far more superior to Incarnum and the way it should have been to begin with.

[Particle_Man]

I unfortunately fall in the opposite camp where I love them mechanically, but find dragons boring. More than any other base class they are tied to such specific lore... Oh well.

Do you reskin the mechanics to be something other than draconic? If so, what as?

[Serafina]

My cohesive role for a "Dragon class" would be "frontliner that gets enemy attention". That's a pretty cohesive role, and all of a dragons features fit into it:
- natural weapons and natural armor just enable them to be frontliners, just as manufactured weapons and armor would
- full BAB and a high hit dice likewise enable the same
- a fear-aura or intimidate-synergy work well with this too
- a cone-shaped breath weapon is best used from the frontlines anyway, since you avoid hitting allies that way
- supplemental spellcasting fits in the same way as it does for a Paladin
- flight is just something a character needs at some point, giving it to a class naturally doesn't make them a "flying class".
Your main modus operandi is really just to be at the front of the group, and be as threatening as possible. Given that you look like a freaking dragon, you have a natural advantage there - but ideally, this would be supplemented by dishing out some damage, combat maneuvers, intimidate debuffs, and disrupting enemy formations since you threaten them with a breath weapon.

That seems pretty coherent to me. As long as you're not trying to turn the Dragon Class into a primary spellcaster - but that's why they have only 4th-level spells in my proposal. And tying the breath weapon to a limited resource also means you can't use it exclusively, even if you're free to use it several times in a combat if needed.

[weckar]

Do you reskin the mechanics to be something other than draconic? If so, what as?
Vaguely elemental or demonic bloodlines, but even that is clunky at best. Once had a DFA that was a 'boozebreather', but even then its walking that line between su and ex abilities.

[Zaq]

Vaguely elemental or denonic bloodlines, but even that is clunky at best. Once had a DFA that was a 'boozebreather', but even then its walking that line between su and ex abilities.

I once played a warforged DFA who I fluffed as being Inspector Gadget. (Only, you know, somewhat more competent.)

Entangling Exhalation was "go go gadget hot glue cannon!"

[tiercel]

Individual instances of damage don't actually do anything - only the last one has any meaningful effect. Weapon or fighting style choice doesn't feel like it matters much either, as it all comes down to that same routine of hit them til they fall over.

I’ve seen this kind of argument and take partial exception to it. Don’t get me wrong — being able to do more than “just damage” is good/cool, and it is true that generally taking “just” hp damage has no mechanical effect until you drop, combatants that aren’t mindless will generally make different combat choices depending on their hp total vs damage taken.

If a character has 48hp and takes 46 points of damage from a foe in one round — especially with any indication that the foe isn’t about to fall over — that character is generally going to take different actions than a character with 148hp who takes 46 points of damage.

[Andezzar]

I think another problem with the Dragon Disciple is that it's all permanent/continuous/at-will powers, which are consistently overvalued by the developers.The problem is that it does not get many continuous/at-will powers. the breath weapon is 1/day, the extra spell slots are pretty useless as sorcerers tend to have enough slots already, it is the known spells that sorceres and bards lack.


Diamond Dragon PrC is pretty good for gishy manifested with few powers known. Grants you a load of baked-in augmentable natural attacks alongside other dragony goodies, ties it to PP at the cost of 2 ML.Where can I find that PrC? I have never heard of it.

[Minion #6]

I’ve seen this kind of argument and take partial exception to it. Don’t get me wrong — being able to do more than “just damage” is good/cool, and it is true that generally taking “just” hp damage has no mechanical effect until you drop, combatants that aren’t mindless will generally make different combat choices depending on their hp total vs damage taken.

If a character has 48hp and takes 46 points of damage from a foe in one round — especially with any indication that the foe isn’t about to fall over — that character is generally going to take different actions than a character with 148hp who takes 46 points of damage.

Enemies reacting differently to you doing the same thing over and over does not mean that you still aren't doing the same thing over and over. I actually use a kludgey (but unseen by the players so it doesn't matter if it's inelegant) morale system based on HP% in my games, with different points that different characters and creatures will have their morale break. But my point is RAW the only HP that matters is the last one. Er, or the one that puts you under a power word threshold, I suppose. Just because a GM can rule 0 decide that differing HP damage might make enemies behave differently doesn't change the fact that RAW it doesn't.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The problem is that it does not get many continuous/at-will powers. the breath weapon is 1/day, the extra spell slots are pretty useless as sorcerers tend to have enough slots already, it is the known spells that sorceres and bards lack.
Okay, let me amend that: continuous passive powers. I was mainly referring to the natural attacks, natural armour, flight, blindsense, and ability adjustments. You're absolutely right, of course, in that the Dragon Disciple gets very few active powers, which is another problem with the class.

[Segev]

Dragonfire Adept does such a good job of being dragon-y that, when I want to play a dragon as a PC in D&D, I am inclined to start with either a wyrmling white dragon or a pseudodragon (both are ECL 3, before LA buyoff), and then run Dragonfire Adept. It's generally easier to keep in balance with other PCs that way, since it's mostly running a "standard" class. (As opposed to high amounts of LA and RHD.)

It might be interesting to see a Dragon Disciple build or two using "Barbarian with a Sorcerer dip" as its entry and the concept being "draconic Barbarian." Then compare that to a straight Barbarian or a Barbarian with as useful a Sorcerer dip as he can get, and/or a Barbarian with a different PrC (maybe Bear Warrior?) that emphasizes the Barbarian strengths more.

Incidentally, would a Barbarian/Sorcerer->Green Star Adept be better than a full caster->Green Star Adept?

[Particle_Man]

As an aside what happens to rage when a green star adept reaches the last level of that prestige class?

[Sto]

As an aside what happens to rage when a green star adept reaches the last level of that prestige class?

Huh. I never thought about that. The same question applies to undead I think. Do they just rage forever?

[Andezzar]

They rage for 3 rounds.
A fit of rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier.A non-ability has a modifier of 0 and you cannot augment a non-ability.

[tiercel]

Enemies reacting differently to you doing the same thing over and over does not mean that you still aren't doing the same thing over and over. I actually use a kludgey (but unseen by the players so it doesn't matter if it's inelegant) morale system based on HP% in my games, with different points that different characters and creatures will have their morale break. But my point is RAW the only HP that matters is the last one. Er, or the one that puts you under a power word threshold, I suppose. Just because a GM can rule 0 decide that differing HP damage might make enemies behave differently doesn't change the fact that RAW it doesn't.

I’m not saying it’s not good to have options other than attack/full attack — but I’d disagree that it’s purely “Rule 0” for combatants to react to hp/damage.

“Morale”, rather than being a mechanic (as it was in 2e), is just a minimal form of roleplaying for any enemy that isn’t purely mindless, fanatic, or otherwise trapped/compelled — it’s not terribly realistic to have every enemy to be willing to fight to the death, even/especially when a fight becomes utterly hopeless. If nothing else, it’s common in pre-printed modules to at least sometimes indicate just how willing combatants are to continue fighting after losing a certain number of hit points or allies — never mind that PCs may even (gasp) change tactics if a member or the party seems in dire straits.

