D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[TuggyNE]

Welcome to the 12th thread discussing D&D 5th Edition, aka D&D Next!

As is (by now) well known to every RPGer who hasn’t spent the past year hiding under a rock, a new edition of D&D is coming out. When? Well, they’re not telling us. What they are giving us is an open playtest, which you can sign up for right here (http://dndplaytest.wizards.com/). At the time of writing, the most recent playtest packet dates from June 14th, 2013.

Use this thread to discuss the playtest, the weekly mostly-weekly Legends and Lore update articles from Mike Mearls, and other news relating to D&D’s new edition.

Useful (and freshly updated!) links:
Playtest Signup (http://dndplaytest.wizards.com/)
Legends and Lore Archive (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore)
EN World D&D Forum (http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?3-D-amp-D-and-Pathfinder&prefixid=dndnext)
Penny Arcade / PvP 5e Podcasts:
Part 1 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806)
Part 2 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)
Part 3 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120820)
Part 4 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120827)
Previous threads:
First Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549)
Second Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231033)
Third Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242069)
3.5th Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245504)
Fourth Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244672)
D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245600)
D&D 5th Edition: 6th Thread and counting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252870)
D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257952)
D&D 5th Edition: 8th Revision and counting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265084)
Pathfinder, Next, and the Future of D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271218)
D&D 5th Edition IX: Still in the Idea Stage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277822)
D&D 5th Edition X: Where's the Craft (RPG System) skill? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284560)
D&D 5th Edition XI: The 15-Minute Designer Workday (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288661)

[Turalisj]

I'm still not convinced we'll actually see a new edition, that this isn't just testing the waters to see if a new edition is viable (doesn't look like it is at this point).

[Felhammer]

How powerful should Dragons be?

In your minds imagine the way you feel D&D should be. Then imagine yourself standing upon the rolling grassy hills in a serene dale. It's almost noon, without a cloud in sight. The summer heat hasn't quite arrived yet and a gentle breeze blows in from the north-west. A small castle over looks a large area of land under cultivation to the west. A gentle stream trickles by from the north, heading in a southerly direction. To the north, west and south lie meadows dotted with the occasional patch of woodland. The dale is surrounded by tall, forested hills.

Suddenly a Red Dragon appears in the skies above the dale. He is large and angry, setting fire to the eastern hills. The beast flies south and lands.

The following questions will assess your interpretation of how YOU believe D&D should treat Dragons based upon what YOU believe can slay the dragon...


1. Can a rabble of 100 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))?

2. Can an army 1,000 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))?

3. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)?

4. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)?

5. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming the vast majority are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)?

6. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)?

7. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess ranged weapons)?

8. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

9. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)?

10. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

9. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)?

11. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

12. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored; most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers; not a single man in the army uses a ranged weapon)?

13. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons); most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

14. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

15. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)?

16. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

17. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)?

18. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

19. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (armor for everyone and a wand for the Wizard), one +2 Item (weapons for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff) and two wondrous items)?

20. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

21. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (everyone's secondary weapon, save the Wizard who gets a a wand), one +2 Item (armor for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff), one +3 Item (main weapons for everyone, with the wizard who gets 27 scrolls (3 per spell level); as well as three wondrous items per adventurer)?

[Silverbit]

Good question.
(All below is my view of dragons, which tends to the Tolkein/Norse as opposed to normal dnd; dragons can't cast spells, but they are very charming and well-nigh invulnerable. YMMV.)
For the troops: 6 and 7 have a slight chance, but with massive losses. 8 has a good chance of defeating the dragon. 12 are going to get massacred, 13 can probably win the day. (Ranged weapons rank above magic items in importance, but magic items are still very important.)
For the adventurers: Below 17, TPK without a chance. 17 maybe; 19 certainly. For such a small force, magic items are a requirement.

[Raineh Daze]

1. Can a rabble of 100 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))?

No. They just don't have any combat ability or decent weapons; they won't even scratch the thing.


2. Can an army 1,000 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))?

See above.


3. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)?

They might scratch it. Mostly, they'd be walking into a blender if they tried to attack.


]4. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)?

Only a very young one. The problem is, see, that most dragons are just too tough for them to even hurt.


5. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming the vast majority are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)?

See the above two.


6. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)?

Nothing changes from #4.


7. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess ranged weapons)?

Now we're getting somewhere. This is more likely to work, though the lack of ranged weapons could be a terrible flaw. Also, the older dragons are more likely to screw them over.


8. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

These are weird knights. They'll have more success than the above.

Horses are still just dinner, though.


9. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)?

Again, there'll be a point where the dragons are just shrugging off their attacks because they're not powerful enough.


10. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

See above.


9. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)?

See above. You are never going to destroy a tank by poking it with a butter-knife.


11. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

Again. Maybe, if you're running things more fairly, there's a weak-point that could be taken out by a single, lone peasant, too... but that's not game mechanics.


12. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored; most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers; not a single man in the army uses a ranged weapon)?

Unless the knights lead the charge, I think they'd do worse than before because they're climbing over a mountain of bodies.


13. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons); most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?

Nothing has changed from earlier 'shoot the dragon' attempts.


14. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

Young one? Probably. Adults and above? Minced adventuring party.


15. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)?

Eh, not really going to make much of a change, they're still fragile as all get-out even if they can do more damage.


16. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

Better. But still likely to die horribly to the adults, with the only guy able to hurt them being squishy and easily targeted by a flying magic-breath-spewing reptile.


17. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)?

Ah, now they're going to be killing some of the tougher dragons... you know, if they fight sensibly. But hey, the oldest and strongest are still wondering how much damage they can do.


18. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

19. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (armor for everyone and a wand for the Wizard), one +2 Item (weapons for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff) and two wondrous items)?

By this point, magic gear or not shouldn't make a huge difference, and they can take a good shot at killing most dragons and the few older, more alarming specimens. The gear will[i] certainly help at killing the thing in a reasonable timespan.

You're being mean to the non-wizards, though, and not letting them have anything interesting.


20. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?

21. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (everyone's secondary weapon, save the Wizard who gets a a wand), one +2 Item (armor for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff), one +3 Item (main weapons for everyone, with the wizard who gets 27 scrolls (3 per spell level); as well as three wondrous items per adventurer)?

Yes to both cases, and the second bunch shouldn't have that much trouble with much below the oldest, strongest dragons.

They should each be able to individually take out most dragons, screw having a team, without relying on luck, and [i]possibly the ancient ones. They're damn mythological heroes by this point; dragons' saving grace is they're just as potent.

[BayardSPSR]

For me, I'm perfectly happy with a very clever peasant being able to figure out a way to win against a dragon. Say a low-level something, to be fair; it would take a lot of effort and exceptional circumstances to pull it off, but it should be possible.

It should take a hero of the highest caliber to face a dragon head-on - and even then, the dragon should have a very good chance of winning.

No number of knights or peasants should be able to accomplish either of these without someone with extreme wits or ability helping them.

For these options, let's say #14 should have a chance IF they pull off some kind of brilliant strategy AND they're lucky. No chance head-to-head, though. It should take #18 to have a reasonable chance with a high probability of casualties, and #21 should have the odds in their favor - but still not without risk.

Of course, dragons are only half the game. How should any of these groups measure up against dungeons? Should successive waves of peasants be able to clear the Tomb of Horrors?

[Flickerdart]

With enough people you could just throw loads and loads of (magically reinforced) nets over the thing so it can't move. But you'd need a lot of people, and a lot of nets, and it will probably run away once it sees what's happening.

[Water_Bear]

With regards to the "How Many Soldiers to Defeat a Dragon" question, I feel like there are some off assumptions in there.

First, obviously, going in without ranged weapons is suicide. Dragons are the kings of the circle-strafe; the only time they shouldn't be flying is within their own lairs. So about half of those groups automatically lose.

Secondly, a 1st level Fighter is (supposed to be) a Knight or equivalent professional soldier in every edition I've played, and, at least in a historical sense, Knights are Men-at-Arms. Either way, no-one without a PC class level should be killing a Dragon whether they're 0th level or have an NPC class.

Third, Dragon's aren't made of wood; chipping away at them with non-magical weapons shouldn't even be possible. Either you need to find a chink in their armor Bard-the-bowman style (AKA giving them sky-high AC) or make them essentially immune to mundane weapons (either with an old-school immunity or 3e/4e DR). Simple numbers are never going to win out against a Dragon because anyone who can hurt them is already in the league to be a Dragonslayer themselves.

Finally, Dragons come in different age categories for a reason; because there needs to be a logical reason why you can fight Dragons from 1st to 36th levels and not feel like you're treading water. The classical D&D Dragon is a fairly elegant rebuttal of the entire concept of Bounded Accuracy because it shows how trivially easy it is to keep iconic monsters relevant while not making Conan fear for his life against Giant Rats.

[Knaight]

I'd pretty much break this down by size. Looking at the D&D size categories:

1) Small/Tiny - These should still be dangerous, but a lucky peasant killing them is fine by me. A capable warrior (level 6 or so) killing one unarmed is also fine by me.

2) Medium - These should be significantly more dangerous. If ground bound, they should be nearly immune to conventional weaponry wielded by average strength people, but enough skill, strength, or weapon quality should get past this. If flying I'm fine with them being vulnerable, but hitting them in the air should take either a lot of people firing in concert or a very talented archer, with ambushing them on the ground being more reasonable.

3) Large - More or less as medium, but even the flying ones should probably take either an exceptional archer or a lot of heavier weapons (e.g. javelins), and the small ones should probably be basically immune to non-magical weapons, with a critical hit exception.

4) Huge - These are where the dragons that wipe out towns start, with land bound ones being completely immune to everything short of siege weapons with the exception of the strongest critical hits.

5) Bigger than Huge - At this point, immunity to basically everything is fine by me, with hard to access vulnerabilities that essentially require highly capable warriors.

At no point should magic weapons be needed, and at all points there should be pretty solid resistance to spells, just as there is for weapons. However, magic weapons should probably make life a lot easier.

As for mechanics: What I would like to see is some sort of tiered AC system, where AC increases dramatically for dragons at flight. For a large or huge dragon at flight AC 15 or so could be a pretty standard baseline, with something like DR 20, where AC 20 drops it to DR 10, and AC 25 drops it to DR 5. A generic peasant with a bow who crits could potientially do damage, but odds aren't good. A high level fighter could easily have +8 to attack on their own (+5 from standard attacks, +3 from ability), and thus hit AC 20 often and AC 25 with some frequency, thus throwing decent damage around. With something granting advantage, or magic weapons, or whatever that gets yet more likely. Then, all of these drop by about 10 when it comes to dragons that aren't flying.

[Raineh Daze]

*Snip*

To this entire post: what. No, seriously, you are basing the threat that an enemy should pose entirely upon it's size. The first major rebuttal that comes to mind is a Demilich. It is a single body part. It would also mop the floor with most things.

[noparlpf]

To this entire post: what. No, seriously, you are basing the threat that an enemy should pose entirely upon it's size. The first major rebuttal that comes to mind is a Demilich. It is a single body part. It would also mop the floor with most things.

Uh, we were talking dragons, I thought. That post makes plenty of sense if we're still talking dragons.

[Raineh Daze]

Uh, we were talking dragons, I thought. That post makes plenty of sense if we're still talking dragons.

Oh, talking dragons?

A peasant is still dead meat, even to a newborn. Peasant vs Wyrmling = Wyrmling Dinner-time.

[Scow2]

How powerful should Dragons be?

In your minds imagine the way you feel D&D should be. Then imagine yourself standing upon the rolling grassy hills in a serene dale. It's almost noon, without a cloud in sight. The summer heat hasn't quite arrived yet and a gentle breeze blows in from the north-west. A small castle over looks a large area of land under cultivation to the west. A gentle stream trickles by from the north, heading in a southerly direction. To the north, west and south lie meadows dotted with the occasional patch of woodland. The dale is surrounded by tall, forested hills.

Suddenly a Red Dragon appears in the skies above the dale. He is large and angry, setting fire to the eastern hills. The beast flies south and lands.

The following questions will assess your interpretation of how YOU believe D&D should treat Dragons based upon what YOU believe can slay the dragon...


1. Can a rabble of 100 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))? No. There aren't enough of them to use their numbers to their advantage, and most would not stand their ground against it.

There's one exception: If there's a large number of callow farmboy youth in this rabble, and the Dragon kills their parents before them - then it's dealing with a bunch of guys field-promoted to Adventurers.


2. Can an army 1,000 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))? Most likely not. Assuming they have enough motivation to fight the dragon to stick around even after deciding they're not scared of it, they'll still have a tough time. However, if the dragon just decides to land and let them attack it, the dragon deserves to die horribly. They're tough, but they're NOT invincible.


3. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)? ~ 30% chance of non-dragon victory, especially if they're armed with polearms, remain mobile, and try to use a better strategy than "Stand in a clump and try to mob it when it lands". I feel that although a dragon should be able to fly indefinitely for travel, it shouldn't be able to just fly around indefinitely while strafing the ground with its breath weapon. There should probably be some sort of mechanic to force a dragon to land a few rounds after using its breath weapon. The battle WILL have heavy losses though.

4. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)? About 40% chance of victory. More if there is a PC involved behind organizing the anti-dragon force. However, there will still be horrific losses even in the case of victory.


5. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming the vast majority are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)? It's a MUCH tougher fight for the dragon. Probably 70% chance of nondragon victory. He'll be forced to resort to slowly whittling them down, scaring them away, and forcing a route through intimidation more than his actual combat prowess.


6. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)? Poor dragon. Assuming the army has the wits about it to stand and fight, 95% chance of nondragon victory. However, people are irrational, and the Dragon's terrifying presence can still force them all to retreat.


7. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess ranged weapons)? Now we're dealing with knights, who are generally more competant than the average adventurer. They also have mounts, which allow them to scatter and regroup swiftly to mitigate the breath weapon, and decend on it quickly if it lands, skewering it on their lances. Given that they're knights, there should be at least a small number of outright Paladins among them, with the rest being Fighters and even Rangers. There's also a chance of Pegasai chargers. At this point, give that the Dragon's on the offensive, the Knights are likely to lose - A few lance-charges should be able to take the dragon down if it lands, but it's likely to kill half of them in its initial firebreath passes if they don't scatter BEFORE they realize what's going on. The dragon should be able to win this encounter, but suffer serious injury if it didn't plan its attack right. Of course, it's highly possible any one of these knights can kill the dragon on its own.


8. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)? There's a good chance these knights are Elves now. The low number still puts the advantage firmly in the side with the number, but they have more tricks to disrupt 'standard dragon tactics', and force it to fight more intelligently.


9. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)? Yes, but they'd suffer some casualties.


10. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)? Poor dragon doesn't stand a chance in any straight-up fight, but he might kill a large number of them.


9. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)? Poor dragon doesn't stand a chance, especially if any of those Chargers are pegasai.


11. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)? "Dragon, you've come to the wrong neighborhood." This is like the grandest force ever seen. I doubt even a Titan could take this mess out.


12. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored; most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers; not a single man in the army uses a ranged weapon)? The firepower and number of meatshields presented by this army could easily defeat the dragon even without their ranged weapons, especially if they fight intelligently and with organization. However, they're also much more vulnerable to cascading morale failure, and the sheer number of friendly footmen greatly reduces the mobility options of the knights. The dragon would not be able to brute-force the army, and instead have to use its intimidation, breath weapon, unparalleled mobility and speed, toughness, discretion and large number of natural weapons to, and keep the army off-balance and on the defensive. Large forces have high inertia.


13. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons); most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)? This dragon has to use more care than above, because its mobility is not as great of an advantage. However, it still has herd-hitting attacks and a terrifying presence that could completely demoralize and route the enemy force, despite actually being outmatched. However, due to so many knights, the odds are VERY slim of this working.


14. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)? Probably not. But, if they're PCs, it's highly possible they'd come up with a plan so crazy, or roll stupidly well, and spawn another post in the "Things I am no longer allowed to do" thread.


15. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)? Dragon clearly has the advantage, but, again, if we're dealing with PCs there's a chance they can get an underdog victory. But even victory would still be a Near-TPK.


16. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?The advantage is too the Dragon, but its possible for the PCs to beat the odds without resorting to outrageous Player-Character shenanigans.


17. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)? 50/50 matchup. Dragon might clobber the adventurers, or the Adventurers will scrape a victory at the cost of almost all else (Including likely two or three of their number)


18. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)? The advantage is with the Adventurers, but there's a high risk it will be an Almost-TPK.


19. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (armor for everyone and a wand for the Wizard), one +2 Item (weapons for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff) and two wondrous items)? It would be a tough, epic fight, but the advantage goes to the Adventurers.


20. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)? It would be a tough fight, but it's nothing they shouldn't be able to handle at this level.


21. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (everyone's secondary weapon, save the Wizard who gets a a wand), one +2 Item (armor for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff), one +3 Item (main weapons for everyone, with the wizard who gets 27 scrolls (3 per spell level); as well as three wondrous items per adventurer)?This fight SHOULD be pretty easy - a bit of a challenge, but nothing they can't handle. However, if they're PCs, there's a high chance of them doing something completely stupid and suicidal, and thus the dragon wins with another entry in the "TPKs I get blamed for" thread.


The principals I work on are "Large masses have high inertia. If they gain the advantage, it's hard to take it away. But, a singular, strong force can hit them hard and fast enough to keep them from gaining that advantage" "Dragons are tough, but not invincible. Their defenses are difficulty to land a solid hit, and the ability to take those hits. They aren't immune to any sort of damage, but they can certainly seem to be (Nobody notices -1 HP out of an excess of 200). " "Anyone can be a hero. The more people you have on a task, the more likely one of them thinks about doing something crazy enough to work." and "Morale failures cascade - Even if you're not afraid of the dragon itself, you might be afraid of trying to take it without the help of those who couldn't stand before it... or you might be afraid of being trampled by those who's morale has already broken."

None of these situations have victory for either side as a guarantee, because there are FAR too many variables in play.

If I were to "Fix" 5e's dragons, I'd force them to land after every 2 or 3 breath weapon attack attempts, and give them ACs ranging from 18 (For weak dragons) to 25 (Off the RNG for most people, but still capable of being hit semiregularly by a high-level character), with an average of 22.

[Raineh Daze]

"Dragon, you've come to the wrong neighborhood." This is like the grandest force ever seen. I doubt even a Titan could take this mess out.

Agincourt. The French had over 10,000 knights.

They still lost, but hey.

Seriously, for them to be a threat to anything much, you shouldn't be able to toss less than an army at a dragon and be expected to obtain victory.

[Knaight]

Oh, talking dragons?

A peasant is still dead meat, even to a newborn. Peasant vs Wyrmling = Wyrmling Dinner-time.

This would be the point of contention. I'd be fine with a peasant having a decent chance in close combat, or even if they are exchanging thown weapons or breath weapons, with the dragons getting much more dangerous as they get larger.

[Raineh Daze]

This would be the point of contention. I'd be fine with a peasant having a decent chance in close combat, or even if they are exchanging thown weapons or breath weapons, with the dragons getting much more dangerous as they get larger.

It's someone with a makeshift weapon, no training, no armour, no relevant skills, against a predator born with more durability than an adult human, scales, flight, and a magical breath weapon. Oh, and of the evil types, all but one are born with intelligence in the 8-10 range (or at least, they were in 3.5).

If it's a newborn Red Dragon, they're most definitely screwed because those things are born Medium sized.

[Water_Bear]

I'd be fine with a peasant having a decent chance in close combat, or even if they are exchanging thown weapons or breath weapons, with the dragons getting much more dangerous as they get larger.

But that means that a Wyrmling is less threatening than a trained attack dog. Even criminals with guns have a pretty tough time of it fighting an attack dog, and they're not even mythical beasts.

[Scow2]

Agincourt. The French had over 10,000 knights.

They still lost, but hey.

Seriously, for them to be a threat to anything much, you shouldn't be able to toss less than an army at a dragon and be expected to obtain victory.

The french lost against a bunch of English Longbowmen (Really strong guys with arrows that killed everything at range, and huge mallets that broke anything dumb enough to get in melee with them), and on a field where their horses were more of a detriment than a boon. Again - Superior forces can be wrecked by stupid strategy. An English Longbowman is just as good as any knight.

And your assertion that anything less than an army can't beat a dragon flies in the face of so much fantasy where a lone hero can defeat the beast - even the original source material. And, that lone hero doesn't need to be much more than a cut above the rest.

And tossing an army at a dragon isn't something that should work, because a dragon would KNOW when it's outmatched by something, and can retreat and harry an enemy without subjecting itself to counterattacks. It is still a big, intimidating beast capable of matching any squad, and can thrash an army with its mobility, extreme toughness (High HP and AC, not damage immunity), formation-breaking attacks, keen intelligence, and magical potency. Armies are not optimal against dragons because the Dragon can usually run away faster than the army can pursue it - and if an army tries to assault its lair, they have to deal with militarized, mobilized kobolds. A small strikeforce is FAR more optimal for facing down a dragon, which is smart enough to know to use the bulk and numbers of its enemies against them.

[Felhammer]

To me a Dragon should be a serious threat to Kingdoms. They are forces of nature that require the bravest men and women to slay. An army of peasants cannot hope to defeat a Dragon. An army of solider/Men-At-Arms are no match for a Dragon. An army of Knights with Ranged Weapons would have a slim chance of slaying a Dragon (10/90). A mixed force army would prove a challenge to the Dragon (with the chaff serving as distractions and meat shields) but the odds still favor of the Dragon by a significant margin (20/80) (artillery would definitely aid the army but would be quickly destroyed by the Dragon, for obvious reasons). A band of 5th level PCs with Magic Weapons would fair no better than the peasants. 10th level characters with Magic items stand a better chance but it would still be a dire proposition (10/90). 15th level PC's would have a decent chance of beating the average Dragon (50/50). 20th Level PCs would be able to slay the average Dragon with a fair bit of difficulty (70/30) and be able to stand toe to toe with the oldest Dragons (50/50 shot at best).

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think this question also depends a lot on the setting in question: To speak just of my own games, in one setting I've run dragons are about as common as wolves or bears: Dangerous to a common person wandering alone in the woods but no threat at all to a skilled hunter, and commonly kept as trophies. In another setting I've run, dragons are so ridiculously powerful that every time a wyrmling is born, it literally devours an entire world within minutes after it hatches. Both of these settings could have been done in D&D.

[Raineh Daze]

The french lost against a bunch of English Longbowmen (Really strong guys with arrows that killed everything at range, and huge mallets that broke anything dumb enough to get in melee with them), and on a field where their horses were more of a detriment than a boon. Again - Superior forces can be wrecked by stupid strategy. An English Longbowman is just as good as any knight.

From what I recall, they got bogged down by mud and the longbowmen basically went around stabbing the French in the face.

Anyway, the point here was that you said a thousand knights is an amazing force. Not really. Certainly shouldn't be challenging divinity. :smalltongue:


And your assertion that anything less than an army can't beat a dragon flies in the face of so much fantasy where a lone hero can defeat the beast - even the original source material. And, that lone hero doesn't need to be much more than a cut above the rest.

Eh, not really. It seems to be that if you throw an army against a dragon, it's mincemeat. Throw one guy of unusual talent, much more likely to succeed. Levels are hardly a linear thing--no number of level 1 peasants is going to take out a dragon; they just don't have the abilities. A tenth level character is worth far more than ten peasants. And twenty kobolds aren't equivalent to a literal demigod.

So, if you want dragonslaying? You find someone exceptional, or a group of them. You don't rely on sheer numbers.


And tossing an army at a dragon isn't something that should work, because a dragon would KNOW when it's outmatched by something, and can retreat and harry an enemy without subjecting itself to counterattacks. It is still a big, intimidating beast capable of matching any squad, and can thrash an army with its mobility, extreme toughness (High HP and AC, not damage immunity), formation-breaking attacks, keen intelligence, and magical potency. Armies are not optimal against dragons because the Dragon can usually run away faster than the army can pursue it - and if an army tries to assault its lair, they have to deal with militarized, mobilized kobolds. A small strikeforce is FAR more optimal for facing down a dragon, which is smart enough to know to use the bulk and numbers of its enemies against them.

And the small strikeforce, if not of exceptional characters, would be too weak to succeed. So you choose the army instead. And they might succeed, but they're far more likely to fail unless you were lucky enough to be attacked by a young white dragon.

[Scow2]

From what I recall, they got bogged down by mud and the longbowmen basically went around stabbing the French in the face.

Anyway, the point here was that you said a thousand knights is an amazing force. Not really. Certainly shouldn't be challenging divinity. :smalltongue:Fortunately, dragons AREN'T divine in any way, shape, or form. They're just big, scary lizards capable of scaring an entire town or city not through brute strength, but a combination of their strength, intelligence, and arcane might.



Eh, not really. It seems to be that if you throw an army against a dragon, it's mincemeat. Throw one guy of unusual talent, much more likely to succeed. Levels are hardly a linear thing--no number of level 1 peasants is going to take out a dragon; they just don't have the abilities. A tenth level character is worth far more than ten peasants. And twenty kobolds aren't equivalent to a literal demigod.

So, if you want dragonslaying? You find someone exceptional, or a group of them. You don't rely on sheer numbers.

And the small strikeforce, if not of exceptional characters, would be too weak to succeed. So you choose the army instead. And they might succeed, but they're far more likely to fail unless you were lucky enough to be attacked by a young white dragon.

The reason the Dragon is unassailable to an army isn't because it has Tarrasque-style toughness, though. It's because it's smart and versatile enough to clobber an army almost regardless of how skilled it is. An army that marches on a dragon will not face a foe that simply sits in the middle of them laughing at their weapons - those weapons are still a threat in those large numbers. What they end up fighting is a flying, giant foe that doesn't let them land a solid hit on it, that fights around the fringes of the battlefield (Or plops itself in the center to momentarily destroy their coordination, send them panicking, and disrupt their formations, then gets out before they can recover). It also uses its firebreath to where it will do the most damage to both troop numbers AND morale. Not being scared of the big lizard flying around is one thing. Not being scared of the big lizard that just scared everyone around you and sent them trying to trample you is another. As is not being scared of the great big lizard that just sent your own allies trampling you and is now eating the guy you were just playing poker with the other night... while breathing a huge cone of fire incinerating your best friends since boot camp. The dragon has "Shock and Awe" at its primary advantage, even if it actually lacks the durability in a fight it doesn't use such a strategy.

On the subjects of "Knights shouldn't be able to kill Dragons"... sorry, but Dragon-slaying is what knights do. It's part of the job description. Real-world knights just tend to not be as awesome as Fantasy Knights are. Part of the Prerequisites to being a Knight are "Be a hero of some sort" first. They are the military elite, and are superior to most Adventurers until at least the mid levels.

[lesser_minion]

It's someone with a makeshift weapon, no training, no armour, no relevant skills, against a predator born with more durability than an adult human, scales, flight, and a magical breath weapon. Oh, and of the evil types, all but one are born with intelligence in the 8-10 range (or at least, they were in 3.5).

Why should scales make a difference? The whole "dragon scales are the hardest things EVAR!!!!" thing is barely sensible for the biggest and oldest dragons, and we're talking about one that's barely hatched.

And indeed, how are these things "born with more durability than an adult human"? They're no bigger, and their biology isn't that bizarre. In 3rd edition, they have more and better hit dice, but how is that an exception to the principle that most D&D rules and statistics don't imply anything about the setting that isn't utter bollocks, even when they're supposed to?

[Amidus Drexel]

How powerful should Dragons be?

Good question; I've tried to answer it as thoroughly as possible.

Note: I use age/size categories as general terms; I know they're (traditionally, anyway) different for different varieties of dragons.

