Myth of the Weak Dragon
Busting Myths, Slaying Dragons
This one's going to be a bit long. For those of you who like the short version of things, I'll drop the conclusion up front. Dragons are deadlier than you think. Use the 1st Ed stats. Anything else is too powerful.
The response I always get is some high level character, about 10th or so, decked out, buffed, and otherwise optimized to specifically fight the dragon. The unspoken assumptions that go along with this is that a 10th level character is somehow a reasonable, middling level character, not on the highest ends of the spectrum, so it surely shouldn't be able to whack the monster the game was named after.
Now I strongly feel that any one of those assumptions can be attacked as dubious. But I'm not really going to get into any of that here. I generally prefer to zero in on things that don't get talked about rather than talk about things that have been done to death.
I - Aerial Combat
I have no idea where to find the exact quote. I do recall Gary Gygax once spoke of the specific combination of abilities that dragons have--cunning combined with flight combined with their breath weapon--as making them very powerful. Notice, it’s not stats per se that make the dragon powerful. It’s the combination of abilities. This combination of abilities inherently makes a creature powerful beyond what its game statistics would otherwise suggest. But typical combat in D&D is assumed to take place on the ground. That means if we are going to get a fair assessment of a dragon's abilities, we have to get into the weeds a little bit.
The 1st Ed DMG has a whole section on aerial combat. It generally goes completely ignored. Afterall, how often are we having adventures entirely in the air, complete with combat? If anything, aerial combat is too deadly for PCs. What if you get knocked off your griffin? The fall will kill you no matter how weak the attack was. That doesn't seem very "fair" or "balanced."
Well, it’s worth noting that parts of that section on aerial combat do apply to combat that takes place on the ground but involves flying creatures. Not only that, this isn't just an abstract section of obscure rules. It takes the time to go down the list of flying creatures found in the Monster Manual and discusses them one-by-one. These sections could have just as easily found themselves in the Monster Manual. I'd file this under "stuff the monster can do" rather than "obscure rule buried in the DMG."
So here's what it has to say about dragons:
Let's be clear about what this is saying. On an attack pass, a full attack routine is not possible. Let alone multiple attack routines. That goes both ways. Fighters with multiple attacks, hasted characters, even characters fighting with two weapons will not have more than one chance to strike the dragon during a pass. The pass functions similar to a charge attack where bystanders get a free strike as the charging character passes by them. That's what the dragon is doing. The dragon isn't engaging in melee, so no regular melee attack routines are possible. Each character is allowed their one "free" attack and nothing else. This alone shuts down the previously mentioned examples of characters who slay dragons oh so easily. They always seem to involve haste.
But the dragon does have the advantage of being able to breathe on approach. In normal combat, the dragon must choose its breath or physical attacks. In the air, the dragon can do both in the same round. So notice, as soon as the dragon's flight ability becomes a factor, it cuts down on the number of attacks of would-be slayers while at the same time allowing the dragon to make physical attacks (even if they are reduced as are that of the slayers) in addition to the breath attack. This factor alone should make the dragon about 4 times more powerful than the stats would otherwise suggest.
The next thing to consider is the speed of a dragon. 24" while flying for the slower ones. That's equal to the limits of a heavy crossbow at long range. For any other weapon, the dragon can go from being out of range to striking range in less than one round's time. This practically negates the use of missile weapons against dragons. Spells are similarly out or range. Moreover, if the dragon is descending in altitude while flying towards the party, they are considered to be "diving" and their movement rate is doubled. This also doubles the damage on any physical attacks the dragon uses. So now not even the heavy crossbow will get in a shot.
That said, I try to be a reasonable DM. Despite what D&D's combat system calls for, it's not like the dragon is just stationary, waiting for his turn, then teleporting 48". The movement is happening continuously. As such, I feel it is fair to break combat down to segment-by-segment. Now assuming the dragon descends towards the party at a rate of 48" per round, then levels out to a rate of 24", continues on the path until it's out of range, then climbs back up in altitude to do it all over again, that would place the dragon within range of a heavy crossbow for a total of 15 segments (5 arriving, 10 departing), a longbow for a total of 13 segments (4 arriving, and 9 departing), a light crossbow for a total of 11 segments (4 arriving, 7 departing), a shortbow for a total of 9 segments (3 arriving, 6 departing), and darts (hey, you never know) for a total of 3 segments (1 arriving, 2 departing). So a character using darts will get one ranged attack opportunity, one with a shortbow will get 2 opportunities (if readied, 1 otherwise), a light crossbow could also get 2 (if readied, 1 otherwise) but both will have to be at long range, a longbow could get 3 attacks (again, if readied, 2 otherwise), and a heavy crossbow gets only one attack. Optionally, I would allow the character a bend bars/lift gates roll to manually cock the heavy crossbow in one round to get a second shot (00 indicates having damaged the crossbow, otherwise failure indicates no headway is made in readying it and so it will take another 2 rounds to ready it properly). I really do give the players the benefit of every reasonable advantage.