I suppose it’s entirely possible that the lack of a RAW morale mechanic outside of module suggestions leads some groups to default to “fight to the bitter end,” but it hasn’t been my experience — which why I suggest that “just hp damage” at least can result in more dynamic combats than minimalist MMORPG “apply DPS until falls” grinding.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I’m not saying it’s not good to have options other than attack/full attack — but I’d disagree that it’s purely “Rule 0” for combatants to react to hp/damage.
I agree. It's common in monster descriptions to feature things like "if w does not deem itself seriously threatened, it conserves abilities usable only once per day" or "fights to the death if x" or "y rarely retreat, even against overwhelming odds" or "z are cautious warriors". It is expected by the Monster Manual that different monsters react differently to damage taken. Some can be driven off by dealing perhaps half their hit points in damage (quasit), some will come back to fight you again with a vengeance (lich).

w = balor
x = giant eagle
y = horned devil
z = elf

[Remuko]

Where can I find that PrC? I have never heard of it.

its apparently in Dragon Magic.

[Thurbane]

They rage for 3 rounds.A non-ability has a modifier of 0 and you cannot augment a non-ability.

Not relevant to GSAs/Constructs, but Undead have a special rule for this, buried in a 3.0 sourcebook: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21889336&postcount=1

[Minion #6]

I agree. It's common in monster descriptions to feature things like "if w does not deem itself seriously threatened, it conserves abilities usable only once per day" or "fights to the death if x" or "y rarely retreat, even against overwhelming odds" or "z are cautious warriors". It is expected by the Monster Manual that different monsters react differently to damage taken. Some can be driven off by dealing perhaps half their hit points in damage (quasit), some will come back to fight you again with a vengeance (lich).

w = balor
x = giant eagle
y = horned devil
z = elf

Those are functions of the enemies, not the damage dealt to them, in my mind. I think we may just be approaching this from different angles. I'm looking at the response of the enemy to HP damage and seeing it as a function of the enemy, and (please correct me if this isn't accurate) you're looking at the response of the enemy and seeing that response as a function of the damage.

[RedWarlock]

Those are functions of the enemies, not the damage dealt to them, in my mind. I think we may just be approaching this from different angles. I'm looking at the response of the enemy to HP damage and seeing it as a function of the enemy, and (please correct me if this isn't accurate) you're looking at the response of the enemy and seeing that response as a function of the damage.

I would say those are tactics of the monsters, which are responsive to the damage taken by said monster, which indicates an internal awareness of such damage. Tactics, as well, being within the DM's purview WITHOUT needing to be invented rules as such, any more than the DM is inventing rules when the monster roleplays.

[Gnaeus]

Not unusually, my favorite dragon classes are the DSP dragon racial classes for PF.

They only get one level of Sorcerer casting per 4 class levels, so they aren’t close to T2. But they get breath weapon, blindsense, immunities, full BAB, d12s and good skills. All good saves. Spell likes. Large NA bonuses. And feats that let them turn human or half dragon if being tiny or large is inconvenient. It’s basically a functional super monk.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Those are functions of the enemies, not the damage dealt to them, in my mind. I think we may just be approaching this from different angles. I'm looking at the response of the enemy to HP damage and seeing it as a function of the enemy, and (please correct me if this isn't accurate) you're looking at the response of the enemy and seeing that response as a function of the damage.You can go both ways, and they work out to the same thing.

Tactics describe a function of circumstance to behaviour, defined per monster.
Tactics describe a function of monster to behaviour, defined per circumstance.

(Circumstances are what the monster knows about the fight, including everything it knew before the fight, the events of the fight, and what it hopes to achieve in the fight.)

Basically, you can't define tactics by looking at monster and behaviour alone, or by looking at circumstance and behaviour alone, or by looking at monster and circumstance alone. Only when you have all three do you have a defined set of tactics. Whether you organize the tactics by monster first or by circumstance first is a matter of preference.

In short, damage—amongst many other things—does figure into tactics, as part of taking into account circumstances in general. Which does not contradict your original point ("Making an attack roll is one of the [...] most flavourless [ways to affect the world] due to the way HP works."), only slightly adjusts the argument used to support it.

[Silly Name]

I think most people before me have answered a lot of the original questions, but reading through the thread I mused about Dragon Disciple.

When I was new to D&D, we ran a one-shot session, and I decided to try a Dragon Disciple, so I did what seemed logical and started with Sorcerer and then picked up DD levels. It felt... weird. I wasn't necessarily very weak, but I realised how by picking levels of DD I was sorta lagging behind.
I think it was supposed to be some sort of gish class, similar to Eldritch Knight, made for martials who multiclassed into Sorcerer and wanted to have more spells per day, but no new spell known or spell levels (which is a really bad choice).

Oh, also Dragon Disciple gets 2+Int skill points per level for some reason, despite its large skill list demanding 4 or 6 skill points per level.

These problems can probably be chalked up to DD being one of the first PrCs, and most of these suck or are oddly balanced. Even in a Core-only game, the only thing that DD would have going for it when compared to Eldritch Knight's would be the slew of extraordinary abilities and ability boosts, but most of what these do can easily be replicated by spells, so...

[blackwindbears]

Hey look, the standard anti-optimization reply. How useful. You realize that "fine if done at a similar power level" is tautological, right?

I think another problem with the Dragon Disciple is that it's all permanent/continuous/at-will powers, which are consistently overvalued by the developers.

Its just as tautological to say something is only good if it's as good as the best thing. At least this way you still have a functional game and the credit system works fine.

[SangoProduction]

Its just as tautological to say something is only good if it's as good as the best thing. At least this way you still have a functional game and the credit system works fine.

Tautological, in layman's terms, means "A definition that encapsulates everything." If you're going to claim something, at least get the basic definitions correct.

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed the point. No one's saying "Bah. It's not a wizard; it sucks." I'm saying "These classes go full-monk with their abilities not having synergy or cohesion within their class, making them not effectively function, all for the sake of getting getting a few more characteristics of the dragon in there."

[Zaq]

I think most people before me have answered a lot of the original questions, but reading through the thread I mused about Dragon Disciple.

When I was new to D&D, we ran a one-shot session, and I decided to try a Dragon Disciple, so I did what seemed logical and started with Sorcerer and then picked up DD levels. It felt... weird. I wasn't necessarily very weak, but I realised how by picking levels of DD I was sorta lagging behind.
I think it was supposed to be some sort of gish class, similar to Eldritch Knight, made for martials who multiclassed into Sorcerer and wanted to have more spells per day, but no new spell known or spell levels (which is a really bad choice).

Oh, also Dragon Disciple gets 2+Int skill points per level for some reason, despite its large skill list demanding 4 or 6 skill points per level.