Spoilered for length:

1. Can a rabble of 100 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))?


Wyrmling (tiny): Likely, although there will be significant casualties or total failure if the dragon is smart enough to kite them.
Very Young (small): Maybe. There will be significant casualties, if they even succeed.
Juvenile (medium): Probably not. The dragon will undoubtedly be smart enough to kite them at this age, and the ones that have ranged attacks will probably miss.
Adult (large): No. The dragon could mop them up in melee and maybe take a few scratches.
Mature Adult (Huge): Definitely not. The peasants couldn't hurt the dragon at all.
Old (Gargantuan): Barring divine intervention, nothing will save these peasants.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


2. Can an army 1,000 Peasants slay the Dragon (assuming there are very few archers and most peasants are wielding the most basic of weapons (clubs, Pitchforks, etc.) and minimal armor (some leather at best))?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, unless the dragon is incredibly lucky. Again, there will be significant casualties if the dragon is smart enough to kite them.
Very Young (small): Likely, although they'll take some reasonable damage if the dragon kites them.
Juvenile (medium): Maybe. If the peasants win, it'll be from overwhelming the dragon. The dragon might win if it kited them. (and it's old enough that it should). There will be heavy casualties.
Adult (large): Only if the dragon is incredibly unlucky. The dragon will still take some damage (from sheer numbers) if it tries to mop them up in melee, but it'll win. The dragon takes minimal damage if it kites them.
Mature Adult (Huge): Definitely not. The peasants couldn't hurt the dragon at all. An infinite number of similarly-equipped peasants couldn't affect it.
Old (Gargantuan): Barring divine intervention, nothing will save these peasants.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


3. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Maybe. If the dragon is smart enough to kite them, it wins hands down. If it tries to fight them in melee, it doesn't stand a chance. Very swingy.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Probably not. The dragon is smart enough to kite them by this point, and they have no ranged weapons. They might stand a chance if it tries to fight them in melee.
Adult (large): Same as above.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The dragon could wipe the floor with them, and probably kill them in two or three rounds with minimal or no damage whatsoever.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these militiamen.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


4. Can a force of 100 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, and the dragon should run if it wants to live. Minimal casualties.
Very Young (small): Same as above, with slightly higher casualties.
Juvenile (medium): Likely, although there will be reasonably heavy casualties, as the dragon will be smart enough to kite them.
Adult (large): Probably not. The dragon will take some damage, but it's got a very good chance of winning up close or at range.
Mature Adult (Huge): No, although the dragon may take some minimal damage. It could wipe the floor with them easily.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these militiamen.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


5. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming the vast majority are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored but no ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Maybe. If the dragon is smart enough to kite them, it wins hands down. If it tries to fight them in melee, it doesn't stand a chance. Very swingy.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Probably not. The dragon will take significant damage if it tries to fight them in melee (and maybe even lose), but will slaughter them at range.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The dragon could wipe the floor with them, and will take minimal damage
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these militiamen.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


6. Can an army 1,000 Men-At-Arms slay the Dragon (assuming most are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, and the dragon should run if it wants to live. Minimal casualties.
Very Young (small): Same as above, with slightly higher casualties.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, with slightly higher casualties.
Adult (large): Probably not. The dragon will take some damage, but it's got a very good chance of winning at range, and it's definitely smart enough to kite them.
Mature Adult (Huge): No, although the dragon may take some minimal damage. It could wipe the floor with them, although not all at once.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these militiamen.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


7. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Maybe. If the dragon is smart enough to kite them, it wins hands down (although it will take a long time). If it tries to fight them in melee, it doesn't stand a chance. Very swingy.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Probably not. The dragon will take significant damage if it tries to fight them in melee (and has a decent chance of losing), but will slaughter them at range.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The dragon might take some damage in melee, but they are dead meat. It wins in ten rounds, tops.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might scratch it if it ever lands.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


8. Can a band of 10 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, and the dragon should run if it wants to live. The knights will barely take any damage from it.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, although it might kill one or two if it's lucky.
Adult (large): Likely. The dragon has a decent chance of losing if it tries to fight in melee, but it's got a very good chance of winning at range, and it's definitely smart enough to kite them.
Mature Adult (Huge): No, although the dragon may take some minimal damage. It could wipe the floor with them.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might scratch it.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


9. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Maybe. If the dragon is smart enough to kite them, it wins hands down (although it will take a very long time). If it tries to fight them in melee, it doesn't stand a chance. Very swingy.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Maybe. The dragon will take significant damage if it tries to fight them in melee (and will probably lose), but will slaughter them at range.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The dragon might take some damage in melee, but they are dead meat.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might scratch it if it ever lands.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


10. Can a force of 100 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, and the dragon should run if it wants to live. The knights will barely take any damage from it.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, although it might kill one or two if it's lucky.
Adult (large): Likely. The dragon will lose if it tries to fight in melee, but it's got a decent chance of winning at range, and it's definitely smart enough to kite them.
Mature Adult (Huge): No, although the dragon will take some damage. It could still wipe the floor with them.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might scratch it.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


9. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, however, none possess any ranged weapons)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Maybe. If the dragon is smart enough to kite them, it wins hands down (although it will take a very long time). If it tries to fight them in melee, it doesn't stand a chance. Very swingy.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Same as above.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The dragon will take some damage in melee, but they are dead meat.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might scratch it if it ever lands.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


11. Can a force of 1,000 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming most are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, and the dragon will be lucky if it can run away. It probably can't reliably damage the army at all.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Yes, and the dragon should run it it wants to live, although it might kill one or two if it's lucky.
Adult (large): Likely. The dragon will lose if it tries to fight in melee, and will probably be overwhelmed at range. It could win, if it got lucky.
Mature Adult (Huge): Probably not, although the dragon will take some damage. The knights are numerous enough that they could overwhelm the dragon, though.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might deal some minimal damage to it.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


12. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored; most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers; not a single man in the army uses a ranged weapon)?


The peasants will die very quickly in all of these scenarios, by the way.

Wyrmling (tiny): Maybe. If the dragon is smart enough to kite them, it wins hands down (although it will take a very long time). If it tries to fight them in melee, it doesn't stand a chance. Very swingy.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Maybe. The dragon will take significant damage if it tries to fight them in melee (and has a decent chance of losing), but will slaughter them at range.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The dragon might take some damage in melee, but they are dead meat. The peasants and militiamen can't hurt it.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save the army. They might scratch it if it ever lands.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


13. Can an army of 500 Peasants, 450 Men-At-Arms and 50 Knights slay the Dragon (assuming the peasants only wield the most basic of weapons (clubs, pitchforks, etc.) and and minimal armor (some leather at best); most of the Men-At-Arms are 1st-3rd level (with just 1% being 5th level), decently armed and armored with half being well trained with and possessing ranged weapons); most of the Knights are 5th-7th level (with just 1% being 9th level), very well armed and armored (half possessing either +1 Armor or a +1 Weapons), all of whom stride into battle atop mighty chargers, half of whom are trained to use (and possess) Long Bows)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, and the dragon will be lucky if it can run away. It probably can't reliably damage the army at all.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Yes, and the dragon should run it it wants to live, although it could still slaughter the peasants.
Adult (large): Maybe. The dragon has a decent chance of losing if it tries to fight in melee, and will take some significant damage at range.
Mature Adult (Huge): No, although the dragon will take some damage. The peasants and the militiamen can't hurt it.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save these knights. They might deal some minimal damage to it.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


14. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes, although it might get lucky and kill one of the party.
Very Young (small): Same as above, but might kill a few of them.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, but might kill them all.
Adult (large): Probably not. The fighter and wizard are the only ones that could hurt it, and it will slaughter them at range. The party only stands a chance in melee, and it's not a very good one.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The party is dead.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save the party.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


15. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 5th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes.
Very Young (small): Same as above, but might kill a one of them if it gets lucky.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, but might kill a few of them.
Adult (large): Probably not. It will slaughter them at range, but the party technically stands a chance in melee.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The party is dead. They might scratch it.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save the party.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


16. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes; the dragon doesn't stand a chance. It'll be lucky if it can run away.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, but might kill one if it's lucky.
Adult (large): Likely. The fighter and casters are the only ones that could reliably hurt it, and it will slaughter them at range. The party stands a chance in melee, but it's not particularly good.
Mature Adult (Huge): No. The party is dead. Only the casters stand a chance of hurting it at all.
Old (Gargantuan): Divine intervention is the only thing that will save the party.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


17. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 10th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (Melee weapons for everyone save the Wizard, who gets a Wand)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes; it doesn't stand a chance. It'll be lucky if it can run away.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above, but might kill one if it's lucky.
Adult (large): Likely. This is a fair fight.
Mature Adult (Huge): Probably not. The party could seriously hurt it, but the dragon is still much more powerful.
Old (Gargantuan): No. They could deal some minimal damage to it.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh.


18. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes; the dragon doesn't stand a chance. It'll be lucky if it can run away.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Same as above, but it might kill one if it's lucky.
Mature Adult (Huge): Maybe. The fighter and casters are the only ones that could reliably hurt it. The fight is in the dragon's favor, but not by much.
Old (Gargantuan): No, although the casters could deal some damage to it.
Wyrm (Colossal): Don't make me laugh. The casters might scratch it before they're annihilated.


19. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 15th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (armor for everyone and a wand for the Wizard), one +2 Item (weapons for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff) and two wondrous items)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes; the dragon doesn't stand a chance. It'll be lucky if it can run away.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Same as above, but might kill one if it's lucky.
Mature Adult (Huge): Likely. This is a fair fight.
Old (Gargantuan): Probably not. They could deal some serious damage to it, but the dragon is still far more powerful.
Wyrm (Colossal): No, although they could deal some minimal damage to it.


20. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear)?


Wyrmling (tiny): Yes; the dragon doesn't stand a chance. It'll be lucky if it can run away.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Same as above.
Mature Adult (Huge): Maybe. The fighter and casters are the only ones that could reliably hurt it. The fight is in the party's favor, but not by much. Someone will die.
Old (Gargantuan): Probably not. The fighter and casters are the only ones that could reliably hurt it, and the fight is heavily in the dragon's favor
Wyrm (Colossal): No. The casters could do some damage to it, but they're still dead.


21. Can a band of the four archetypal Adventurers (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard) slay the Dragon (assuming all the Adventurers are 20th level, everyone is kitted out with bog standard non-magical gear save for one +1 Item (everyone's secondary weapon, save the Wizard who gets a a wand), one +2 Item (armor for everyone save the wizard who gets a Staff), one +3 Item (main weapons for everyone, with the wizard who gets 27 scrolls (3 per spell level); as well as three wondrous items per adventurer)?

Wyrmling (tiny): Yes; the dragon doesn't stand a chance. It'll be lucky if it can run away.
Very Young (small): Same as above.
Juvenile (medium): Same as above.
Adult (large): Same as above.
Mature Adult (Huge): Same as above, but might kill one if it's lucky.
Old (Gargantuan): Likely. This is a fair fight.
Wyrm (Colossal): Maybe. The dragon has a serious advantage, but the party is powerful and has a reasonable chance of killing it.

[Alejandro]

A dragon can be as awesome or weak as the GM and players agree to make it. No book will stop anyone.

[Raineh Daze]

Fortunately, dragons AREN'T divine in any way, shape, or form. They're just big, scary lizards capable of scaring an entire town or city not through brute strength, but a combination of their strength, intelligence, and arcane might.

I should make a note to not make jokes based on something you've said, even if that seems like a joke. Scroll up, look at where you said Titan. There. That's it. I did not mean dragons. :smallsigh:


The reason the Dragon is unassailable to an army isn't because it has Tarrasque-style toughness, though. It's because it's smart and versatile enough to clobber an army almost regardless of how skilled it is. An army that marches on a dragon will not face a foe that simply sits in the middle of them laughing at their weapons - those weapons are still a threat in those large numbers. What they end up fighting is a flying, giant foe that doesn't let them land a solid hit on it, that fights around the fringes of the battlefield (Or plops itself in the center to momentarily destroy their coordination, send them panicking, and disrupt their formations, then gets out before they can recover). It also uses its firebreath to where it will do the most damage to both troop numbers AND morale. Not being scared of the big lizard flying around is one thing. Not being scared of the big lizard that just scared everyone around you and sent them trying to trample you is another. As is not being scared of the great big lizard that just sent your own allies trampling you and is now eating the guy you were just playing poker with the other night... while breathing a huge cone of fire incinerating your best friends since boot camp. The dragon has "Shock and Awe" at its primary advantage, even if it actually lacks the durability in a fight it doesn't use such a strategy.

Having scales equal or superior to plate armour, a huge natural reach, and sheer size count for something, too. Quite a lot, actually. If you DON'T have any individuals capable of standing up to that, the army is still your best bet.


On the subjects of "Knights shouldn't be able to kill Dragons"... sorry, but Dragon-slaying is what knights do. It's part of the job description. Real-world knights just tend to not be as awesome as Fantasy Knights are. Part of the Prerequisites to being a Knight are "Be a hero of some sort" first. They are the military elite, and are superior to most Adventurers until at least the mid levels.

I want to know sort of knights you think populate most of the world. In an entire kingdom, you might get, say, ten or twenty like that. Yeah, they're heroes. That is separate from being knights. You might get a knightly order like that--but that is a specific group, not a general class.

Yes, the Knights of the Round Table could do it. At least two knights there are dragonslayers on their own (Lancelot and Tristan). Random guy who happens to have been born into nobility? No chance.

I've been assuming general knights, not the sorts that would be mid-to-high levelled adventurers in their own right. :smallsigh:


Why should scales make a difference? The whole "dragon scales are the hardest things EVAR!!!!" thing is barely sensible for the biggest and oldest dragons, and we're talking about one that's barely hatched.

And indeed, how are these things "born with more durability than an adult human"? They're no bigger, and their biology isn't that bizarre. In 3rd edition, they have more and better hit dice, but how is that an exception to the principle that most D&D rules and statistics don't imply anything about the setting that isn't utter bollocks, even when they're supposed to?

Err... the scales make a difference because they're tougher than human flesh. It is, in effect, a lightly-armoured warrior against an untrained civilian. The civilian is going to lose.

Their biology is that bizarre. They are giant reptiles that can still somehow fly and have elemental breath attacks, and can trivially simulate human speech despite being entirely ill-suited for that. oh, and shapeshifting. Lots of that.

[Knaight]

A dragon can be as awesome or weak as the GM and players agree to make it. No book will stop anyone.

However, the existence of certain mechanics does make it easier to set them up as wanted. Heavy DR has one effect, high AC another, conditional flying AC yet another, certain movement and range rules yet another, so on and so forth. For instance, if the ranged rules are written in such a way that elevation is a very big deal (say, you get 2 damage dice by default with most weapons, 1 when firing largely upward, and 3 when firing largely downward), it will encourage situations where the dragons are devastating when attacking from above, yet can be taken down pretty easily if you manage to get the high ground when they are landed and fire down on them. If bypassable DR is included it encourages heavy weaponry or highly skilled dragon slayers, if HP is the main defense it encourages groups. So on and so forth.