So imagine the dragon just takes one diving pass after another, using breath weapon every time until reaching the daily limit. That alone means the characters will suffer damage at least equal to 150% of the dragon's hit points, that being if they succeed in all their saves against breath. For an ancient red dragon (1E stats) that means dealing enough damage to slay a 36th level fighter with average hit point rolls. A similarly dispositioned magic-user of up to 27th level will be slain on the first pass if he doesn't muster some defensive magic. Of course, even then, the dragon can just circle until the duration expires.
There's another complication. With each pass and each breath weapon, items may have to save to avoid being destroyed. Bows and bowstrings will be especially vulnerable as will many material components necessary to cast spells. Depending on luck of the dice, the dragon can effectively shut a party down on the very first pass. Dragons not powerful enough? Au contraire. The bottom line is, dragons can fly, and this changes everything. Rarely do I see anyone accounting for this most basic, glaring fact.
II - Smarts over stats.
The above nightmare scenario doesn't square with a lot of people's experiences. And that's perfectly fine. That's actually part of the strength of how dragons are statted in 1st Ed. If the dragon doesn't take flight, they're a lot easier to beat. Circumstance trumps the dice. And when that happens, that opens up the potential for smarts to conquer stats.
There's something I find extremely appealing about the fact that the dragon a party of 5th level characters was able to slay, due to catching the dragon sleeping and having a good plan, might have a twin sister who tracks down the same party only when they're 10th or even 15th level and completely obliviate the party. When the exact same monster that is beatable by low level characters can still kill high level characters, that's when you know you've got a challenge appropriate for all levels. Dragons, not just in the D&D game but also in culture--mythologically and symbolically--are to be feared, but are also to be slain.
If the difficulty of monsters, dragons or otherwise, are entirely stat-driven, no matter how smart the party is, if they're just not high enough level, they can't beat the beast. This is not a challenge so much as a death sentence. The flip side is, again, when the monster is entirely stat-driven, a high enough level character is in no real danger of the creature. This is not a challenge so much as a walk in the park.
Generally speaking, neither extreme is fun or desirable. And certainly neither extreme is appropriate for myth and symbolism of dragons. The existence of the extremes places the DM in a position where all encounters must be carefully balanced lest the game stumble outside the realms of fun. Some DMs consider this to be 80% of their entire jobs, if not all of it. But for the rest of us, it's a burden when we'd rather prioritize other considerations. Theme, story, visual coolness, et cetera.
Sometimes I'm accused of being crazy on this point. That it is the spirit of D&D that the level system is intended to impose a fixed pecking order. High level always beats low level. And I think nothing could be further from the truth. The breath of even a younger dragon, because it is a fixed number rather than a random amount of damage, is super deadly to regular townsfolk. One hiccup can wipe out an angry mob. But a hero can slay this dragon. The hero, on the other hand, can be swarmed by a mob. There is no fixed pecking order. Rather, one thing serves as a check on another and itself is kept in check by something else.
And I could point to some of the other baddies from the monster manual. If you note the special weaknesses of the vampire, for example, a character of any level, doesn't even have to be a cleric, can hold a vampire at bay with a holy symbol. And the effects of garlic, sunlight, and running water are identical no matter what the levels of the characters. A vampire could legitimately be beaten by a 1st level party. On the other hand, because of the vampire's regenerative abilities, by adopting a stick-and-move strategy, the vampire could slowly and systematically wipe out a party of extremely high level characters.