These problems can probably be chalked up to DD being one of the first PrCs, and most of these suck or are oddly balanced. Even in a Core-only game, the only thing that DD would have going for it when compared to Eldritch Knight's would be the slew of extraordinary abilities and ability boosts, but most of what these do can easily be replicated by spells, so...

It’s also a little weird that DD doesn’t offer full BAB. This makes it even less interesting for a melee brute with a casting dip, to be honest.

I think the DD basically gets stuck in a particularly nasty “it’s very nice, but what does it DO?” hell. It doesn’t have an actual niche. It doesn’t really make you better at whatever you were before you entered the class (middling BAB, poor skills, janky slot progression, no class features that intuitively stack with any existing class features), and it doesn’t offer anything of its own that actually gives you a new trick or that points you at a new strategy. It doesn’t have a role. It AGGRESSIVELY doesn’t have a role.

The stat bonuses are decent (if weird—why the INT boost?) but don’t make for an interesting (or powerful) class. The natural weapons are forgettable, don’t scale, and aren’t even magical. The breath weapon is insultingly weak and insultingly use-limited (“this food is awful!” “Agreed! And the portions are so small!”). The wings and blindsense are okay, but they come too late. Natural armor doesn’t give you a new toy to play with or a new niche to fill, and the template at the end is basically more of the same.

So you stop getting better whatever you were originally, you don’t get anything that lets you do something new, and it just doesn’t contribute to basically any kind of build.

It was an early PrC, but let’s not forget that the 3.5 books had (or should have had) the benefit of lessons learned from the 3.0 days. 3.0 had a lot of poorly designed PrCs, but there were some decent and interesting ones as well. The 3.5 DMG mostly stuck to fairly basic stuff for its PrCs, but it’s not like they were inventing the concept from scratch.

[Remuko]

It’s also a little weird that DD doesn’t offer full BAB. This makes it even less interesting for a melee brute with a casting dip, to be honest.

I think the DD basically gets stuck in a particularly nasty “it’s very nice, but what does it DO?” hell. It doesn’t have an actual niche. It doesn’t really make you better at whatever you were before you entered the class (middling BAB, poor skills, janky slot progression, no class features that intuitively stack with any existing class features), and it doesn’t offer anything of its own that actually gives you a new trick or that points you at a new strategy. It doesn’t have a role. It AGGRESSIVELY doesn’t have a role.

The stat bonuses are decent (if weird—why the INT boost?) but don’t make for an interesting (or powerful) class. The natural weapons are forgettable, don’t scale, and aren’t even magical. The breath weapon is insultingly weak and insultingly use-limited (“this food is awful!” “Agreed! And the portions are so small!”). The wings and blindsense are okay, but they come too late. Natural armor doesn’t give you a new toy to play with or a new niche to fill, and the template at the end is basically more of the same.

So you stop getting better whatever you were originally, you don’t get anything that lets you do something new, and it just doesn’t contribute to basically any kind of build.

It was an early PrC, but let’s not forget that the 3.5 books had (or should have had) the benefit of lessons learned from the 3.0 days. 3.0 had a lot of poorly designed PrCs, but there were some decent and interesting ones as well. The 3.5 DMG mostly stuck to fairly basic stuff for its PrCs, but it’s not like they were inventing the concept from scratch.

the int boost is there because dragons am smart and an int boost is part of the half dragon template that the class is slowly granting you.

[Rater202]

I'd argue that the Dragon Classes don't work because there's no balanced way to give you all of the thigs that a Dragon has at levels that live up to the hype. Dragon Shaman is all over the place with over valued powers, Dragon diciple gives the underwhelming half dragon template... Dragon Devotee, which gives the even less whelming Draconc Creature Template, explicitly states in it's text that it's a way to let Martial cahracters take Dragon Desciple without having to dip Sorcerer but it's capstone gives you the Dragon Bllood subtype, which means you count as having the Dragon Type for the purposes of prerequisites... Meaning that you don't qualify to take Dragon Desciple becuase you're already a dragon as far as the entry requirements are concerned.

Dracolexi, Disciple of the Eye, Singer of Concordance, Wyrm wizard, Dragon Lord, and Dragon Descendant all feel really generic--you could excise the Dragonic Fluff from them without losing anything important.

Hand of the Winged Masters, Pact-bound Adept, and Swift Wing all fall into the "too underwhelming t be a dragon."

Dragon Heart Mage gives you... Bonus feats that let you feel more draconic but that you still have to qualify for. It's basically "this stuff that you could already do as a pure classed sorcerer, but more so."

Even Dragon-Fire Adept and Diamond Dragon don't do i right--Dragonfire Adept certainly feels like it pulls off the Fire Breath and the spontanious magic, but that's only part of what a Dragon is and even the versitility of it ith the multible kinds of breath is tainted by the fact that the too best Brath Weapons are alignment locked, inflict damage on you when you use them at a rate that punishes you for being higher level, and the evil one is objectivly better than the good one. Also, the immunities belong to dragons, but aren't inatly linked to them and DR/Magic is widly known to be useless bythe levels you get a deent amount.

Diamond Dragon, meanwhile, does a good job of emulating a Dragon with your psychic powers... But that's it. For all the fluff about thinking like a dragon and tapping the dragon psychic collective, it plays less like someone with the powers of a dragon and more like someone using their psychic powers to pretend to be a dragon. Also it's kind of inherantly a gish class.

[weckar]

Tautological, in layman's terms, means "A definition that encapsulates everything." If you're going to claim something, at least get the basic definitions correct.
I... What? A tautology is a self-proving statement or saying the same thing twice with different words. Your meaning.... does not mean that.

[Morty]

I don't think it's any particular trait of D&D dragons that makes those classes not work. It's just that the fair majority of 3E content is kind of trash, regardless of what it does. Just think about the giant pile of PrCs and feats in the Complete series, compared to how much of it will actually see use.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I... What? A tautology is a self-proving statement or saying the same thing twice with different words. Your meaning.... does not mean that.
A tautology, in the sense that I originally used it on this thread, is a proposition that is always true, no matter the circumstances in whatever world you care to speak about (i.e. true in all models). For example, the Dragon Disciple is balanced with classes that are of similar power, regardless of what classes those are, the game system the DD appears in, who's playing it, what the DM had for breakfast, the phases of the moon, and the fusion of the 42nd atom of hydrogen-2 to be part of the Sun (chronologically) into helium-3.

[Minion #6]

I don't think it's any particular trait of D&D dragons that makes those classes don't work. It's just that the fair majority of 3E content is kind of trash, regardless of what it does. Just think about the giant pile of PrCs and feats in the Complete series, compared to how much of it will actually see use.

A point that, on consideration, I agree with. Minimum 50% of all the content is just outright bad - either not good enough to merit use over any other option, or broken in the "does not function" sense.