[Alejandro]

However, the existence of certain mechanics does make it easier to set them up as wanted. Heavy DR has one effect, high AC another, conditional flying AC yet another, certain movement and range rules yet another, so on and so forth. For instance, if the ranged rules are written in such a way that elevation is a very big deal (say, you get 2 damage dice by default with most weapons, 1 when firing largely upward, and 3 when firing largely downward), it will encourage situations where the dragons are devastating when attacking from above, yet can be taken down pretty easily if you manage to get the high ground when they are landed and fire down on them. If bypassable DR is included it encourages heavy weaponry or highly skilled dragon slayers, if HP is the main defense it encourages groups. So on and so forth.

Right. And any GM can make any of those happen, as long as the players agree.

[Flickerdart]

Any GM can rename the entry for "housecat" to "dragon". That's really not the point of the exercise.

[Zombimode]

As should be clear by now, for something like "How powerful should Dragons be?" you will not find a common ground. Peoples opinion on this are just to diverse.

[Scow2]

Having scales equal or superior to plate armour, a huge natural reach, and sheer size count for something, too. Quite a lot, actually. If you DON'T have any individuals capable of standing up to that, the army is still your best bet.
That high AC, natural reach, sheer size (Lots of HP!) all allow the dragon to be a threat to an army if it fights intelligently, without allowing it to just soak everything like some invincible beast. My assessments of the chances of any given army taking them, though, assumed both sides fight along the entire range of optimal capacity - stupid armies vs. stupid dragons, and smart armies vs smart dragons, stupid armies vs. smart dragons, and smart armies vs. stupid dragons, and every combination in between... well, the dragon's not fighting entirely optimally, since both sides fighting is required (I discarded results where the dragon says "Screw this, I'm out of here, and maybe I'll harry them later").

The dragon I'm fielding is also ~CR 15 (Adult red). To me, a Knight in Fantasy is at least a level 1 Paladin or Fighter or Ranger or Cleric, but they range from level 1-9. In the organized armies, the Knights are all level 6-9. I assume the Men-at-arms to be levels 1-3 of a combat-capable class, while the Peasants are level 1 or 2 with Bad at Everything classes. The dragon's breath and attacks are instagibs against everything but the knights. As the armies get larger, they gain more strategic opportunities to flank, regroup, take losses, and immobilize+shut down the dragon, but they also become more vulnerable to Shock+Awe tactics and prone to cascade morale failure.

[Raineh Daze]

That high AC, natural reach, sheer size (Lots of HP!) all allow the dragon to be a threat to an army if it fights intelligently, without allowing it to just soak everything like some invincible beast. My assessments of the chances of any given army taking them, though, assumed both sides fight along the entire range of optimal capacity - stupid armies vs. stupid dragons, and smart armies vs smart dragons, stupid armies vs. smart dragons, and smart armies vs. stupid dragons, and every combination in between... well, the dragon's not fighting entirely optimally, since both sides fighting is required (I discarded results where the dragon says "Screw this, I'm out of here, and maybe I'll harry them later").

The dragon I'm fielding is also ~CR 15 (Adult red). To me, a Knight in Fantasy is at least a level 1 Paladin or Fighter or Ranger or Cleric, but they range from level 1-9. In the organized armies, the Knights are all level 6-9. I assume the Men-at-arms to be levels 1-3 of a combat-capable class, while the Peasants are level 1 or 2 with Bad at Everything classes. The dragon's breath and attacks are instagibs against everything but the knights. As the armies get larger, they gain more strategic opportunities to flank, regroup, take losses, and immobilize+shut down the dragon, but they also become more vulnerable to Shock+Awe tactics and prone to cascade morale failure.

I'd have pegged knights, as the most potent members of an army, at level 3-5. Men-at-arms are 1-3, giving some overlap. Peasants? Level 1, no combat skills. They'd actually get a useful class before getting to level 2.

Anything above level 5 doesn't seem generic enough to throw into a generic force.

[Oracle_Hunter]

As should be clear by now, for something like "How powerful should Dragons be?" you will not find a common ground. Peoples opinion on this are just to diverse.
Perhaps not, but I think a better question would be "How Powerful Should a Dragon in D&D be?"

The key point of this question is that D&D assumes that small groups of diversely trained individuals who rely on teamwork to overcome challenges (i.e. Adventuring Parties) are the best choice for dealing with threats like Dragons. If they weren't, then "slaying dragons" would not be a feature of the game -- which, I think we agree, should be part of a game called Dungeons & Dragons.

On this score, I would say that mass-tactics (whether militia or fantastic armies) should be ineffective or extremely costly versus Dragons. This is why, traditionally, D&D Dragons have had anti-swarm abilities ranging from Breath Weapons to Fear Aura.

On the other hand, Dragons should not be built to freely wreck Adventuring Parties or no one would recruit Adventuring Parties to kill them. To this end I think it makes the most sense to make Dragons vulnerable to "combined arms" tactics which require close coordination to accomplish. Or, to put it another way, Dragons can have weak points that only need a few people to exploit, but those people have to be superior warriors.

In short, D&D Dragons should most closely resemble Death Stars :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Right. And any GM can make any of those happen, as long as the players agree.

Sure, but if you need to houserule in a whole bunch of mechanics just to cover the basics of what you want, the system is clearly not working particularly well for you.

[lesser_minion]

Err... the scales make a difference because they're tougher than human flesh. It is, in effect, a lightly-armoured warrior against an untrained civilian. The civilian is going to lose.

For something that immature, the scales wouldn't be that hard -- and the dragon's own claws would be small, underdeveloped, and perhaps even soft as well. It's actually very reasonable to give the points for better protection to the peasant here.

And don't forget that a pitchfork, flail, or bill-hook offers a much longer reach than any of the dragon's natural weapons (except its breath attack, depending on what limitations it has this time around).

In general, it's far more reasonable to assume that a dragon's main threat comes from it being able to do serious damage if it fights well and its enemies fight poorly, rather than declaring it to be arbitrarily immune to anything that doesn't have a certain number of plusses attached to it.

[Scow2]

For something that immature, the scales wouldn't be that hard -- and the dragon's own claws would be small, underdeveloped, and perhaps even soft as well. It's actually very reasonable to give the points for better protection to the peasant here.

And don't forget that a pitchfork, flail, or bill-hook offers a much longer reach than any of the dragon's natural weapons (except its breath attack, depending on what limitations it has this time around).

In general, it's far more reasonable to assume that a dragon's main threat comes from it being able to do serious damage if it fights well and its enemies fight poorly, rather than declaring it to be arbitrarily immune to anything that doesn't have a certain number of plusses attached to it.
Dragons are born FAR more self-sufficient than any other animal. It doesn't break out of its egg until it's strong enough to kick ass and take names on its own terms.

[Raineh Daze]

For something that immature, the scales wouldn't be that hard -- and the dragon's own claws would be small, underdeveloped, and perhaps even soft as well. It's actually very reasonable to give the points for better protection to the peasant here.

And don't forget that a pitchfork, flail, or bill-hook offers a much longer reach than any of the dragon's natural weapons (except its breath attack, depending on what limitations it has this time around).

In general, it's far more reasonable to assume that a dragon's main threat comes from it being able to do serious damage if it fights well and its enemies fight poorly, rather than declaring it to be arbitrarily immune to anything that doesn't have a certain number of plusses attached to it.

Stop trying to apply real world logic to the competence of newborn fictional dragons. They are, for some reason, statted out as a threat to low level adventurers whenever they come up. Therefore, it is logical to assume that they are better armed and armoured than a random farmer.

Also, they don't exist, and are highly magical creatures regardless of whether they have spellcasting or not. 'They should be born squishy and impotent' only generally applies to real life creatures. :smallsigh:

[Flickerdart]

I think the logic for wyrmling dragons being statted up as fairly strong is the same logic that gives us no stats for orc children - fighting a newly hatched dragon or an orc baby is not an encounter.

[Raineh Daze]

I think the logic for wyrmling dragons being statted up as fairly strong is the same logic that gives us no stats for orc children - fighting a newly hatched dragon or an orc baby is not an encounter.

They're statted up because they're not an encounter? :smallconfused:

[Amidus Drexel]

They're statted up because they're not an encounter? :smallconfused:

Ah, not quite what he meant. (Wyrmling being different from hatchling.)

They're statted up because they are an encounter; a dragon that's only a year or so old (a wyrmling) is still a serious danger (or downright overpowering, depending on the variety) to low-level characters, especially commoners.

Hatchlings aren't statted up (well... I think they're given stats in the 3.5e Draconomicon, but they're pathetically weak there), because hatchlings aren't powerful enough to make an encounter.

[Raineh Daze]

Wyrmling and hatchling, so far as I can tell from Draconomicon, are synonymous. It also mentions that their first order of business is eating, then finding somewhere to live... and then apparently going to pick fights with things. So yes, they're born ready to fight.

[SiuiS]

I think folks are missing the obvious. In the debate between regular monster and LEGENDARY EPIC BADASS we already have the answer;

Dragons in Next are not legendary badasses. They are dangerous predators but mortal and fallible.

A dragon in Next who is a legendary badass gets 1) a template, 2) a lair and 3) all the plot armor a DM could want.

There. Done. The rules that already exists solve the discrepancy.


Why do you say that? What keeps the dragon alive when it swoops in on my castle and a hundred crossbowmen open fire?

Resistance to crossbows, morale of the crossbow men, disadvantage on the attack roll, the fact that a cluster of the shooters are being evaporated with every dive.

The idea isn't that one side is clearly the winner. It's that whoever wins, winning is going to be hard.


You seem to be arguing two sides of the fence about commoners.

Not at all. I'm arguing for humanity. Nobles don't have spreadsheets. They don't calculate risk and reward very well. They are subject to poor decisions and hubris.

Peasants aren't super obedient worker bees, either. The core of what "guarantees" a dragon's success is human frailty. Adventurers tend to be more on the room willed, sociopathically rational side of things.

You lose a hundred peasants and kill a dragon? You've lost all that equipment (30 gold, maybe. More with armor), and you've lost a workforce. You're now not making up the money you lost. And yes, even without spreadsheets this is what a guy whose job is utilizing the common folk will think. Adventurers, however... 500gp to slay a dragon? They might not even come back, for one (meaning you don't pay them) and they may have just gone in to kill it gratis because dragons have hoards, and your job, as a responsible burgermeister, is to tell sociopaths these things so they go and kill dragons for the reward. You don't need to pay them at all, really.



The first is quite provable (though my back of the paper hand-wavey analysis only really indicates that it's within the realms of the maths).

I'm on shaky semantic ground because I was bein cute. The idea is that the math clearly DISproves it, not that the math wasn't possible.


Basically, high-level monsters (and PCs) are comparatively more fragile in 5e than they ever have been in the history of D&D. This is not in serious doubt, as even those who deny that this is a problem do so by pointing to the various defenses those monsters need (their lairs, or their minions, or the psychology of attackers, or whatever) in order to avoid being killed out of hand, and since all prior editions had essentially the same such defenses, as well as more specific, mechanical defenses if those were bypassed, it is plain that 5e monsters have fewer defenses overall: essentially, HP, and that's basically it.

The real question then is not "are they frailer?" (they are), nor even "does it matter?" (it does, by the very philosophy of bounded accuracy: "weak things can endanger stronger"), but "does the comparative frailty detract from the game, and if so, by how much?"

This.

From what I've gathered from play, no, it does not detract from the experience. But we will have to see, won't we?


Then high DC's become near impossible. :/

Yeah. DCs are the problem. Each additional die only increases the average of the roll by 1, right?



Nope. It is still a giant bloody lizard with thick scales, magical as hell, a terrifying aura, a breath weapon, and a tendency to have a superhuman intellect.

I actually miss the days when that superhuman intellect wasn't a given, when what set reds and Metallics apart was their propensity for speech, and when a great wyrm white or black might have 12 INT, maybe.


Ok, so my experiment has proven that most people think a Dragon should be a very powerful force in the world, even if it is trapped in a horrible situation.

Not really, it proves roughly twelve people are vocal about their hyperbole. When I think dragons, I think 1970s-1980s art. Like the covers of the BECMI boxes, actually.



The current ruleset does not make this possible.

How so?

[Arkhosia]

What classes and races are in the new edition so far besides half Orc and half elf

[Raineh Daze]

Yeah. DCs are the problem. Each additional die only increases the average of the roll by 1, right?

Depends what you mean. Going from d6 to d8 is +1, yeah. Going from 3d6 to 4d6 gets the average up to 14 but makes extremes less likely.


I actually miss the days when that superhuman intellect wasn't a given, when what set reds and Metallics apart was their propensity for speech, and when a great wyrm white or black might have 12 INT, maybe.

And which of the evil dragons gets the most coverage and has the most dragon-y breath weapon? :smalltongue:

Kinda annoying that all the good ones are apparently intelligent. Or were. Seriously? :smallsigh:


Not really, it proves roughly twelve people are vocal about their hyperbole. When I think dragons, I think 1970s-1980s art. Like the covers of the BECMI boxes, actually.

Honestly, I think of stuff like the one in that story with St. George. Had the entire place terrified of it and obediently doing what it wanted despite mostly hanging around in a cave. Or Smaug, where one dragon took out an entire settlement of dwarves pretty damn easily, then a more prepared settlement, and later on got killed by exactly one guy. Or the one in Beowulf (one guy, again) or Fafnir (one guy, sneak attack).

The idea of armies going dragonslaying runs counter to everything I've ever experienced with dragons. :smallfrown:

[Scow2]

Depends what you mean. Going from d6 to d8 is +1, yeah. Going from 3d6 to 4d6 gets the average up to 14 but makes extremes less likely.



And which of the evil dragons gets the most coverage and has the most dragon-y breath weapon? :smalltongue:

Kinda annoying that all the good ones are apparently intelligent. Or were. Seriously? :smallsigh:



Honestly, I think of stuff like the one in that story with St. George. Had the entire place terrified of it and obediently doing what it wanted despite mostly hanging around in a cave. Or Smaug, where one dragon took out an entire settlement of dwarves pretty damn easily, then a more prepared settlement, and later on got killed by exactly one guy. Or the one in Beowulf (one guy, again) or Fafnir (one guy, sneak attack).

The idea of armies going dragonslaying runs counter to everything I've ever experienced with dragons. :smallfrown:And the Dragons of Next don't really have that problem, because it's still one guy. Armies won't DARE to face a dragon - it's like trying to face down a small nation with WMDs.

[Silverbit]

What classes and races are in the new edition so far besides half Orc and half elf

If you mean 5e as a whole, it's got fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues, rangers, paladins, druids, monks and barbarians as classes, with races being human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome and the two you mentioned, with many subraces.