But back to dragons. They have their weaknesses, too. Aside from those listed in the monster manual and the potential for subduing a dragon, as a flying creature with membranous wings, the dragon can be grounded if you deplete half of its hit points. For an average-sized adult red, that's 25 hit points. And that is something that's doable with some lucky rolls, even if the dragon has the upper hand. For this reason, the tactics I described earlier I don't even consider them to be especially clever or befitting so cunning a creature. They are, however, a much better centered baseline for examining how powerful a dragon really is. And because that baseline is never considered, the 1E dragons have the undeserved reputation of being weak when they are actually quite strong.
III - An Aside About "Game Balance"
In this context, I'm using game balance specifically to mean the balance of rewards and challenges. If a good plan or favorable circumstances allows a low level group to beat a very powerful monster, won't they earn disproportionately high XP and treasure? And the flip side, if circumstance should favor the monsters so that they pose a threat to a high level party, won't the XP and treasure be too low relative to the challenge? And the answer to both is, "Yes. Of course." And that’s really not a bad thing at all.
Not just gamers but people in general, especially when they get ahold of statistics, become obsessed with averages. Even scientists who ought to know better sometimes put too much stock in averages. Barring tasteless jokes about children with disabilities, I have yet to meet a couple who has exactly 2.4 children or whatever the most recent statistical average is. In fact, the average person has fewer than two legs. Sure. Most of us have exactly two legs. But some people have fewer. Strictly speaking, that makes the average less than two. Does that mean it's inaccurate to describe humans as bipeds?
Triangles. That's a better answer. You have a particular party of adventurers in a particular state (x amount of hit points lost, y about of spells expended, etc). You could imagine any encounter under any particular set of circumstances and assign it a risk. In theory, you could measure this by probability of victory or probability of survival. In practice, you can do a gut estimate. If you then take whichever measure you prefer and divide it by a separate measure indicating reward, you can get a risk-reward ratio. Again, in practice, most of us just kind of guesstimate what this is. No actual math is involved. But once you have some idea of the risk/reward involved, you could rank all these possible scenarios from highest to lowest.
If you allow players to choose their battles, they'll probably pass on the ones on the higher end of the scale and favor the lower ones. And this is sort of like what happens in actual play. Not completely. Sometimes these things are out of the players’ control or they don't have all the information. But on balance, there should be a tendency towards the lower end of the scale. Not the middle of the scale. Not the average. Average is beneath any decent player's standards. It is a good thing that players look for the "easy" way out. You can give them all the freedom in the world, their decisions won't matter unless they get to own the benefits and drawbacks as well. You are not respecting a player's autonomy by imposing average.
In fact, earlier when I was talking about the average hit points a 36th level fighter would have, or a 27th level magic-user, you might have been thinking, "But my characters don't have so few hit points!" Nor should they. Presumably, players will play the characters they find most enjoyable. And while sometimes it's fun to play an average or even below average character, on balance players are going to tend to choose the above-average ones. So let's exorcise "average" from relevancy. And with it, this ridiculous view of "game balance." Players strive to do better than that. And the better players even deserve it.
IV - The Gygax Test
You might also call this "Game Balance, Part 2" or "A View of Game Balance That Actually Passes the Smell Test." Again, I can't off the top of my head point to where you can find this quote. He was speaking mainly of 3E (he did write a slayers guide to dragons for the d20 system). But the gist of it is that you need to consider what would happen if you showed up to your game one day, dragon stats in hand, and handed them out to the players sitting around the table. If in the next 6 months (or whatever arbitrary time frame) of campaigning, they manage to take over the world, this is the test that tells you absolutely that dragons are too powerful. They don't make sense and don't fit into the campaign world where humans and other non-reptilians are running around all non-enslaved.
Dragon stats in 3E without question fit into this category. And I believe the stats of the more powerful dragons in 2E do as well. They're just statted way too high. Even the lower ends in 2E edges out lower level characters from having a chance at beating them on purely statistical grounds in violation of "Smarts over stats" or the very spirit of dragons--that they always be a challenge, always be feared, but always there to be slain.
The power range of 1E are the only ones that fit the theme and spirit, that allow their threat to be ever-present, no matter what your level, but the potential for the glory of defeating one likewise ever-present. In other words, it's the only version of dragons that is worthy of having "dragon" in the title of the game. But you have to always bear in mind that what makes the dragons unique is the combination of flight, breath, and cunning. If you're not using all three, you're selling dragons short, and that's probably why you find them too weak.