[Nifft]

I don't think it's any particular trait of D&D dragons that makes those classes don't work. It's just that the fair majority of 3E content is kind of trash, regardless of what it does. Just think about the giant pile of PrCs and feats in the Complete series, compared to how much of it will actually see use.
Hell, just look at Core.

How many of those numerous +2/+2 feats see use in a real game? How many times does Shadowdancer crop up?

Even the usable classes have stinkers -- I mean, how many people have taken that 20th level of Rogue?


A point that, on consideration, I agree with. Minimum 50% of all the content is just outright bad - either not good enough to merit use over any other option, or broken in the "does not function" sense.

Yeah. Honestly it's kind of admirable that they got the dragon themed stuff to work at all -- the fact that it took a lot of tries isn't particularly damning, not when Fighter got at least as many tries and didn't get nearly as usable.

[Andezzar]

Yeah. Honestly it's kind of admirable that they got the dragon themed stuff to work at all -- the fact that it took a lot of tries isn't particularly damning, not when Fighter got at least as many tries and didn't get nearly as usable.I disagree, the warblade is quite usable.

[Nifft]

I disagree, the warblade is quite usable.

Warblade isn't a Fighter though.

- Medium armor; no Tower shields.
- Good skills.
- d12 HD.
- No proficiency with Martial ranged weapons.

Warblade is great, but the only way it relates to Fighter is the same way Druid, Cleric, Barbarian, and a host of other classes relate to that class: by doing the Fighter's job better than any Fighter could.

[SangoProduction]

I did include Pathfinder, perhaps because it mostly just copy/pasted from 3.5 But then I looked up "Dragon classes" before realizing that Pathfinder basically had no classes and all variation is in the form of archetypes. Surprisingly they had basically given up entirely making dragon-like classes/archetypes.

But I did find the Dragon class Gold Dragons. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/zerzix-s-torture-chamber/bestiary-levels/dragon-classes/gold-dragon-class/

Yeah. That seems about appropriate for fully emulating a Gold Dragon. But it's not all sequestered behind a very small-looking number, marked in a spell list, with a whole 'nother chapter dedicated to it, so no normal DM would ever let that be played lol.

[Rater202]

I don't think it's any particular trait of D&D dragons that makes those classes not work. It's just that the fair majority of 3E content is kind of trash, regardless of what it does. Just think about the giant pile of PrCs and feats in the Complete series, compared to how much of it will actually see use.

The OP defined working as "Emulating Dragons," noting that most of the dragon classes failed to do so.

I listed out my own reasoning behind why they failed to do so--Dragons in D&D are physical power houses with natural weapons and a great abillity to tank(DR, natural armor, immunities), area threats with reach, breath weapons, and some spells, mobile threats(being able to fly and sometimes swim or burrow,) tricky(being able to shapeshift and hus pass themselves off as a nondragon,)and with both actual spellcasting and Spell Like abillities.

There's no class that can competantly allow you to do all of that. There's no way to be able to do all of that to a level that makes you feel Dragonlike and have that class be balanced against other classes.

The classes all either fall short becuase they try to do too much of that at once and end up bad at all of it, or they do something interesting that... doesn't actually thematically tie back to dragons so you're not emulating them, or they're just bad.

Dragonfire Adept makes you feel like you've got the breath weapon of a dragon but it barely tries for anything else. Diamond Draon does a decent enough job at emulating a good number of dragon bits but you're basically just a psion using your psychokiniesis to form a immaterial Dragon Cosplay, so neither are really going the whole way on it.

There's a class on the Wiki, homebrew, that's "slowly turn into a half dragon over ten levels and a full dragon over 20" but that lacks spell casting and spell like abillities--you'll feel like a dragon(and after 20 levels, you're considered a true dragon for prereqs) but you'll be inferior to any dragon with the same HD.

I once considered making an extended Dragon Born of Bahamut Racial Paragon Class that would majke you a Full Dragon after 20 levels, but I couldn't think of anything for it beyond "restore lost previous form racial traits" and "give you the other two aspects you didn't pick." I was thinking maybe some SLA or partial casting/invoking, too, but... eh.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As I alluded to earlier in the thread, if you go swordsage with the intent of "dragon," the class actually works pretty damned well. AND it's quite potent, albeit not in an "optimized wizard" sort of way. Still, it's ToB, and with a bit of thought about how to choose your race, feats, and maneuvers, it covers the basics of "dragon" rather nicely.

[Nifft]

As I alluded to earlier in the thread, if you go swordsage with the intent of "dragon," the class actually works pretty damned well. AND it's quite potent, albeit not in an "optimized wizard" sort of way. Still, it's ToB, and with a bit of thought about how to choose your race, feats, and maneuvers, it covers the basics of "dragon" rather nicely.

Swordsage gets you fire cones, fire immunity, and claw/claw/mongoose. It gets you Scent and/or Blindsight, but not at the same time as fire immunity. You get enough skill points, some of which can go into Dragon-ish skills, but not that many.

Dragonfire Adept gets you skills (4+Int helps, but it's mostly about Beguiling Influence and Draconic Knowledge), every other breath weapon, natural armor, toughness (temp HP at-will), UMD and some spell-ish invocations so you can fake having a minor in sorcery, energy immunity, fly speed, changing shape into a humanoid... basically everything Dragon-ish except the melee prowess.


Gestalting the two might make an interesting Dragon PC... or DFA // Totemist, and wear all the [Dragonblood] soulmelds.

[Luccan]

Someone said earlier that they don't work because dragons can do to many things, which would lead to a lack of focus. But none of the Dragon classes actually go all the way. So perhaps it's because they don't go all the way that we run into the problem. I'd probably go with a gish if I was making a dragon class, perhaps up to 5th level spells, pulling from the sorcerer list. Obviously non-casting abilities would be pulled from True Dragon abilities, possibly borrowing DFA's breath weapon whole cloth (or at least taking heavy inspiration from it). I imagine such a class would end up near the top of T3, but wouldn't be able to bust out of it. High floor but fairly static ceiling. Maybe progressively more dragon-like templates as you level, too.

[Calthropstu]

Dragon classes do not work for several reasons. First, dragons are terrifying. Even their own kind generally tends to avoid each other. Disputes are quite hard to break up as well, with many resulting in fights to death.

Second, dragons are extremely racist amongst their own kind. Having different scale color pretty much means minimal association. Eve amongst the so called "good" dragons, tolerance is minimal. So classes would be severely split.

Third, dragons have severe hubris, each one thinking they are the greatest thing in creation. Even older stronger dragons would find it difficult to teach them and a nondragon trying to teach a class full of dragons would likely find themselves eaten.

4th, their breath is awful. Could you imagine trying to stop a juvenile dragon belching contest?

Lastly, providing food for such classes would be prhibitively expensive. Can you understand the logistics of feeding a large class of 20 or so dragons? Most cities would go bankrupt trying to support that.

[Nifft]

Second, dragons are extremely racist amongst their own kind. Having different scale color pretty much means minimal association. Eve amongst the so called "good" dragons, tolerance is minimal.