If you mean the latest update, they've added gnomes to it alongside the races you mentioned.

[Felhammer]

What classes and races are in the new edition so far besides half Orc and half elf

Gnomes.



I think folks are missing the obvious. In the debate between regular monster and LEGENDARY EPIC BADASS we already have the answer;

Dragons in Next are not legendary badasses. They are dangerous predators but mortal and fallible.

A dragon in Next who is a legendary badass gets 1) a template, 2) a lair and 3) all the plot armor a DM could want.

There. Done. The rules that already exists solve the discrepancy.

But the question still remains - how powerful should the normal grown up Dragon be?



I actually miss the days when that superhuman intellect wasn't a given, when what set reds and Metallics apart was their propensity for speech, and when a great wyrm white or black might have 12 INT, maybe.

If one Dragon is going to revert to that bestial form, it'd be the Whites.


Not really, it proves roughly twelve people are vocal about their hyperbole. When I think dragons, I think 1970s-1980s art. Like the covers of the BECMI boxes, actually.

So single heroes fighting Dragons in epic art?


How so?

Baring the legendary rules, Dragons just don't seem as impressively powerful as they used to. Perhaps its because the Dragons in the Bestiary feel more like Juvenile/Young Adult/Adult rather than Old/Very Old/Ancient. My ideal would be to have Dragons of all live ways present so that you can really hone in on the kind of Dragon you really want rather than be forced into the Dragon or Legendary Dragon dichotomy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Resistance to crossbows, morale of the crossbow men, disadvantage on the attack roll, the fact that a cluster of the shooters are being evaporated with every dive.
Morale rules which don't exist? Disadvantage that gets arbitrated in because "dragons should be tough?" Damage reduction... is that still there? (I don't have the latest package).


Not at all. I'm arguing for humanity. Nobles don't have spreadsheets. They don't calculate risk and reward very well. They are subject to poor decisions and hubris.
True, but your standard fantasy noble is much more likely to be played as "my serfs are my property" than "I must safeguard my people." It's the hubris thing.

Regardless, DM fiat is rarely a substitute for effective rules. It can work in a game like Risus, but D&D is not and has never been that light. The point of having rules is that you can objectively answer questions like "can a company of men-at-arms take a dragon?"

I'm not saying that 5e isn't functional because it doesn't give us the answers we expect. But it is odd.

[Moreb Benhk]

And the Dragons of Next don't really have that problem, because it's still one guy. Armies won't DARE to face a dragon - it's like trying to face down a small nation with WMDs.

It really isn't. 100 commoners with just slings can kill a level 10 dragon as it stands. 100 actual fighters with actual equipment, tactics, and maybe some magical buffs (ideally something to help negate the breath weapon and/or fear), even better. And 100 fighters still isn't an army. Army vs dragon at the moment is a 1 round affair.


I think folks are missing the obvious. In the debate between regular monster and LEGENDARY EPIC BADASS we already have the answer;

Dragons in Next are not legendary badasses. They are dangerous predators but mortal and fallible.

A dragon in Next who is a legendary badass gets 1) a template, 2) a lair and 3) all the plot armor a DM could want.

If it is true then it is a big departure from previous. And it may not be true, it could just be that the mechanics say this while the flavour text/setting says they ARE legendary badassess (to my knowledge the fluff hasn't showed up yet), and the mechanics will just do a bad job of supporting the fluff.


Resistance to crossbows, morale of the crossbow men, disadvantage on the attack roll, the fact that a cluster of the shooters are being evaporated with every dive.

The first two things aren't in the Next rules, the next subject to pure DM fiat, and the last is relatively easily combatted by appropriate tactics.



Not at all. I'm arguing for humanity. Nobles don't have spreadsheets. They don't calculate risk and reward very well. They are subject to poor decisions and hubris.

Peasants aren't super obedient worker bees, either. The core of what "guarantees" a dragon's success is human frailty. Adventurers tend to be more on the room willed, sociopathically rational side of things.

That is somewhat true, but I don't think they are guarenteed to make poor decisions. If a dragon starts rampaging the countryside (and thus the people are defending homes and families), the clearly optimal thing to do is fight back. A largish village should have little difficulty driving off or killing a large dragon, though people will die. I think the current setup puts WAY too much reliance on people not fighting back/coordinating due to selfishness or fear. Overcome that... and nothing really stands up.


You lose a hundred peasants and kill a dragon? You've lost all that equipment (30 gold, maybe. More with armor), and you've lost a workforce. You're now not making up the money you lost. And yes, even without spreadsheets this is what a guy whose job is utilizing the common folk will think. Adventurers, however... 500gp to slay a dragon? They might not even come back, for one (meaning you don't pay them) and they may have just gone in to kill it gratis because dragons have hoards, and your job, as a responsible burgermeister, is to tell sociopaths these things so they go and kill dragons for the reward. You don't need to pay them at all, really.

You lose way less than 100 unless you're going into the lair or fighting it badly, even if you only fork out for slings. Hiring level 10 adventurers... 500 gp? They won't get out of bed for less than a few thousand. Plus... if you kill the dragon yourself, you get the dragon hoard yourself. The way the numbers work... you'd really have to be stupid to go for expensive experienced adventurers over equipping a militia and offering them comission from the hoard.


I'm on shaky semantic ground because I was bein cute. The idea is that the math clearly DISproves it, not that the math wasn't possible.

Who's idea? Disproves what? I have no idea what that second sentence is conveying. Sorry.



Yeah. DCs are the problem. Each additional die only increases the average of the roll by 1, right?

Pretty much yep.


I actually miss the days when that superhuman intellect wasn't a given, when what set reds and Metallics apart was their propensity for speech, and when a great wyrm white or black might have 12 INT, maybe.

I think this is a fair point. I like dragons running a bit of a range from animal-cunning to super genius. I'd prefer if both good and bad dragons followed a similar pattern though.


Not really, it proves roughly twelve people are vocal about their hyperbole. When I think dragons, I think 1970s-1980s art. Like the covers of the BECMI boxes, actually.

And you are thoroughly entitled to that position. I just don't think it's reflected by the vast majority of fiction or opinions (though admittedly I can't back this assertion up with much off the top of my head).

[Oracle_Hunter]

As an aside, I've finally put together a proposal for my "D&D That Never Was" in a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15665937#post15665937) if you want to check it out.

I have to say that this chain of threads has been very helpful in developing this game, so I hope y'all at least give it a once over :smallsmile:

[Scow2]

Morale rules which don't exist? Disadvantage that gets arbitrated in because "dragons should be tough?" Damage reduction... is that still there? (I don't have the latest package).Dragons automatically terrify any low-HD target that sees them. Nonmagical weapons deal half damage to them last I checked. And Disadvantage is applied because of another threshold, if I remember.


It really isn't. 100 commoners with just slings can kill a level 10 dragon as it stands. 100 actual fighters with actual equipment, tactics, and maybe some magical buffs (ideally something to help negate the breath weapon and/or fear), even better. And 100 fighters still isn't an army. Army vs dragon at the moment is a 1 round affair.

The problem isn't dragons toughness. The problem is trying to use a combat system that can only handle a small handful of individuals to try to handle army-level combat, which doesn't work at all.

[Moreb Benhk]

Dragons automatically terrify any low-HD target that sees them. Nonmagical weapons deal half damage to them last I checked. And Disadvantage is applied because of another threshold, if I remember.

Which packet? I thought I was looking at the most recent (06/14) one and I don't see any of that anywhere.



The problem isn't dragons toughness. The problem is trying to use a combat system that can only handle a small handful of individuals to try to handle army-level combat, which doesn't work at all.

I wouldn't call 100 dudes army level combat (though it is towards the limit of what you can physically run on a table). And having you face largish numbers of low level opponents at high level is to my knowledge one of the goals of the setup. I'd say it's a pointer to the fact that numbers are too big a factor in Next (and/or individual power is too insignificant).

[Scow2]

I wouldn't call 100 dudes army level combat (though it is towards the limit of what you can physically run on a table). And having you face largish numbers of low level opponents at high level is to my knowledge one of the goals of the setup. I'd say it's a pointer to the fact that numbers are too big a factor in Next (and/or individual power is too insignificant).

The "Largish' number I think they're referring to is closer to a dozen or so low-level opponents at high levels, and not all at once. The system can handle extended, high-bodycount combat, but not when there are more than two dozen or so active combatants at any given time.

[SiuiS]

Depends what you mean. Going from d6 to d8 is +1, yeah. Going from 3d6 to 4d6 gets the average up to 14 but makes extremes less likely.


My mistake. I seem to remember something about adding additional dice to a pool only increasing the average by 1, but 3d6 averages 10, and 4 averages 14, so that can't be right.



Honestly, I think of stuff like the one in that story with St. George. Had the entire place terrified of it and obediently doing what it wanted despite mostly hanging around in a cave. Or Smaug, where one dragon took out an entire settlement of dwarves pretty damn easily, then a more prepared settlement, and later on got killed by exactly one guy. Or the one in Beowulf (one guy, again) or Fafnir (one guy, sneak attack).

The idea of armies going dragonslaying runs counter to everything I've ever experienced with dragons. :smallfrown:

Armies don't go dragonslaying, that's the point. If numerically they are capable, they still have better things to do with their time – like be an army.



But the question still remains - how powerful should the normal grown up Dragon be?

The question was answered. Strong enough to be a normal challenging monster like a chimera or manticore. Strong enough to challenge, weak enough to leave room for a gulf between dragons and legendary dragons.



So single heroes fighting Dragons in epic art?


More the size and ferocity and feral look. You don't get bodybuilder style dragons like are so popular nowadays. You get serpents.



Baring[sic] the legendary rules, Dragons just don't seem as impressively powerful as they used to. Perhaps its because the Dragons in the Bestiary feel more like Juvenile/Young Adult/Adult rather than Old/Very Old/Ancient. My ideal would be to have Dragons of all live ways present so that you can really hone in on the kind of Dragon you really want rather than be forced into the Dragon or Legendary Dragon dichotomy.

I've never had a game where great wyrms mattered, actually. Party is usually uppity at that point.

But seriously, why would you base your appraisal on an advanced version? When I say "3.5 balor" you don't think 60 hit dice do you?


Morale rules which don't exist? Disadvantage that gets arbitrated in because "dragons should be tough?" Damage reduction... is that still there? (I don't have the latest package).

DMing common sense, a rule in the book, and a rule in the book, yes. Because using the rules and being sensible are requirements for the game.



Regardless, DM fiat is rarely a substitute for effective rules. It can work in a game like Risus, but D&D is not and has never been that light. The point of having rules is that you can objectively answer questions like "can a company of men-at-arms take a dragon?"

I'm not saying that 5e isn't functional because it doesn't give us the answers we expect. But it is odd.

Who's using fiat? :small confused: I'm also getting tired of wolf-cries of "fiat! Fiat! Your argument is invalid!" Myself. D&D spent thirty years on the table being a game of fiat with suggestions, unfortunately. :smalltongue:

We have rules for whether Men-At-Arms can handle dragons. The answer is "barely", and I'm just telling people on both sides who choose to ignore rules in order to make things look lopsided to shut up because adults are talking*. There's a limit on how useful selective application can be, and we passed it last thread, if not the one before that.


It really isn't. 100 commoners with just slings can kill a level 10 dragon as it stands.

Prove it. The packet is right there; show your work.

Because with an average d20 result of, what, 5? On the attack, and a modifier of like, 2, that's hittin an AC of 7, while being strafed by a flying airship.



If it is true then it is a big departure from previous.

Which was also a departure from previously previous, so there's no issue.



The first two things aren't in the Next rules, the next subject to pure DM fiat, and the last is relatively easily combatted by appropriate tactics.


Look again.



Who's idea? Disproves what? I have no idea what that second sentence is conveying. Sorry.

Follow the green arrow.


Dragons automatically terrify any low-HD target that sees them. Nonmagical weapons deal half damage to them last I checked. And Disadvantage is applied because of another threshold, if I remember.

Disadvantage comes from the fear, I believe.


The problem isn't dragons toughness. The problem is trying to use a combat system that can only handle a small handful of individuals to try to handle army-level combat, which doesn't work at all.

This strikes me as less true, in that I think the system can handle mass combat even without being designed for it, but also valid in that the lack of design does strain things.



* it going over about as well as you'd expect, really. I'm just being cranky. Don't mind me :smallwink:

[Raineh Daze]

I feel sorry for the things that are dragons, or mythologically dragons, but don't get the recognition for it, and therefore (if they're mentioned at all) don't get an equally challenging power level.

Err... the thing in the Garden of the Hesperides, the Hydra (apparently that counts), and the Yamata no Orochi (also apparently counts) come to mind.

... I want to combine them all and have a flying multi-headed poison and flame spewing serpent, but I think that gives me Typhon.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Armies don't go dragonslaying, that's the point. If numerically they are capable, they still have better things to do with their time – like be an army.
In a D&D fantasy world, I'm pretty sure that defending against marauding giants and dragons is part of what an army does... defending the motherland and such...


DMing common sense, a rule in the book, and a rule in the book, yes. Because using the rules and being sensible are requirements for the game.

Who's using fiat? :small confused: I'm also getting tired of wolf-cries of "fiat! Fiat! Your argument is invalid!" Myself. D&D spent thirty years on the table being a game of fiat with suggestions, unfortunately. :smalltongue:
Let me preface this by saying that you're not wrong. The proposals about morale, the bystander effect, not wanting to spend lives needlessly? Those are all excellent answers to the question of "why bother with adventurers when you can use armies?"

However.

When we talk about the rules, GMing advice doesn't cut it. I mean, yes, we're complaining about things because we're the internet, that's what we do, but... the exchange looks something like this:

"100 level one warriors can kill a great wyrm! The rules that allow that are bad."
"Well, in a real game, that won't happen because... (advice for how a GM can justify saying no)"
"But the rules still say..."
"But you can ignore the rules! That's rule 0!"

Yes, you can. That doesn't mean that the rules are not optimal. That doesn't mean that we can't propose ways to improve things-- which is the point of a playtest, isn't it?

Take the dragon-verses-army question. You know what would solve the issue? DR 10/Magic. Why can't dragons get DR/magic?

EDIT:

... I want to combine them all and have a flying multi-headed poison and flame spewing serpent, but I think that gives me Typhon.
I crossed a dragon and a hydra once. It ate half my PCs. >:)

[SiuiS]

I'm not saying rule 0, though. I am saying that every answer ends up being "use an adventurer".

