Comments on: Monday Monsters: The Crimson Drake

By: DoomedPaladin

DoomedPaladin — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:46 +0000

I, for one, like the artwork.

The impregnated female should have an unpleasant time of egg laying (making it unwilling to have them in the future). Randomly popping out 2-3 eggs unexpectedly every several days for a few weeks (like a horrible stomach flu’s bowel movements). The eggs mature within her and emerge to hatch within a few hours. With no permenent hatch site this ensures that the clutches can still fight to the death, the mother won’t be there to kill them, and more will survive.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:49:12 +0000

Yeah, Hugo. I can’t believe I let them post the article with such terrible artwork.

Who am I kidding? That’s the main selling point for the article.

Rich, good analysis. Would you believe crimson drakes are very “green”?

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:43:30 +0000

I do think this critter is great. And will find a way to use it in my campaign. One observation though…

You start with:

a. 3 crimson drakes (2 male, 1 female), then
b. You have 2 drakes (1 male dies in the pre-mating fight), then
c. 1 female, 1 male (who wanders off) and 10-12 eggs. then
d. 1 female, 1 male (both who now have wandered off) and 5-6 hatchlings (50% who survived mom.) then
e. 1 female, 1 male (both have wandered off) and the 1 remaining fledgeling who hate his or her 4-5 brothers and sisters.

We started with 3 crimson drakes and we ended with 3 crimson drakes. ‘0′ population growth!

That was a fun exercise.

Thanks,
Rich

By: Hugo Solis

Hugo Solis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:44:53 +0000

The drawing is terrible!

By: LegatoRedrivers

LegatoRedrivers — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:12:26 +0000

Wow! Replies!

Sorry, looking through and saw this post, knowing that I have a player that loves him some psudodragons and thoughts of evil GM trips started dancing through my brain.

I’ll be sure to check out the previous mentions. Thanks!

By: Wolfgang

Wolfgang — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:54:06 +0000

Legato, we’ve published more 4E monsters than Ben mentions, even.

There’s were the Killer Turtles, the Deathwisp Shades, the Maenads, the Clockwork hunter and hounds, Crag Drake, Frostfang Yeti, the gnomish demon tinker, and the Reapervast.

I’m sure I’m missing some.

By: Kobold Quarterly

Kobold Quarterly — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:33:48 +0000

Edit, AC fixed.

@LegatoRedrivers, We publish the edition(s) that authors send us. There are many 4E articles (and monsters specifically) in past posts as Ben suggested and there will be more. Fear not!

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:21:23 +0000

Fischkopp: The 3.5 creature should have +4 natural armor as well (that’s what I get for having two sets of stats and tweaking just one). Thanks for catching that and for the kind comment.

By: Ben.

Ben. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:13:35 +0000

The mycolids from last week were 4E. The Halloween stuff had the 4E terror birds. Web articles are done gratis, so I imagine they depend on what people are willing to generate while still meeting the quality requirements of KQ.

If you’re hunting for some 4E monsters, dig through the articles archive. I know for a fact that there’s at least two in there from the 4E version of Halls of the Mountain King. Heck, I would’t be surprised if an ecology wasn’t too far away at this rate.

-Ben.

By: LegatoRedrivers

LegatoRedrivers — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:22:31 +0000

Just out of curiosity, are you going to start providing 4e stat blocks at any point soon?

By: Fischkopp

Fischkopp — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:20:34 +0000

I like the hateful aditude of this little bastard. Tiny dragons always remind me of Discworld. That’s not a bad thing.

Personally, I don’t think the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5 validate two different stat blocks, so, put one in brackets, maybe? And why has it +5 natural armor bonus as a d&d 3.5 creature and only +4 as a pathfinder critter?