Eve is a terrible person and she shouldn't count.

[Eldan]

Someone said earlier that they don't work because dragons can do to many things, which would lead to a lack of focus. But none of the Dragon classes actually go all the way. So perhaps it's because they don't go all the way that we run into the problem. I'd probably go with a gish if I was making a dragon class, perhaps up to 5th level spells, pulling from the sorcerer list. Obviously non-casting abilities would be pulled from True Dragon abilities, possibly borrowing DFA's breath weapon whole cloth (or at least taking heavy inspiration from it). I imagine such a class would end up near the top of T3, but wouldn't be able to bust out of it. High floor but fairly static ceiling. Maybe progressively more dragon-like templates as you level, too.

I mean, you could probably do a dragon class as a Duskblade ACF, or a very variant warlock. Which I suppose the DFA is. I mean, really, the DFA is not terrible, it just needs some polishing and some better invocations.


Dragonsoul ACF [Duskblade level 3]
Replaces Arcane Channelling
You can cast a touch or ranged touch spell on your spell list as a breath weapon instead. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. Instead of its normal range, the spell isntead affects every target in a ten foot cone emanating from your mouth and instead of a touch attack roll, targets may make a reflex save to avoid the effects. At 13th level, this affects a 20 ft. cone instead, with reflex: half instead of reflex: negates.

[EldritchWeaver]

Hell, just look at Core.

How many of those numerous +2/+2 feats see use in a real game? How many times does Shadowdancer crop up?

Even the usable classes have stinkers -- I mean, how many people have taken that 20th level of Rogue?

People take the other 19 levels?

[HouseRules]

Lastly, providing food for such classes would be pr[o]hibitively expensive. Can you understand the logistics of feeding a large class of 20 or so dragons? Most cities would go bankrupt trying to support that.


A full class of dragons? At least 6 student dragons to over 500 dragons in a classroom is going to be a logistic hell.

Anyways, Dragons have d12 Hit Dice, Good Saves all over, and Sorcerer Caster Levels. No Class could give all of these proper features. Of course, Dragons have slower Spell Level than Sorcerer, but their caster levels are much faster.

My House Rule for Dragons is Color + 1 Hit Dice per Year of Age instead of following those age categories.

[Rater202]

You know, Sorcerer's having faster spell progression than Dragons but having power from dragon bloodlines makes no logical snse--they shouldhave much slower spell progression due to only having a fraction of that power.

[HouseRules]

Why wait 200 years for an age category to another spell level if I could fight 28 encounters in a week and gain 2 character levels for another spell level?

200 Years vs 1 Week, of course the 1 week is so much better for player characters.

Sorcerers with dragon bloodline are stronger than dragons is unfair. Dragons deserve better than that.

[Nifft]

I mean, you could probably do a dragon class as a Duskblade ACF, or a very variant warlock. Which I suppose the DFA is. I mean, really, the DFA is not terrible, it just needs some polishing and some better invocations. What invocations need to be better? I mean there are a bunch which get ignored, but the remainder seem sufficient for most purposes.


People take the other 19 levels? What, you Ninja your way into Unseen Seer? Yuck.


Anyways, Dragons have d12 Hit Dice, Good Saves all over, and Sorcerer Caster Levels. No Class could give all of these proper features. Of course, Dragons have slower Spell Level than Sorcerer, but their caster levels are much faster.

That's reasonably balanced against d8/(8+Int)/cast as cleric of HD+2, which is the competing 'class'.

Dragons have faster spell level access than Sorcerer if you're not a PC playing a hyper-compressed campaign timeline. Most Sorcerers die of old age before hitting level 6 after all: any average Dragon who dies of old age will have significantly better spellcasting as compared to the average Sorcerer.

[lylsyly]

You know, Sorcerer's having faster spell progression than Dragons but having power from dragon bloodlines makes no logical snse--they shouldhave much slower spell progression due to only having a fraction of that power.

Logic and Sense have no place in a discussion of the 3rd edition rules. Actually, I'm wrong, it's only the WotC books that make no sense, Dragonlance on the other hand .....

[Rater202]

Dragons have faster spell level access than Sorcerer if you're not a PC playing a hyper-compressed campaign timeline. Most Sorcerers die of old age before hitting level 6 after all: any average Dragon who dies of old age will have significantly better spellcasting as compared to the average Sorcerer.

A Dragon with six hit dice has fewer spells than a single class sorcerer with six hit dice.

If a Sorcerer's power comes from having incredibly trace amounts of dragon blood, then either Dragons should have equal if not greter sorcerer progression or sorcerers shouldn't be full casters.

Logically speaking. Not in terms of game balance but in terms of "if magic comes from dragon genes you should not have more magic than a full blood dragon of the same PL."

[Nifft]

A Dragon with six hit dice has fewer spells than a single class sorcerer with six hit dice.

If a Sorcerer's power comes from having incredibly trace amounts of dragon blood, then either Dragons should have equal if not greter sorcerer progression or sorcerers shouldn't be full casters.

Logically speaking. Not in terms of game balance but in terms of "if magic comes from dragon genes you should not have more magic than a full blood dragon of the same PL."

Hit dice are an abstraction, not a natural law. You're doing a fundamentally self-defeating thing if you try to apply rigid logic to an abstraction.

A dragon gets six HD for free, with no need to adventure or practice, just by aging. Dragon HD don't cost the dragon anything. There is no equivalence between a hard-working humanoid Sorcerer and a dragon who just ate and slept her way to old age.

A dragon who worked hard enough to get six Sorcerer levels would have those six Sorcerer levels on top of her innate Dragon spellcasting. She'd be better at magic than a humanoid Sorcerer with six levels.

Dragon HD don't mean the same thing that class levels mean. This is where your "logic" dies a swift and unmourned death, in the graveyard of bad assumptions.

[HouseRules]

A Dragon with 6 Hit Dice is a Toddler! Very Young Age Category. Even a Red Wyrmling (Infant) has 7 HD.


DragonHumanHuman Age
WyrmlingInfant1-2
Very YoungToddler 3-6
YoungChild 7-12
JuvenileTeenager13-19
Young AdultYoung Adult20-29
AdultAdult30-39
Mature AdultMature Adult40-49
OldYoung Middle Age50-59
Very OldMiddle Middle Age60-69
AncientOld Middle Age70-79
WyrmYoung Old Age80-89
Great WyrmMiddle Old Age90-99
Great Great WyrmOld Old Age100-109
Great Great Great WyrmYoung Oldest110-119
Great Great Great Great WyrmOld Oldest120-129


All Adventurers begin in the Juvenile or Young Adult category. Therefore, it is best to compare those groups.

[Nifft]

A Dragon with 6 Hit Dice is a Toddler!

You don't take a newborn infant and give her a wand, do you? Of course not.

So start with a Young Adult dragon and then add six Sorcerer levels on top, just like you'd do with a humanoid.