If you're smart, sending people who may well usurp you or marauder you to die while working for you is a good idea.
If you're cowardly, sending heroes to win renown and clear the area is a good idea.
If you're cautious, allowing the in cautious to try while you hold in reserve is a good idea.
If you're proud, finding the most powerful as noble o heroes to represent you is a good idea.
If you're poor, having a group of volunteers who stand to gain more by listening to baloney rumors than they do from anything else, do the work for you is a good idea.

The sad truth is that no, there would not be an army at all in a fantasy world like this. Armies are for dealing with other civilized peoples. If your kingdom is situated in a wilderness full of monsters, you wouldn't even have an army. You have an adventurers guild.

[Raineh Daze]

I crossed a dragon and a hydra once. It ate half my PCs. >:)

You made the dragon in the Garden of the Hesperides, then. It has a hundred heads. And Heracles actually chose to hold up the heavens whilst having Atlas get one of the fruits from his daughters rather than deal with that monster. :smalltongue:


If you're proud, finding the most powerful as noble o heroes to represent you is a good idea.

Okay, this one is just... weird. If you're proud, then you'd do it through your own abilities and possessions. Having strangers do it for you? Not really.

[Arkhosia]

If you mean 5e as a whole, it's got fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues, rangers, paladins, druids, monks and barbarians as classes, with races being human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome and the two you mentioned, with many subraces.

If you mean the latest update, they've added gnomes to it alongside the races you mentioned.

What sub races did they add?
Thanks BTW. I am having a hard time finding the info.

[Grod_The_Giant]

stuff
All valid points. The question, though, is "what do the mechanics favor?" You can't bring the fluff into that-- it's like arguing that 3.5 wizards are balanced because there exists an Archmage's Guild that punishes those who break the game.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

My mistake. I seem to remember something about adding additional dice to a pool only increasing the average by 1, but 3d6 averages 10, and 4 averages 14, so that can't be right.

The expected average result of a pool of dice is the number of dice times the expected average of those dice, so the average of 3d6 is 3*3.5 = 10.5 ≅ 10 and the average of 4d6 is 4*3.5 = 14.

What you're probably thinking of is a dice pool system where each added die adds no more than one expected success, such as in Shadowrun where a 5 or 6 on a d6 is a success (so each die is effectively 1/3 success) and so going from a pool of 5 dice (5/3 = 1.666..., round down to 1 expected success) to one of 6 dice (expected hits 6/3 = 2) gives you +1 expected success.


I'm not saying rule 0, though. I am saying that wary answer ends up being "use an adventurer".

Except that if an army is as good as or better than adventurers at monster-slaying, then that isn't actually the case. Assuming effective armies, if a dragon is attacking your territories, then...

...if you're smart, sending people who have a vested interest in protecting their homes from the dragon is a good idea.
...if you're cowardly, sending soldiers instead of yourself or your personal protectors to kill the dragon is a good idea.
...if you're cautious, sending in a massive force to take care of the dragon instead of sending in one adventuring party at a time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) is a safer option.
...if you're proud, sending in the army that you sponsor to kill the dragon while waving your banner and later telling everyone how your force saved the day is preferable to hiring some mercenaries to take care of it.
...if you're poor, you probably can't afford an adventuring party's exorbitant fees while you can afford to field a conscript army who supplies most of their own equipment.

Using adventurers is only a smart idea if adventurers are actually able to get things done where armies can't, and if the rules say that they aren't, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to hire them to do what an army can do (like defending an area from monsters) when it would be better to have armies do that and adventurers do more adventure-y things like sneaking places and stealing stuff and not all the monster-slaying that players expect to be able to do.

[MukkTB]

My first instinct on the dragon is that 10 knights or so armed with some ranged weapons should be able to deal with the problem. That means King Arthur, his knights, and their coconuts could do one in with some trouble.

After some thought on the matter I think those 10 knights need to be named characters and probably would really struggle at level 7. 10 unamed knights riding out would only serve to make a pile of horrifying corpses. If you've ever seen Shrek you know what I mean. All those cinder filled suits of armors in the castle kind of thing.

However it just feels right that a group of knights led by a heroic figure (slightly better knight) could take on a dragon. The narrative just feels right. There are so many stories where that kind of thing happens, even going back as far as The Odyssey. That does assume a non magic using dragon. As soon as the dragon is also a wizard then the knights are in deep ****.

Adventurers should start posing a threat around level 8 or 10. That doesn't have any solid reasoning to back it up, just my feelings.

[Friv]

I think the real question here is why peasants with slings have a +3 bonus to hit. That should be what we're really concerned with.

[tasw]

How powerful should Dragons be? ?

A dragon should be a big lizard that breathes fire and has a few caster levels. Dangerous but not invulnerable or the penultimate challenge of D&D

[Arkhosia]

I think the real question here is why peasants with slings have a +3 bonus to hit. That should be what we're really concerned with.

Not really. Peasants are notorious for tossing rocks at passing carriages in my game.

[Knaight]

A dragon should be a big lizard that breathes fire and has a few caster levels. Dangerous but not invulnerable or the penultimate challenge of D&D

The caster levels don't really seem necessary - yes, there should probably be some kind of dragon that has them, but there's plenty of room for dragons that are well below human intelligence, do not speak, and are just big lizards that breath fire which might also fly. That still leaves the potential for them to be very dangerous for a number of reasons, which pretty much covers the core traits of "dragons", as pulled from european legend.

[SiuiS]

Okay, this one is just... weird. If you're proud, then you'd do it through your own abilities and possessions. Having strangers do it for you? Not really.

Weird by modern sensibilities maybe. Being a sponsor is a big thing. Having people fight in your name makes you a bigger man. It happens in street gangs all the time, in fact.


All valid points. The question, though, is "what do the mechanics favor?" You can't bring the fluff into that-- it's like arguing that 3.5 wizards are balanced because there exists an Archmage's Guild that punishes those who break the game.

Now you're being obtuse. Rationalization isn't fluff, it's common sense. The pure mechanics answer is that dragons don't attack towns by the book so there's no need for anyone to kill them ever. I win! :smallannoyed: :smallsigh:

Look. There are mechanics and assumptions for pricing. I'm using those. You can split hairs if you'd like but the nature of the game is that there is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a gate which doesn't involve mechanics, and doesn't need to. This is motivation, incentive and decision making. "I decide not to go delving dungeon" is an answer but not really an answer, y'know?


The expected average result of a pool of dice is the number of dice times the expected average of those dice, so the average of 3d6 is 3*3.5 = 10.5 ≅ 10 and the average of 4d6 is 4*3.5 = 14.

What you're probably thinking of is a dice pool system where each added die adds no more than one expected success, such as in Shadowrun where a 5 or 6 on a d6 is a success (so each die is effectively 1/3 success) and so going from a pool of 5 dice (5/3 = 1.666..., round down to 1 expected success) to one of 6 dice (expected hits 6/3 = 2) gives you +1 expected success.

I'm actually worried I messed up math and no one caught me! When we were calculating either skills or fighter damage, I remember being pissy that your expected output only increased by about 1 per die – oh! Skills don't add more dice, they increase by die size; duh. Okay, sorry.

Hm. Actually, starting out skills at 4d6 instead of d20, and adding more d8 instead of increasing a die size, might be a good idea after all...



Except that if an army is as good as or better than adventurers at monster-slaying, then that isn't actually the case. Assuming effective armies, if a dragon is attacking your territories, then....


Using adventurers is only a smart idea if adventurers are actually able to get things done where armies can't, and if the rules say that they aren't, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to hire them to do what an army can do (like defending an area from monsters) when it would be better to have armies do that and adventurers do more adventure-y things like sneaking places and stealing stuff and not all the monster-slaying that players expect to be able to do.

I believe the math does favor adventurers however.

An adventurer is more likely to have levels. This slightly increases their average ability to hit a dragon. It slightly decreases their likelihood to be hit by a dragon.
It DEFINITELY increases their likelihood to deal damage to the dragon and to have the resources to apply pressure. It mildly increases innate resistance to the sragon's passive defenses. And it gives one the HP to survive being hit and return fire; contrariwise a group of peasants or even first level soldiers cannot e guaranteed an attack roll because of their HP!


I think the real question here is why peasants with slings have a +3 bonus to hit. That should be what we're really concerned with.

Benefit of the doubt. Assuming a large enough pool of seeds to draw from, you'll get your numbers. But yes, I would place a serf at 5 HP, +0 all rolls.

[Felhammer]

Armies don't go dragonslaying, that's the point. If numerically they are capable, they still have better things to do with their time – like be an army.

Dragons are well known to have a penchant for burning down crops and kidnapping Princesses.




The question was answered. Strong enough to be a normal challenging monster like a chimera or manticore. Strong enough to challenge, weak enough to leave room for a gulf between dragons and legendary dragons.

To me, a Dragon is more than just another monster. Dragons are special and unique creatures. They didn't call the game Dungeons and Hydras after all. All WotC needs to do is make a stat block for an older and younger Dragon and I would be placated for the core of the game (though I would definitely want a new Draconomicon eventually).



More the size and ferocity and feral look. You don't get bodybuilder style dragons like are so popular nowadays. You get serpents.

Yeah old school Dragons looked far more like the archetypal Dragons of legend. That image has morphed into something different now-a-days. Dragons seem larger... More like Dragon Body Builders, at least when compared to the olden days.




I've never had a game where great wyrms mattered, actually. Party is usually uppity at that point.

I've never fought against (or used) a Balor in any campaign. That doesn't mean I don't want them present in the Monster Manual.


But seriously, why would you base your appraisal on an advanced version? When I say "3.5 balor" you don't think 60 hit dice do you?

Because Dragons are more iconic and meaningful to the culture of the game. Plus, since 2nd edition AD&D, Dragons have been presented with varying ages. I think that tradition should be continued.


What sub races did they add?
Thanks BTW. I am having a hard time finding the info.

Forest Gnomes typify the iconic woodland Gnome, while the Rock Gnome exemplifies the iconic (yet realistic) Tinkerer. Forest Gnomes can talk to animals and make illusions, while Rock Gnomes have advantage on certain tinkering-based intelligence checks as well as the ability to make small clockwork toys. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs did not get sub-races. The Half-Orcs get Dark Vision, advantage on Intimidation rolls and a good STR, while Half-Elves get Low-Light vision, a boost to CHA and have advantage against being charmed and when making Listen/Spot checks.

[Frozen_Feet]

I will tackle this question of how strong a dragon should be, by first examining how strong a dragon is in the game system I use: Lamentations of the Flame Princess. LotFP, I believe, makes a good comparison point because it:


Assumes no magic items
AC caps at 18 (Plate) +1 (Shield, +2 vs. ranged) + 3 (18 Dex) = 22 (23 vs. ranged).
Character attack bonus caps at +10 (9th+ level fighter or 9 HD+ monster)


Some extra modifiers exists (flanking, darkness, spells, cover) but overall, it is very close to Next's bounded accuracy both in spirit and in implementation.

First, let's define what a dragon is. I'm going to give two different dragons, one of my own device, one out of Weird New World:

"Young red": AC as Chainmail and Shield (16, 17 vs. ranged), 40 hitpoints, AB +6, saves as Fighter, two claws at 1d4 and 1d6 bite. Can breathe fire once per day for 5d8 damage, max range 60 feet. Moves as human on ground, 5x human when flying. Morale 10.

"Old blue": AC as Plate and Shield (19, 20 vs. ranged), 108 hitpoint, AB +10, saves as Fighter, two claws at d8, one tail at d12, one bite at 2d10. Can breathe lightning thrice per day for 18d8, max range 60 feet. Moves as human on ground, 3x human when swimming, 5x when flying. Morale 11.

Next, let's define their opposition:

Conscript: a typical 0th level Specialist, given Leather Armor, Shield and medium weapon by the army. Cost of equipment: 95 sp. AC 15 (16 vs. ranged), 4 hitpoints, AB +0. Morale 7.

Men-at-arms: 1st level Fighter, given Chainmail, Shield and medium weapon. Cost of equipment: 175 sp. AC 17 (18 vs. ranged), 8 hitpoints (12 for the leader), AB +2 (+3 for the leader), +2 AB and -4 AC when pressing. Morale 8.

Knight: 9th level Fighter, given Platemail, Shield and medium weapon. Cost of equipment: 1075 sp. AC 19 (20 vs ranged), 44 hitpoins, AB +10, +2 AB and -4 AC when pressing. Morale 10.

Adding longbow and ammunition to any unit costs 150 sp. Longbow does 1d6 damage, can be shot each round and can shoot up to 600' with a -3 penalty.

Some rules assumptions:


Dragon always wins iniative and moves first
Dragon can move and breathe in the same turn
Dragon will not engage in a fight if it doesn't have to.
To hit requires rolling above; equal isn't enough. Natural 20 always hits.
Morale is checked at two occasions for a dragon: 1st when first wounded, 2nd when reduced to below half hitpoints.
For armies, morale is checked at two points: 1st when a forced is reduced to 80% of starting number, 2nd when forced is reduced to 50% of starting number.
Morale is lost if an unit rolls above its target number on a 2d6.


I'll examine two different scenarios for each match-up: open field and the dragon's lair. The latter is assumed to be a cavern large enough to accommodate the dragon, with an S-curve in the entrance tunnel, and a hidden escape tunnel.

1st match: 100 Conscripts without bows vs. "Young red" on an open field.

As long as "Young Red" stays in the air, the conscripts have no way to attack it. Meanwhile, "Young Red" can easily fit 20 men in the cone of its breath, killing each one. This forces a morale check, causing roughly 40% of remaining troops to bolt. Only 48 men are left on the field, meaning less than half, meaning another morale check is triggered, leaving behind only 29. After this, the "young red" can just fly out of their vision, pick up a rock or something, and then come back and pellet the conscripts with those. It can keep doing this to exhaustion or untill all remaining conscripts are dead. It has no reason whatsoever to engage itself in melee.

Conclusion: conscripts are destroyed every time. Their only hope is to scatter and hide from the dragon so as few people as possible are caught in the fiery breath.

2nd match: 100 Conscripts without bows vs. "Young red" in its lair

Let's assume the entrance tunnel is wide enough for three men at once. This mean one rank with swords and another with spears can engage the dragon at a time - so 6 attacks in a round, hitting on a 17, each hit doing average of 4.5 points of damage. So roughly 5 points of damage per round on average. "Young Red" has two attacks at 2.5 points of damage and one at 3.5, hitting on a 10. So roughly 4 points of damage per round.