V - A Note About Rules
I have to wrap this up with a disclaimer. None of what is spelled out here should be taken to be about rules. You don't have to use the aerial combat section of the DMG if you don't like those rules. I don't need those rules to make my case. If I close my eyes and imaging a dragon swooping down at a party at full tilt, there isn't time for the exchange of more than a single physical attack. In fact, it takes mindless adherence to rules which say characters who are hasted or fighters who are high level are entitled to multiple attacks to ever for a moment think that would be applicable in so quick a fly-by. I only ever "rule lawyer" for the sole purpose of shutting down rules lawyers to allow the feel of the game and imagination to take flight.
And certainly there will always be those who stomp their feet and insist all the ridiculous allowances and leniencies they afford player characters ARE how they imagine things and match the feel of THEIR games. My question to them would be, "Do you want dragons to be challenging or not?" If the answer is “not” then there’s no point to inflating their stats. And for those who say they do, I have to wonder, if you’re not going to make reasonable provisions for a dragon’s unique set of abilities such that they can be viable before stats are inflated, what reason is there to believe that dragons will suddenly get a fair shake after their stats are inflated? The only thing that would result is inflated XP commensurate with those inflated stats bumping dragons down on the risk/reward ladder.
This one's going to be a bit long. For those of you who like the short version of things, I'll drop the conclusion up front. Dragons are deadlier than you think. Use the 1st Ed stats. Anything else is too powerful.
The response I always get is some high level character, about 10th or so, decked out, buffed, and otherwise optimized to specifically fight the dragon. The unspoken assumptions that go along with this is that a 10th level character is somehow a reasonable, middling level character, not on the highest ends of the spectrum, so it surely shouldn't be able to whack the monster the game was named after.
Now I strongly feel that any one of those assumptions can be attacked as dubious. But I'm not really going to get into any of that here. I generally prefer to zero in on things that don't get talked about rather than talk about things that have been done to death.
I - Aerial Combat
I have no idea where to find the exact quote. I do recall Gary Gygax once spoke of the specific combination of abilities that dragons have--cunning combined with flight combined with their breath weapon--as making them very powerful. Notice, it’s not stats per se that make the dragon powerful. It’s the combination of abilities. This combination of abilities inherently makes a creature powerful beyond what its game statistics would otherwise suggest. But typical combat in D&D is assumed to take place on the ground. That means if we are going to get a fair assessment of a dragon's abilities, we have to get into the weeds a little bit.
The 1st Ed DMG has a whole section on aerial combat. It generally goes completely ignored. Afterall, how often are we having adventures entirely in the air, complete with combat? If anything, aerial combat is too deadly for PCs. What if you get knocked off your griffin? The fall will kill you no matter how weak the attack was. That doesn't seem very "fair" or "balanced."
Well, it’s worth noting that parts of that section on aerial combat do apply to combat that takes place on the ground but involves flying creatures. Not only that, this isn't just an abstract section of obscure rules. It takes the time to go down the list of flying creatures found in the Monster Manual and discusses them one-by-one. These sections could have just as easily found themselves in the Monster Manual. I'd file this under "stuff the monster can do" rather than "obscure rule buried in the DMG."
So here's what it has to say about dragons:
Dragon: 24” or 30”, class E. Lack of maneuverability due to large size may seem to put dragons at a disadvantage in the air, but their powerful breath weapons somewhat make up for this. On an attack pass, a dragon can either bite or use its claws — never both. A dragon may choose to breathe on an approach and then pass and slash with fang or claw.
But the dragon does have the advantage of being able to breathe on approach. In normal combat, the dragon must choose its breath or physical attacks. In the air, the dragon can do both in the same round. So notice, as soon as the dragon's flight ability becomes a factor, it cuts down on the number of attacks of would-be slayers while at the same time allowing the dragon to make physical attacks (even if they are reduced as are that of the slayers) in addition to the breath attack. This factor alone should make the dragon about 4 times more powerful than the stats would otherwise suggest.
The next thing to consider is the speed of a dragon. 24" while flying for the slower ones. That's equal to the limits of a heavy crossbow at long range. For any other weapon, the dragon can go from being out of range to striking range in less than one round's time. This practically negates the use of missile weapons against dragons. Spells are similarly out or range. Moreover, if the dragon is descending in altitude while flying towards the party, they are considered to be "diving" and their movement rate is doubled. This also doubles the damage on any physical attacks the dragon uses. So now not even the heavy crossbow will get in a shot.