Then see which one is a better Sorcerer. (Hint: it's the dragon.)

[HouseRules]

You don't take a newborn infant and give her a wand, do you? Of course not.

So start with a Young Adult dragon and then add six Sorcerer levels on top, just like you'd do with a humanoid.

Then see which one is a better Sorcerer. (Hint: it's the dragon.)

Human Sorcerer 15 + 1d4 = 16 to 19 years old. So, not Young Adult.

Use Juvenile Age Category, the "first" size change for dragons. They gain a Giant Template. They are either Small (Weaker Dragons) or Medium (Stronger Dragons) in Size.

[Nifft]

Human Sorcerer 15 + 1d4 = 16 to 19 years old. So, not Young Adult.

Humans reach adulthood at age 15: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age

A Human at 16-19 is either Young Adult or just plain Adult, your pick.

[Rater202]

You don't take a newborn infant and give her a wand, do you? Of course not.

So start with a Young Adult dragon and then add six Sorcerer levels on top, just like you'd do with a humanoid.

Then see which one is a better Sorcerer. (Hint: it's the dragon.)

See, that works out mechanically...

..But Fluffwise, A Dragon logically wouldn't be able to take Sorcerer levels because Sorcerer is "You have inherent spontaneous spellcasting abillity because you've got the blood of a dragon or another creature with inherant spellcasting abilities."

so logically, a dragon shouldn't be able to take sorcerer levels unless that particular dragon was the descendant of a Pit Fiend or a Solar or something.

I mean, mechanically what you're saying works, but if Dragon's can take sorcerer levels than with the sorcerer fluff each generation of dragons should have a greater proportionate capacity for spellcasting than their parents.

[Andezzar]

..But Fluffwise, A Dragon logically wouldn't be able to take Sorcerer levels because Sorcerer is "You have inherent spontaneous spellcasting abillity because you've got the blood of a dragon or another creature with inherant spellcasting abilities."Where is that quote from? The PHB certainly does not explain sorcery through bloodlines.
Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice. They have no books, no mentors, no theories—just raw power that they direct at will.
Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins. That claim may even be true in some cases—it is common knowledge that certain powerful dragons can take humanoid form and even have humanoid lovers, and it’s difficult to prove that a given sorcerer does not have a dragon ancestor. It’s true that sorcerers often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage. Others hold that the claim is either an unsubstantiated boast on the part of certain sorcerers or envious gossip on the part of those who lack the sorcerer’s gift.

So there is no risk of breeding super sorcerer dragons.

[Silly Name]

Apart from the PHB being intentionally vague about whether Sorcerers actually do have non-humanoid ancestors or not, and if that is in any way the actual source of their powers, one could reasonably make the argument that Sorcerers focus on improving their magical abilities because it's all they've got, while dragons have a bunch of other stuff on top of innate casting, and thus many of them don't really bother with improving their sorcerous powers beyond what they gain by simply growing old.

[Gnaeus]

I did include Pathfinder, perhaps because it mostly just copy/pasted from 3.5 But then I looked up "Dragon classes" before realizing that Pathfinder basically had no classes and all variation is in the form of archetypes. Surprisingly they had basically given up entirely making dragon-like classes/archetypes.

But I did find the Dragon class Gold Dragons. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/zerzix-s-torture-chamber/bestiary-levels/dragon-classes/gold-dragon-class/

Yeah. That seems about appropriate for fully emulating a Gold Dragon. But it's not all sequestered behind a very small-looking number, marked in a spell list, with a whole 'nother chapter dedicated to it, so no normal DM would ever let that be played lol.

If going 3rd party, I like (as I mentioned) the dreamscarred press version better, since most of their stuff is solid. Unfortunately it isn’t on PFSRD, but the PDF can be bought cheaply.

[Nifft]

..But Fluffwise, A Dragon logically wouldn't be able to take Sorcerer levels because Sorcerer is "You have inherent spontaneous spellcasting abillity because you've got the blood of a dragon or another creature with inherant spellcasting abilities."

so logically, a dragon shouldn't be able to take sorcerer levels unless that particular dragon was the descendant of a Pit Fiend or a Solar or something.

You keep using the word "logic" when you mean "personal assumptions which go directly against the mechanics and lore of every published setting".


You're free to make your own setting of course, and in that setting you'd be right about whatever you define as true, but you're really not entitled to define your personal prejudices as "logic".

Dragons cast as Sorcerers because they do. Rakshasa cast as Sorcerers because they do. Naga cast as Sorcerers because they do. Couatls cast as Sorcerers because they do. Aranea cast as Sorcerers because they do. All of them have rules for stacking Sorcerer levels on top of their racial abilities. They don't need blood from any other source in order to do so.

Also, a player can easily make a Sorcerer who has any number of backstories which are not blood from some inherent spellcasting creature.

[HouseRules]

Humans reach adulthood at age 15: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age

A Human at 16-19 is either Young Adult or just plain Adult, your pick.

Ah! Game Rules!

There are 5 Stages of Puberty.

A person enters Stage 1 when they leave Toddler Age Category to enter Children Age Category. Youngest at 7.
A person enters Stage 2 when they leave Children Age Category to enter Juvenile Age Category. Usually 10-12 years old. It is 6 to 8 years old for Modern Era.
A person enters Stage 3 when "First Period" or "First Wet Dream". Usually 12-14 years old. This Stage does not change its age range even in Modern Era
A person enters Stage 4 when they enter Young Adult Age Category. There may be overlap with Juvenile Age Category. This is when they are biologically capable of having children. This is their growth spurt. They gain the most height in this stage.
A person enters Stage 5 when they slow down in their growth. This stage ends between 17 to 25 years old (Medieval Era) for 74% of people. About 26% of people continue as a Young Adult until their early 30s. It is 13 to 18 years old for Modern Era.


So yes, 15 years old is Young Adult, but it is also Juvenile at the same time.

For Humans, there is an overlap between Juvenile and Young Adult, but not so for Dragons.

[Nifft]

Ah! Game Rules!

There are 5 Stages of Puberty.
[LIST=1]
A person enters Stage 1 when they leave Toddler Age Category to enter Children Age Category. Youngest at 7. Toddler as an age grouping usually ends a lot earlier than 7, and I've never heard the term "Toddler" referred to as a "stage of puberty".

Where are you pulling your info from?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Toddler as an age grouping usually ends a lot earlier than 7, and I've never heard the term "Toddler" referred to as a "stage of puberty".

Where are you pulling your info from?Didn't you read his name? It's HouseRules. :smallbiggrin:

[HouseRules]

Toddler as an age grouping usually ends a lot earlier than 7, and I've never heard the term "Toddler" referred to as a "stage of puberty".

Where are you pulling your info from?

Toddler is the stage right before the first stage of puberty. There may be a stage in between toddlers and the first stage of puberty, but what do people call this? Remember that Toddler is 6 and younger. The First Stage of Puberty Begins around 8 years old (with 7 years old as outliers).
Some of those info is not exactly true.