Using its breath weapon, "Young Red" can trivially scorch the first six foolhardy men. After this, there's roughly 1-in-10 chance the dragon will flee when wounded. If it stays to fight, it kills 1 man every round, so 5 men before its second morale check. Again, 1-in-10 chance the dragon will flee. If it stays, it will kill 2 to 3 more men before being brought down or fleeing (50% chance using pursuit rules).

Conclusion: The conscripts drive the dragon away ~60% of the time, and kill it ~40% of the time if using optimal tactics. However, they suffer a minimum of 6 casualties, and are likely to suffer much more. Chance of cascading morale failure exists but does not prevent success. Even if the force is reduced to 29 men (as above), those men can still kill the dragon.

3rd match: 100 conscripts with bows vs. "Young red" on an open field

Fast as it is, the dragon can close with the conscripts in one round and scorch up to 20 them, leading to cascading morale failure as before. The remaining 29 archers hit the dragon with 18, doing 3.5 points of damage per arrow, roughly 15 points of damage per round. Next round, the dragon can flee outside their range again. It has no incentive to come back, and if it does, will be killed in two rounds.

Things change in favor of the concripts if they loosen up their formation so that only a couple of them can be fried at once, but are still close enough to each other so everyone can take a shot at the dragon. In this scenario, only 5 or so conscripts are guaranteed to die, while the dragon will be shot about 95 times, suffering upwards of 30 points of damage.

Conclusion: if marching in formation, the conscripts are defeated (suffering 20 casualties and having their force driven apart by morale failure), but succesfully wound the ragon. If ambushing the dragon, the conscripts have a fifty-fifty chance of either killing it or driving it away, while suffering minimal casualties.

4th match: 100 conscripts without bows vs. "Old Blue" on open field

As before, except the dragon can fry up to 60 conscripts with its breath.

Conclusion: the conscripts are utterly annihilated.

5th match: 100 conscripts without bows vs. "Old blue" in its lair

Let's assume the entrance tunnel is wide enough for three men at once. This mean one rank with swords and another with spears can engage the dragon at a time - so 6 attacks in a round, hitting on a 20, each hit doing average of 4.5 points of damage. Roughly 1 point of damage per round this time. "Old Blue" hits on a 6, has two attacks for 4.5 average damage and one for 11 damage. We'll say it can't use its tail in this scenario. This amounts to 15 points in round.

Using its breath weapon, "Old blue" can trivially scorch the first 18 foolhardy men. After this, there's roughly 1-in-30 chance the dragon will flee when wounded. If it stays to fight, it kills 3 men every round, so 154 men before its second morale check... wait a second. It's gonna slaughter everyone, isn't it?

Yes it is.

Conclusion: There's a small chance the conscripts will scare the dragon into fleeing. In overwhelming majority of cases, the dragon will slaughter 20 men, scaring most into fleeing as morale fails, and then eat those who remain.

100 conscripts with bows vs. "Old Blue" on an open field

Due to its heightened AC and increased hitpoints, a solid formation of archers doesn't scare "Old blue" in the slightest. It will breath once to cause cascading morale failure, then breath a second time to kill most of those who remain, and kill the rest in melee. The only hope is for the remaining 29 archers (after moral failure) to scatter so as few as possible are scorched and keep firing in hopes of scaring the dragon away. However, as they do 5 points of damage on average round and this rapidly decreases, their chances of victory are slim.

Ambush doesn't look so hot this time either. Even all 100 conscripts shooting at once does only 18 points of damage on average. The dragon is still likely to cause cascading morale failure and defeat the force, even if it won't be able to destroy it.

Conclusion: a formation of conscripts is destroyed. An ambush is unlikely to bring the the dragon down and will likely suffer heavy losses.

To be continued...

[SiuiS]

Dragons are well known to have a penchant for burning down crops and kidnapping Princesses.

... And?



To me, a Dragon is more than just another monster. Dragons are special and unique creatures. They didn't call the game Dungeons and Hydras after all. All WotC needs to do is make a stat block for an older and younger Dragon and I would be placated for the core of the game (though I would definitely want a new Draconomicon eventually).

They do have that.



Because Dragons are more iconic and meaningful to the culture of the game. Plus, since 2nd edition AD&D, Dragons have been presented with varying ages. I think that tradition should be continued.


Irrelevant. My question wasn't "why use dragons as a comparison point" it was "why use an advanced dragons beyond what's considered normal as a comparison point". Again, and with a different example; When comparing level 1 parties to orcs in 3.5, you use the default orc, not a 20 HD advanced version.

So, why base the median on the farthest, strongest end of the dragon spectrum? Why is 36 HD "normal", and all the first 35 HD are considered weak and watered down? That's plain stupid. You start in the middle of the scale.

unrelated: I hate tinker gnomes.


*


Alright, dragons. I wanted to use a blue, but that's a level 12 encounter, so I can't.


A black dragon has an armor class of 15, and 126 hitpoints on average. It has an attack routine at +9 and with reach, dealing (bite) 2d6+6, (claw) 1d8+6 and (tail) 1d8+6 plus push and prone. It has a breath weapon which recharges every three rounds, dealing an average of 28 damage (4d6+4) with half on a successful save (DC 16 dexterity) in an 80' line. The dragon generates fear within line of sight on DC 14 wisdom. Dragons do not currently have damage resistance.

A white dragon has similar statistics, only +2 less on attack, a few less HP, and a cone breath weapon.

A peasant conscript can reasonably have a spear (reach, 1d6), a ranged weapon (a sling? lets say 1d6 again, slings were pretty badass, they're ranged mace strikes!) and maybe some hefty armor for a good +4.

100 sling stones: requires 100 successful saves, which isn't likely. It's in the dragon's interests to let the peasants gather, though, so let's assume it drops it's aura or something. That's 100 peasants on the parapets. Why? Because if they aren't on the parapets, then the dragon will just fly by destroying the parapets. A crowd of screaming mancattle on the plains isn't an issue, especially if their sling-stones can barely crest the walls.

Dragon flies down, and breathes a gout of acid. At half damage, that's 9, so even those who make the saving throw (25% chance) need to have rolled maximum HP as a fighter to survive. Every dive can remove four or five peasants, but since it's a crowded parapet, the dragon can nuke the maximum 16.. Every dive, assuming perfect timing and precision, the peasants get two attacks each. So that is 184 attacks, of which 30% can hit. 55 successful attacks, averaging 3.5 damage, is enough to kill the dragon if it dives, breathes, and then strafes through the entire kill-zone while peasants are readied to throw rocks at it (More than likely though, the dragon will maintain maximum range, reducing these numbers drastically through disadvantage.)

Is that likely? No. Because the dragon, after seeing a crowded tower, can do many things. It can melt the base of the tower, collapsing it and killing all the peasants. The peasants might spread out along the walls, so that it is never subject to the full attack routines of all it's enemies. It could dive, spray acid along the top of the wall, and then bank and fly along parallel to the wall and use it to block line of effect completely. It could fly down to about 78' above a target and basically piss on them, one by one, until they die. And any amount of damage up to 125 points is ignorable, while every 3 to 5 damage is one less peasant. The dragon returns after a short rest, where it rolled all 12 hit dice, and continues decimating the fort.

Advantage: Dragon


Same scenario, only trained knights. Each has half-plate to allow for mobility, longbows for range, and are seasoned (1st leveled) fighters. Assuming a few bonuses is no problem; They have a con bonus of 3, a strength bonus of 2, a dex bonus of 1. These guys are expensive to maintain, though, and any destroyed equipment is a bigger loss than on peasants.

Using longbows, the dragon cannot pick them off one by one because they can return fire. Any given stretch of knighthood can take a saved breath some of the time (average HP is 8; max is 13!) and can actually hurt the beast. They can even rig nets of some sort, and if they bring the dragon down to earth, it's a goner unless it rips open the net fast. If it get's brought down in the courtyard, the knights win de facto (100 or so longbow shots will do it!), because they hit with their arrows (15 AC -1 Dex -1 Fighter bonus, DC 13 attack succeeds on 8 numbers) 40% of the time. In this case, the dragon ain't suppressin' nothin', because the requirement to run away gives it a distinct advantage; DC 14 wisdom means only 35% of the knights (that is, 35 of them) are available to actually shoot at it, making them easy pickings for it's breath and strafing attacks. The dragon can still be brought low, especially with shenanigans like someone jumping on it's back when it flies by or something, but not likely. It will bleed the fort like Grendel bled the longhouse.

Advantage: Dragon


Experienced adventurers (level 5) in a troupe of 5. Armor will range from low to high, anywhere from 12 to 20, and attack will range from +0 to +7(?). Damage rolls will routinely strike high, and with team synergy, odds are that most of them will make their saves (woe betide the party who splits too much!). The dragon will likely fight them in melee, because there's only five of them, seriously, and they spread out too far for it's breath to be anything more than a functional critical. IN melee, the dragon is able to hit their toughest armored guy (20 -9 = 11) 50% of the time, tearing into him like a can opener cat with tuna, but also likely getting hit itself (15 -7 =8) 70% of the time and probably for good damage because you don't hold onto your reserves when meleeing a dragon!

Advantage: Uncertain

Very experienced party (level 10). Everyone aha an armor option (even if just mage armor or shield) for a minimum of 15 AC. Everyone has a damage option, from sneak attack, to 2d6 extra plus advantage on damage rolls, to smites, to spells. Everyone can hit the dragon with their damage, but now it behooves the creature to actually fight crafty; Strafing, spraying, isolating, taking advantage of it's fear in some manner, retreating and harrying. Either party can go down on a bad roll, but the math is likely to end in a retreat rather than a murderfest.

Advantage: Party, kinda.

[SiuiS]

Good Job, FF. Much better than mine! I can only do so much from work, I'm afraid :smallredface:

[Felhammer]

... And?

Oops, my response got cut when I was threshing. What I meant was that because Dragons kidnap Princesses and raze villages, they are a VERY pressing concern to a Kingdom both economically and ego-politically. If a Dargon shows up and starts wrecking havoc, then a Kingdom is going to respond. If there aren't any brave adventurers around, then the King has to rely on his army to accomplish the task. My point was simply that, for a Kingdom, there is zero other concerns than slaying that Dragon (or driving it off). The army's entire focus would switch from "defend the Kingdom from other armies" to "defend the Kingdom against the Dragon." I'm not saying an army can beat a Dragon, necessarily, but the army wouldn't sit on its laurels, twiddling their thumbs while the Princess was being kidnapped.




They do have that.

I meant above and beyond the Legendary (which is far more BBEG-ish than anything else).



Irrelevant. My question wasn't "why use dragons as a comparison point" it was "why use an advanced dragons beyond what's considered normal as a comparison point". Again, and with a different example; When comparing level 1 parties to orcs in 3.5, you use the default orc, not a 20 HD advanced version.

Irrelevant. My point was that Dragons are abnormal. They are the special snowflakes of the Monster Manual. They have been since AD&D 2E and should continue to be in 5th Edition.


So, why base the median on the farthest, strongest end of the dragon spectrum? Why is 36 HD "normal", and all the first 35 HD are considered weak and watered down? That's plain stupid. You start in the middle of the scale.

If we have but one Dragon, then you eyeball the middle of the progression and up it a bit as you go from white to Red. Since Legendary has introduced another tier of Dragons, I do not see why we cannot add Dragons that are below the original in power and above. All of these could be easily added to the game via templates if necessary.


unrelated: I hate tinker gnomes.

I hate WoW's interpretation of the Tinker Gnome. They should not be used as a justification for modern technology into a campaign world. As an aside, I loathe the WoW Gnome almost as much as I despise Kender.

*


*Snip*

Good info!

I think what your examples prove is how necessary having a few higher leveled NPCs thrown into the mix really are, especially Clerics. One Beacon of Hope + Mass Healing Word can change the course of a battle for the Knights.

[Moreb Benhk]

snip.

Thanks for putting in the effort in and coming up with some scenarios, though I can't say I agree with all of your findings.

You are aware that those who fail the fear save can on their turn, use their action to reattempt the save. This means every round 35% of those who are feared will return to the fray and can't be feared again.
Furthermore, the knights with longbows comfortably outrange the beast, and can freely take potshots (at disadvantage) as he draws in. The dragon is dead in about 3 rounds, quite aside from any lucky hits from earlier (expecting 40% of 35 to hit doing 1d8+3 damage =~63 damage first round and roughly similar each round after. He kills a few people, but if he wants to get close enough to hit more than just one or two people with his breath (bearing in mind that it is a line) he will get shot to ribbons. Plus, those feared can even fight back (at disadvantage) as they run for cover (as per the fear rules as I read them).

Advantage = very much not the dragon.

Against the level 5 party - I find it odd that all of a sudden you are making the dragon be dumb when all the other fights he's fighting for all he's tactically worth. Remember 3 of them are probably feared at the get go, and can spend their actions to try to save again, or do some fighting at range as they run like hell. He can always line up 2 of them for his breath, possibly more, and pile into whoever isn't feared. I'd call it advantage dragon.

[Frozen_Feet]

To be continued...

This time, we will be focusing on the men-at-arms. With the same cost as you used to outfit 100 conscripts, you can outfit 54 men-at arms. In truth, there will be a bit left-over, since we don't need as many bows - so instead, we'll swap those for Heavy Crossbows. A heavy crossbow can be shot once every three turns, but ignores first 4 points of AC. It can shoot up to 300'.

7th match: 54 men-at-arms without bow vs. "Young red" on open field

If in a similarly tight formation as the conscripts before, the dragon once again destroys nearly maximum amount of soldiers, causing the rest to flee.

But if these soldiers instead march in groups of 5 with good distance between each other, the dragon can only fry that many. Losing five men is not enough to trigger a morale check, so the company keeps marching on.

Sadly, they still can't do squat about the dragon. Nothing stops it from coming back to drop rocks, or coming back tomorrow to kill another five men...

Conclusion: the men-at-arms don't fare significantly better than the conscripts.

8th match: 54 men-arms without bows vs. "Young red" in its lair

The optimal strategy is same as before. This mean one rank with swords and another with spears can engage the dragon at a time - so 6 attacks in a round, hitting on a 15, each hit doing average of 4.5 points of damage. So roughly 7 points of damage per round on average. "Young Red" has two attacks at 2.5 points of damage and one at 3.5, hitting on a 12. So roughly 3 points of damage per round.