That said, I try to be a reasonable DM. Despite what D&D's combat system calls for, it's not like the dragon is just stationary, waiting for his turn, then teleporting 48". The movement is happening continuously. As such, I feel it is fair to break combat down to segment-by-segment. Now assuming the dragon descends towards the party at a rate of 48" per round, then levels out to a rate of 24", continues on the path until it's out of range, then climbs back up in altitude to do it all over again, that would place the dragon within range of a heavy crossbow for a total of 15 segments (5 arriving, 10 departing), a longbow for a total of 13 segments (4 arriving, and 9 departing), a light crossbow for a total of 11 segments (4 arriving, 7 departing), a shortbow for a total of 9 segments (3 arriving, 6 departing), and darts (hey, you never know) for a total of 3 segments (1 arriving, 2 departing). So a character using darts will get one ranged attack opportunity, one with a shortbow will get 2 opportunities (if readied, 1 otherwise), a light crossbow could also get 2 (if readied, 1 otherwise) but both will have to be at long range, a longbow could get 3 attacks (again, if readied, 2 otherwise), and a heavy crossbow gets only one attack. Optionally, I would allow the character a bend bars/lift gates roll to manually cock the heavy crossbow in one round to get a second shot (00 indicates having damaged the crossbow, otherwise failure indicates no headway is made in readying it and so it will take another 2 rounds to ready it properly). I really do give the players the benefit of every reasonable advantage.
So imagine the dragon just takes one diving pass after another, using breath weapon every time until reaching the daily limit. That alone means the characters will suffer damage at least equal to 150% of the dragon's hit points, that being if they succeed in all their saves against breath. For an ancient red dragon (1E stats) that means dealing enough damage to slay a 36th level fighter with average hit point rolls. A similarly dispositioned magic-user of up to 27th level will be slain on the first pass if he doesn't muster some defensive magic. Of course, even then, the dragon can just circle until the duration expires.
There's another complication. With each pass and each breath weapon, items may have to save to avoid being destroyed. Bows and bowstrings will be especially vulnerable as will many material components necessary to cast spells. Depending on luck of the dice, the dragon can effectively shut a party down on the very first pass. Dragons not powerful enough? Au contraire. The bottom line is, dragons can fly, and this changes everything. Rarely do I see anyone accounting for this most basic, glaring fact.
II - Smarts over stats.
The above nightmare scenario doesn't square with a lot of people's experiences. And that's perfectly fine. That's actually part of the strength of how dragons are statted in 1st Ed. If the dragon doesn't take flight, they're a lot easier to beat. Circumstance trumps the dice. And when that happens, that opens up the potential for smarts to conquer stats.
If the difficulty of monsters, dragons or otherwise, are entirely stat-driven, no matter how smart the party is, if they're just not high enough level, they can't beat the beast. This is not a challenge so much as a death sentence. The flip side is, again, when the monster is entirely stat-driven, a high enough level character is in no real danger of the creature. This is not a challenge so much as a walk in the park.
Generally speaking, neither extreme is fun or desirable. And certainly neither extreme is appropriate for myth and symbolism of dragons. The existence of the extremes places the DM in a position where all encounters must be carefully balanced lest the game stumble outside the realms of fun. Some DMs consider this to be 80% of their entire jobs, if not all of it. But for the rest of us, it's a burden when we'd rather prioritize other considerations. Theme, story, visual coolness, et cetera.
And I could point to some of the other baddies from the monster manual. If you note the special weaknesses of the vampire, for example, a character of any level, doesn't even have to be a cleric, can hold a vampire at bay with a holy symbol. And the effects of garlic, sunlight, and running water are identical no matter what the levels of the characters. A vampire could legitimately be beaten by a 1st level party. On the other hand, because of the vampire's regenerative abilities, by adopting a stick-and-move strategy, the vampire could slowly and systematically wipe out a party of extremely high level characters.
But back to dragons. They have their weaknesses, too. Aside from those listed in the monster manual and the potential for subduing a dragon, as a flying creature with membranous wings, the dragon can be grounded if you deplete half of its hit points. For an average-sized adult red, that's 25 hit points. And that is something that's doable with some lucky rolls, even if the dragon has the upper hand. For this reason, the tactics I described earlier I don't even consider them to be especially clever or befitting so cunning a creature. They are, however, a much better centered baseline for examining how powerful a dragon really is. And because that baseline is never considered, the 1E dragons have the undeserved reputation of being weak when they are actually quite strong.