Officially, the second stage of puberty (onset of puberty) is usually considered when it begins.

Go search "stages of puberty" and we get different age ranges for different groups. Every nation has its own range for different time period. Only that the Medieval Era data shows that stage 5 occurs at an older age than Modern Era. But then, those Medieval Era data are based on the skeleton of those that die relatively young.

http://www.healthofchildren.com/P/Puberty.html says

FemaleMale
Stage 18-119-12
Stage 28-149-15
Stage 39-1511-16
Stage 410-1611-17
Stage 512-1914-18


Young Adult Dragons with 6 levels of Sorcerer vs a Human with 6 Levels of Sorcerers...

The Dragon would adventure for more years than the Human, and gain much more experience for those same six levels of Sorcerer. Damn those ECL penalties.

Dragons have a level adjustment of +2 per age category or so.

[Mando Knight]

Toddler is the stage right before the first stage of puberty. There may be a stage in between toddlers and the first stage of puberty, but what do people call this? Remember that Toddler is 6 and younger.

You are literally the only person I have ever encountered to use a definition for toddler that goes past ~3-4 years old.

[HouseRules]

Clothes are listed in 1-month, 2-month, 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, 12-month, 15-month, 18-month, 24-month, 3T, 4T, 5T (rare), and 6T (very rare). So Yes, 5 years old and 6 years old are sometimes counted as toddlers, and other times as young children.

[Thurbane]

Speaking of "dragon classes": Ambush Drake Template Class (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060728a)

Intended (I believe) for DMs to use immature Ambush Drakes as encounters, I've seen many on these forums use it as a LA +0 way to play a dragon.

[lylsyly]

Speaking of "dragon classes": Ambush Drake Template Class (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060728a)

Intended (I believe) for DMs to use immature Ambush Drakes as encounters, I've seen many on these forums use it as a LA +0 way to play a dragon.

Shhhh!! ;) I've used it many times with Gestalt Barbarians! Never cared about the "dragon" part. Just the all Good saves, NA Bonuses and Flight.

For a Game called Dungeons and Dragons they certainly screwed up a lot of so-called "Dragony" stuff didn't they? I've always that that part of WotCs problem was they had too many people writing for them, or maybe it should be blamed on a lack of communication between writers.

[SangoProduction]

Shhhh!! ;) I've used it many times with Gestalt Barbarians! Never cared about the "dragon" part. Just the all Good saves, NA Bonuses and Flight.

For a Game called Dungeons and Dragons they certainly screwed up a lot of so-called "Dragony" stuff didn't they? I've always that that part of WotCs problem was they had too many people writing for them, or maybe it should be blamed on a lack of communication between writers.

I mean, for a game called Dungeons and Dragons, you don't get a lot of chances to play as a dungeon either, I guess.

[Luccan]

I mean, for a game called Dungeons and Dragons, you don't get a lot of chances to play as a dungeon either, I guess.

Clearly it's in need of a name change so people understand: A potential place to find enemies and treasure and a specific enemy which may be found in that location

[Calthropstu]

I mean, for a game called Dungeons and Dragons, you don't get a lot of chances to play as a dungeon either, I guess.

You know, I feel this should be a thing now. A game where you play a living dungeon capable of spawning monsters and you gain xp for the number of heroes you force to flee or kill. You need to spend magic to spawn monsters and they can't go too far from your core. The more magic you spend to create it, the more powerful the monster but also the more dependent on your core it is forcing it to stay closer. Thus explaining the concept of dungeon crawling.

Would calling it Dragons and Dungeons be violating trademark law?

[Nifft]

I mean, for a game called Dungeons and Dragons, you don't get a lot of chances to play as a dungeon either, I guess.

Depends which side of the screen you're on.

:wink:

[Rater202]

I mean, for a game called Dungeons and Dragons, you don't get a lot of chances to play as a dungeon either, I guess.

somewhere on this Forum there's a 20 level base class that is "I am a sentient, mobile dungeon."

At least, I remember it being mobile. You had the ability to reshape yourself as long as your total internal space was the same, so if nothing else that would let you fake movement.

[HouseRules]

Technically, The Dungeon Master (DM) is the Master of Dungeon. Thus, the DM plays Dungeons and their monsters.

Thus, what is missing is the Dragons. If the DM plays the Dungeons, who plays the Dragons?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Thus, the DM plays Dungeons and their monsters.Pretty sure you answered your own question, there.

[Lans]

Warblade isn't a Fighter though.

- Medium armor; no Tower shields.
- Good skills.
- d12 HD.
- No proficiency with Martial ranged weapons.

Warblade is great, but the only way it relates to Fighter is the same way Druid, Cleric, Barbarian, and a host of other classes relate to that class: by doing the Fighter's job better than any Fighter could.

I don't think you should be using improvements to argue against the warblade being an effective fighter fix.

The only real down side is the lack of ranged weapons. Not having heavy armor isn't ideal, but is only like 2 points of AC, and you don't need Tower proficiency to hide behind a tower shield.

[upho]

Since PF is obviously included in this analysis, I think the posts in this thread have so far ignored three potentially important facts related to the PF Dragon Disciple:

The PF DD is vastly superior to the 3.5 version. Mainly because it grants a total of 7 levels of CL and casting progression by default, and 10 levels in a setting/game offering Golarion style caster guild membership (costing only a tiny bit of gold and some minor time investments for tests and Prestige Point gathering). And the default minimum entry level is 6th instead of 3.5's 9th. EDIT: No, I'm just being stupid. Thanks zergling.exe! /EDIT
The bloodrager advances in DD like the sorcerer does, using the bloodrager draconic bloodline (which is clearly superior to the sorcerer bloodline for a melee focused build).
Natural attacks are much better in PF than in 3.5, and typically the far most effective melee combat style for DPR. (Primarily because PF allows for multiple primary attacks, and for adding up to at least 2 x Str mod to damage and the x 3 Power Attack bonus to all of them, primary as well as secondary.)

So I believe you can actually get pretty close to a dragon - and be very effective in combat - with say a Primalist bloodrager 12/DD 8 natural attacker with a minor in a very action-efficient traditional "buff 'n' bash" style. For example, this allows for using form of the dragon II (not limited by spells/day) and greater bloodrage with a 2nd level buff spell to become a Large dragon pouncing melee muscle monster, all as part of the free action to initiate bloodrage, typically in every combat from 15th level. Pimp with items improving/adding natural attacks to every limb (Fleshwarped Scorpion's Tail, Helm of the Mammoth Lord, Animal Totem Tattoo (eagle for talons), Tusk Blades etc), and maybe trade out a few DD levels for MoMS monk 1 and Ragechemist Vivisectionist alchemist 2 for even more overkill potential and increased versatility. In short, you'll end up similar to a younger dragon but with a much boosted action economy and a far greater Str and damage potential, relying mostly on a huge number of devastating primary natural attacks in combat and some minor sorcerer casting for buffing/utility.

Of course this won't be as powerful in general as a sorcerer/DD build can be, but at the very least in combat it is much closer to a real dragon IMO. And pretty much the definition of a highly combat (melee damage) focused T3, btw.

[ShurikVch]

The 3.0 version of Dragon Disciple gave +1 Size (but no bigger than Large) at 5th level
Size increase by itself is already notable boost for any melee-oriented character, but there are also other usual DD goodies - such as Str +4 and natural AC +2 (i.e. at 5th level)

[zergling.exe]

And the default minimum entry level is 6th instead of 3.5's 9th.

Where are you getting 9th level for entry in 3.5? The only level locked prerequisite is Knowledge (Arcana) 8, and that can be met by level 5 to enter at 6th.

[upho]

Where are you getting 9th level for entry in 3.5? The only level locked prerequisite is Knowledge (Arcana) 8, and that can be met by level 5 to enter at 6th.Doh! :smallredface: You're absolutely right, it's just me having a very old and slightly malfunctioning brain, somehow forgetting the 3.5 rules for max skill ranks vs character level.

[Particle_Man]

You know, I feel this should be a thing now. A game where you play a living dungeon capable of spawning monsters and you gain xp for the number of heroes you force to flee or kill. You need to spend magic to spawn monsters and they can't go too far from your core. The more magic you spend to create it, the more powerful the monster but also the more dependent on your core it is forcing it to stay closer. Thus explaining the concept of dungeon crawling.

Would calling it Dragons and Dungeons be violating trademark law?

A collosal awakened construct, perhaps?

I heard of a DM that replaced dragon sorcerer powers with druid powers. Also, some dragons get cleric spells on their sorcerer list.

[Nifft]

Would calling it Dragons and Dungeons be violating trademark law? Make it about fighting the strange things that your pet dragon dragged in -- Dungeon vs. Drag-Ins.


I don't think you should be using improvements to argue against the warblade being an effective fighter fix.

The only real down side is the lack of ranged weapons. Not having heavy armor isn't ideal, but is only like 2 points of AC, and you don't need Tower proficiency to hide behind a tower shield.

What I showed were differences, not detriments.

In terms of downsides, another is that the Warblade's got far fewer bonus feats, and the Warblade's bonus feat list is much smaller than the Fighter's bonus feat list.

There are more differences which ought to support the fact that Warblade isn't an upgraded Fighter, but rather a different class. Because it obviously is a different class, and not just an upgraded Fighter. There are niches that a Warblade can fill which a Fighter simply cannot -- such as being a Leader type, with an aura that helps allies and maneuvers which grant bonuses to allies, both from White Raven.

Fighters don't compete in that space. Warblade does, and that's fine because Warblade isn't an upgraded Fighter.

[upho]

Make it about fighting the strange things that your pet dragon dragged in -- Dungeon vs. Drag-Ins. Ha ha! Very Niffty... :smalltongue:

I think your game could and should be called "Pun-Puns & Dungeon Drags". A name which sorta kinda also include a "dragon", albeit only a very specific and slightly OP one. And of course, internal consistency and verisimilitude demands you also add rules for giving Colossal construct dungeons a male gender and/or sex, along with a serious discount on size 500 - 5,000 high heels and flashy sequined dresses...

[Nifft]

Ah, yes: we do need puns to be a central game element. Maybe we ought to hide that from the casual consumer, though.

Pungents & Drag-Ins, a game about cleaning up after your cat (who is a dragon).

[unseenmage]

You know, I feel this should be a thing now. A game where you play a living dungeon capable of spawning monsters and you gain xp for the number of heroes you force to flee or kill. You need to spend magic to spawn monsters and they can't go too far from your core. The more magic you spend to create it, the more powerful the monster but also the more dependent on your core it is forcing it to stay closer. Thus explaining the concept of dungeon crawling.

Would calling it Dragons and Dungeons be violating trademark law?
So you'd play as a Warforged Creation Forge built with the DragonMech rules and hit with Awaken Construct?

[Lans]

There are niches that a Warblade can fill which a Fighter simply cannot -- such as being a Leader type, with an aura that helps allies and maneuvers which grant bonuses to allies, both from White Raven.


1 You do know that the fighter can do that too, just not nearly as good.
2 When you bring up things that a warblade can do that a fighter cannot
I feel like you are providing evidence for me . You need to bring up a niche that the fighter can fill that the Warblade can not fill.

[Nifft]

1 You do know that the fighter can do that too, just not nearly as good.
2 When you bring up things that a warblade can do that a fighter cannot
I feel like you are providing evidence for me . You need to bring up a niche that the fighter can fill that the Warblade can not fill.

By your definition, can a Druid cover every Fighter niche?

Is your definition of "upgraded Fighter" inclusive of Druids?

If so, then I don't mind that Warblade is also in that category.

[ShurikVch]

You know, I feel this should be a thing now. A game where you play a living dungeon capable of spawning monsters and you gain xp for the number of heroes you force to flee or kill. You need to spend magic to spawn monsters and they can't go too far from your core. The more magic you spend to create it, the more powerful the monster but also the more dependent on your core it is forcing it to stay closer. Thus explaining the concept of dungeon crawling.

Would calling it Dragons and Dungeons be violating trademark law?So, Dungeon Keeper?
IIRR, Dungeonscape have PrC for it...


Pungents & Drag-Ins, a game about cleaning up after your cat (who is a dragon).Balerion - Cat (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Balerion_(cat)) and Dragon (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Balerion)? :smallbiggrin:

[SangoProduction]

Make it about fighting the strange things that your pet dragon dragged in -- Dungeon vs. Drag-Ins.

God damn it! Now I have to make an Android/IOS game based on that idea! Not like I don't already have 8 other programs that need to be done within a week.

[Lans]

By your definition, can a Druid cover every Fighter niche?

Is your definition of "upgraded Fighter" inclusive of Druids?

If so, then I don't mind that Warblade is also in that category.

Clearly there is a limit, particularly a thematic limit, which until crossed just puts it more into a fix category

[Nifft]

God damn it! Now I have to make an Android/IOS game based on that idea! Not like I don't already have 8 other programs that need to be done within a week.

It might be cute if the critters fighting the drag-ins were Kobolds.

That also gives you a good excuse for trap-laying, and for making the chief named Tucker.


Clearly there is a limit, particularly a thematic limit, which until crossed just puts it more into a fix category

Provide the definition which you claim includes Warblade as a Fighter, yet somehow excludes everything else (e.g. Druid / Cleric / Barbarian).

[Lans]

Provide the definition which you claim includes Warblade as a Fighter, yet somehow excludes everything else (e.g. Druid / Cleric / Barbarian).

I said the warblade also works fine as a barbarian fix.

The rough line that I have is things that I could not envision the fighter even attempting from its chasis, I don't think the warblade goes paast tgat