III - An Aside About "Game Balance"
In this context, I'm using game balance specifically to mean the balance of rewards and challenges. If a good plan or favorable circumstances allows a low level group to beat a very powerful monster, won't they earn disproportionately high XP and treasure? And the flip side, if circumstance should favor the monsters so that they pose a threat to a high level party, won't the XP and treasure be too low relative to the challenge? And the answer to both is, "Yes. Of course." And that’s really not a bad thing at all.
Not just gamers but people in general, especially when they get ahold of statistics, become obsessed with averages. Even scientists who ought to know better sometimes put too much stock in averages. Barring tasteless jokes about children with disabilities, I have yet to meet a couple who has exactly 2.4 children or whatever the most recent statistical average is. In fact, the average person has fewer than two legs. Sure. Most of us have exactly two legs. But some people have fewer. Strictly speaking, that makes the average less than two. Does that mean it's inaccurate to describe humans as bipeds?
Triangles. That's a better answer. You have a particular party of adventurers in a particular state (x amount of hit points lost, y about of spells expended, etc). You could imagine any encounter under any particular set of circumstances and assign it a risk. In theory, you could measure this by probability of victory or probability of survival. In practice, you can do a gut estimate. If you then take whichever measure you prefer and divide it by a separate measure indicating reward, you can get a risk-reward ratio. Again, in practice, most of us just kind of guesstimate what this is. No actual math is involved. But once you have some idea of the risk/reward involved, you could rank all these possible scenarios from highest to lowest.
If you allow players to choose their battles, they'll probably pass on the ones on the higher end of the scale and favor the lower ones. And this is sort of like what happens in actual play. Not completely. Sometimes these things are out of the players’ control or they don't have all the information. But on balance, there should be a tendency towards the lower end of the scale. Not the middle of the scale. Not the average. Average is beneath any decent player's standards. It is a good thing that players look for the "easy" way out. You can give them all the freedom in the world, their decisions won't matter unless they get to own the benefits and drawbacks as well. You are not respecting a player's autonomy by imposing average.
In fact, earlier when I was talking about the average hit points a 36th level fighter would have, or a 27th level magic-user, you might have been thinking, "But my characters don't have so few hit points!" Nor should they. Presumably, players will play the characters they find most enjoyable. And while sometimes it's fun to play an average or even below average character, on balance players are going to tend to choose the above-average ones. So let's exorcise "average" from relevancy. And with it, this ridiculous view of "game balance." Players strive to do better than that. And the better players even deserve it.
IV - The Gygax Test
You might also call this "Game Balance, Part 2" or "A View of Game Balance That Actually Passes the Smell Test." Again, I can't off the top of my head point to where you can find this quote. He was speaking mainly of 3E (he did write a slayers guide to dragons for the d20 system). But the gist of it is that you need to consider what would happen if you showed up to your game one day, dragon stats in hand, and handed them out to the players sitting around the table. If in the next 6 months (or whatever arbitrary time frame) of campaigning, they manage to take over the world, this is the test that tells you absolutely that dragons are too powerful. They don't make sense and don't fit into the campaign world where humans and other non-reptilians are running around all non-enslaved.
The power range of 1E are the only ones that fit the theme and spirit, that allow their threat to be ever-present, no matter what your level, but the potential for the glory of defeating one likewise ever-present. In other words, it's the only version of dragons that is worthy of having "dragon" in the title of the game. But you have to always bear in mind that what makes the dragons unique is the combination of flight, breath, and cunning. If you're not using all three, you're selling dragons short, and that's probably why you find them too weak.
V - A Note About Rules
And certainly there will always be those who stomp their feet and insist all the ridiculous allowances and leniencies they afford player characters ARE how they imagine things and match the feel of THEIR games. My question to them would be, "Do you want dragons to be challenging or not?" If the answer is “not” then there’s no point to inflating their stats. And for those who say they do, I have to wonder, if you’re not going to make reasonable provisions for a dragon’s unique set of abilities such that they can be viable before stats are inflated, what reason is there to believe that dragons will suddenly get a fair shake after their stats are inflated? The only thing that would result is inflated XP commensurate with those inflated stats bumping dragons down on the risk/reward ladder.
That's crazy!
ReplyDelete