Like before, the dragon scorches the first 6, though there's small chance some of them survive. However, now the dragon is at much worse situation than before. It takes roughly 3 turns to fell one warrior, and one turn later will also undergo its second moral check. Things get even bleaker for it if the backrow decides to Press, upping the damage per round to 8 points.

In 6 to 7 rounds, the warriors will have killed it if it doesn't flee.

Conclusion: men-at-arms are likely to lose the same minimum of 6 men to the dragon, but will only suffer 2 or so more casualties. Chance of morale failure is negligible despite their lesser numbers. The overall chances remain the same: 60% of the dragon fleeing, 40% of it being killed.

9th match: Men-at-arms with heavy crossbows vs. "Young red" on open plain

We'll again assume our troops are arranged in groups of five. The dragon swoops down to kill one - and gets hit by 49 bolts in return. Each bolt hits on 12, doing 4.5 points of damage on average, for likely result of 88.

Ooops. Our dragon just died, didn't it?

An ambush scenario is even more favorable for our company. Only downside is lesser range of Heavy crossbows, but even if just half of them can make the shot at once, the dragon is coming down.

Conclusion: men-at-arms are very likely to drop the dragon.

10th match: Men-at-arms without bows vs "Old Blue" on open field

The first breath comes, and the company keeps moving. The second breath comes, forcing a morale check. 14 men leave the line. Still, 19 is less than 50% of 54, so the remaining 35 men keep marching. Third breath and another morale check later, only 21 men are still left.

Conclusion: men-at-arms don't fare much better than conscripts.

11th match: Men-at-arms without bows vs "Old blue" in its lair

Same tactics as before - so 6 attacks in a round, hitting on a 18, each hit doing average of 4.5 points of damage. Roughly 4 point of damage per round this time, 5 points if the back row presses. "Old Blue" hits on a 8, has two attacks for 4.5 average damage and one for 11 damage. We'll say it can't use its tail in this scenario. This amounts to 13 points in round.

Using its breath weapon, "Old blue" can trivially scorch the first 18 foolhardy men, triggering a morale check. This causes 11 men to flee, triggering another morale check. Only 18 will be left standing and fighting. We'll assume the leader is among them.

"Old blue" kills one man every odd and two men every even round. By the time only six men are standing, it has suffered 30 of damage. It is likely to suffer about 10 more before it noms the leader, making his heroic last stand.

Conclusion: men-at-arms are still destroyed, but they inflict the same injuries to the dragon with half the manpower.

12 match: Men-at-arms with heavy crossbows vs. "Old blue" on an open field

We'll again assume our troops are arranged in groups of five. The dragon swoops down to kill one - and gets hit by 49 bolts in return. Each bolt hits on 15, doing 4.5 points of damage on average, for likely result of 66. That's two morale checks for the dragon right off the bat, making it about 6% likely to flee. As crossbows take a while to load, it can come around twice more, reducing the amount of archers to 21. It better not stay for their second volley, as that would cost it 28 hitpoints more.

An ambush scenario ups the damage to 73. Ouch! The dragon will prolly remain to try and scorch as many archers as a revenge as it can get, but a second volley would kill it.

Conclusion: even if the company is destroyed, they will severely wound the dragon in return. An ambush is near-guaranteed to repel the dragon.

[Kurald Galain]

This time, we will be focusing on the men-at-arms. With the same cost as you used to outfit 100 conscripts, you can outfit 54 men-at arms. In truth, there will be a bit left-over, since we don't need as many bows - so instead, we'll swap those for Heavy Crossbows. A heavy crossbow can be shot once every three turns, but ignores first 4 points of AC. It can shoot up to 300'.

Interesting. I wonder what would happen if you run a similar test using 5E's current math?

[Eldan]

It really depends on the kind of dragon. Looking at old paintings, the classic European dragon is a squirming, grotesque, mutated thing the size of, perhaps, a dog, no more. From there, we can scale up to the gigantic beasts of many fantasy stories and from there to Smaug, who's that but also intelligent. D&D also adds magic to their dragons. Then we can scale even further to godlike asian dragons.

So yeah. Entire long spectrum of dragons from the pitiful to the godlike.

Interestingly, even the dog-sized abomination needs a divinely blessed hero to slay.

[SiuiS]

Irrelevant. My point was that Dragons are abnormal. They are the special snowflakes of the Monster Manual. They have been since AD&D 2E and should continue to be in 5th Edition.

No, you meant you must arbitrarily use the most powerful example of a species instead of the normal example and keep dancing around Why 60 HD is the 'norm' when there are many more appropriate levels of dragon which are not tricked out epic monsters. You haven't made a point or answered the question at all yet.

So again; why should the baseline be the top 5% of dragon kind itself? Dragons being special snowflakes doesn't matter, because you're only counting the special snowflakes amongst the special snowflakes.


Thanks for putting in the effort in and coming up with some scenarios, though I can't say I agree with all of your findings.

You are aware that those who fail the fear save can on their turn, use their action to reattempt the save. This means every round 35% of those who are feared will return to the fray and can't be feared again.

Yes.


Furthermore, the knights with longbows comfortably outrange the beast, and can freely take potshots (at disadvantage) as he draws in.

How are you taking potshots at an airplane again? I'm sorry, where does it say long bows can shoot 6,000 feet? The entire basis is "dragon is out of range at start, moving to immobile defensive structure". It's not suddenly going to run in at low altitude just because of long bows, and it didn't for any of the other examples either.


The dragon is dead in about 3 rounds, quite aside from any lucky hits from earlier (expecting 40% of 35 to hit doing 1d8+3

+3 damage? Where's that coming from?



Against the level 5 party - I find it odd that all of a sudden you are making the dragon be dumb when all the other fights he's fighting for all he's tactically worth.

I'm not making the dragon dumb all of a sudden. I noted that if the party splits its a wipe and moved on because that's a done deal already. It's an even fight that the party can exploit. Nothing more.

The party itself needs to be approached differently. They will not react like men-at-arms (or men at arms will not react like adventurers, whichever) because one formation takes advantage of numbers, the other takes advantage of class features in the party.

A 5th level fighter is doling out what, 2d6k1+2d8k1+6+3d6? 27 points of damage in a go, about a fifth or sixth of the sragon's HP. The cleric can get in there with 1d6+1d8+3d10+3, the rogue can get in there for whatever sneak attack currently is, a wizard can drop a fireball on it, or similar. That's a lot of hurt taken because "I wanna line up two of em" seemed like a better idea than guerrilla warfare.

Odds are the two out of five who don't run are the cleric and a single lucky ally. The best path is to land, blitz both with acid, weather their attacks, mangle the cleric to death and take off before anyone recovers. The party's best tactic is similar.

If instead we drop the white room (I'm thinking an ankle high swamp myself) and go back to the keep, and put players on parapets, then it's even more in the sragon's favor because now it can isolate targets.

The correct answer is to have the PCs up there along with te knights, of course, but then I'm not interested in the mechanics of shootin down the dragon so much as in the mechanics of the players doing politics enough to make this happen, and will focus the game accordingly.


Remember 3 of them are probably feared at the get go, and can spend their actions to try to save again, or do some fighting at range as they run like hell. He can always line up 2 of them for his breath, possibly more, and pile into whoever isn't feared. I'd call it advantage dragon.

This is all accounted for, yes. And against 5th level, yes. But is still rocket tag, which is why things go poorly. The dragon can't risk as much, whereas 1/5 players surviving means they can all come back.

[Kurald Galain]

Same scenario, only trained knights. Each has half-plate to allow for mobility, longbows for range, and are seasoned (1st leveled) fighters.
It is silly to assume that a trained knight is only level one. Even in 4E, which is strongest on the "1st level is already miles ahead of a commoner" bit, city guards in the MM are much higher than that.


Experienced adventurers (level 5) in a troupe of 5. Armor will range from low to high, anywhere from 12 to 20, and attack will range from +0 to +7(?). Damage rolls will routinely strike high, and with team synergy, odds are that most of them will make their saves
Now that isn't right. 5th level adventurers don't have particularly higher saves than 1st-level fighters. Nor are their damage rolls or team synergy much higher, either. So if the conclusion is that a dragon will probably lose against 100 level-1 troops, then it will completely massacre a pitifully small band of level-5 troops.

[Silverbit]

What sub races did they add?
Thanks BTW. I am having a hard time finding the info.

Subraces in 5e at present are (takes deep breath) hill dwarf (tough), mountain dwarf (wise), high elves (clever), wood elves (fast), lightfoot halflings (charismatic), stout halflings (tough), forest gnomes (fast) and rock gnomes (tough). The other races don't have subraces.

Edit: swordsaged in more detail by Felhammer.

[Raineh Daze]

It is silly to assume that a trained knight is only level one. Even in 4E, which is strongest on the "1st level is already miles ahead of a commoner" bit, city guards in the MM are much higher than that.

Now that isn't right. 5th level adventurers don't have particularly higher saves than 1st-level fighters. Nor are their damage rolls or team synergy much higher, either. So if the conclusion is that a dragon will probably lose against 100 level-1 troops, then it will completely massacre a pitifully small band of level-5 troops.

No, no, this is just an issue with assuming that a level 1 character can't have progressed beyond anything. But compare the difference between a commoner and a trained soldier--that's a lot more abilities, equipment, and so on. But they aren't an experienced soldier, so they haven't moved up in levels.

I think 5th because 5th was the limit of real human ability in 3.X.

[Kurald Galain]

I think 5th because 5th was the limit of real human ability in 3.X.
That's a common internet meme, but it's not actually in any of the rulebooks, and provably false once you start analyzing character abilities.

Anyway, the difference in ability between a commoner and a level-1 fighter isn't very large in any edition (unless you assume the fighter gets advantageous point buy and the commoner does not, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that, either).

[Raineh Daze]

That's a common internet meme, but it's not actually in any of the rulebooks, and provably false once you start analyzing character abilities.

... what abilities are you analysing? Ability modifiers can't get to +5 (except for the completely ridiculous ageing bonuses), and the skills are restricted to within such a range. :smallconfused:

If this is 'low level characters can't do things real life people can!', then of course. D&D combat is about as realistic as a mobile chocolate porcupine. And they don't want to risk fighters getting nice things, no.

[Frozen_Feet]

Interesting. I wonder what would happen if you run a similar test using 5E's current math?

I will see about that later. I am prevented from reading the rules on this computer, so I'm using what I know and remember.

Anyways, we'll move on to the knights now.

With the same money you'd use to field 100 conscripts or 54 men-at-arms, you can field 8 Knights. Since this is rounding down, we can use the extra 800 sp to give each knight a Potion of a 1st level spell. Of course, once we move on to ranged combat, we'll have even more leftover cash to tune our knights. How much more? 12,600 sp. That's more than what it took to buy the rest of their gear, heavy crossbows included.

So what will we do with all that cash? You will see...

13th match: 8 knights without bows vs. "Young Red" on an open plain

There are to likely formations: either the knights move in a single line, or they move in pairs.

In the first case, the dragon swoops down and fries them all. Its breath averages at 23 points of damage. Half of the knights make their save, taking only 11 points. But even if we assume max damage for all of them (40), none of the knights fall down. The knights flip a collective bird to the lizard, and it flies away, disappointed.

In the second case, only two knights get injured at all.

Conclusion: the dragon is more of a pest than a serious threat at this point. As long as the knights can hide from it from the second day on, they're good.

14th match: Knights without bow vs. "Young red" in its lair

Before engaging, the knights quaff their potions of resist hot and cold, taking off 5 points of damage from any breath attack. Then they charge in, using the same formation as before. Both rows press this time, so they hit on a 5, average 4.5 damage per hit, for average sum of 20 damage per round.

"Young red" breathes, doing 18 points to the front row and 6 points to the back. No knights fall. The dragon hits on a 10, doing 5 points of damage. Not gonna help it in this fight - it has to make its 1st morale check after the first round, and if it doesn't flee, on the second it is dead.

Conclusion: the knights will suffer no casualties in this fight. Only one is likely to fall below 50% hitpoints. The dragon flees about 10% of the time, and is killed 90% of the time. Two of the knights are only really here as back-up if something goes horribly wrong - six knights would usually be enough for this task. What this means is, whoever hired these people could've easily cut his costs by 10% to 20%.

15th match: Knights with matchlock muskets & heavy crossbows vs. "Young red" on open plain

Muskets? Yes, muskets. Firing up to 150', ignoring first 4 points of AC and doing 1d12 points of damage. Fire once per minute (10 rounds).

So the dragon swoops down and fries two to eight knights. No knights die. Next, knights fire. They hit the dragon on a 4, each shot doing 6.5 points of damage, for sum of 44,2 points per round.

Conclusion: dragon dies. No chivalrous casualties.

16th match: 8 knights without bows vs. "Old blue" on open field

If the knights are in a single line, half of them die then and there when the dragon breathes the first time. The rest are severely wounded. On the second and third go, the dragon is guaranteed to kill at least two more knights, with maybe one or two knights trying to flee. If the dragon doesn't mind taking at most 1d8 points of damage, and can now swoop down and kill those two in melee.

If the knights are in pair, one knight is killed while another is severely wounded. The others use this chance to scatter. On the second and third goes, the dragon picks a fresh knight to attack. One more dies, another is wounded. This leaves 2 wounded knights and 4 unharmed ones.

The dragon might feel it safe now to engage the knights in melee, starting with the wounded ones. The dragon hits on a 10, has four attacks doing average total of (4.5+4.5+6.5+11)=26.5, so 15 per round. It goes and kills one more knight. The remaining five group together, so that the wounded knight is at the center. They all parry (+4 to AC).

The dragon attacks the formation, doing only 9 points of damage. The four midly wounded knights proceed to attack, fighting defensively (-4 AB, +2 AC). They know hit the dragon with 14, average 4.5 per hit, for 6 points per round. The dragon can now hit them on a 12, doing 12 points of damage per round. Behind the line, the severely wounded knight drink potion of enlarge.

Next round, the enlarged knight presses and tries to grapple with the dragon. With AB +12, he needs just 8 to initiate it. He is about 30% likely to win the opposing roll to hold the dragon in place. This attempt will likely cost him his life, but if he succeeds, his comrades get one free turn to lynch the dragon, and it gets -3 to AC.

Assuming this happens, the four less wounded knights have one free turn to press, gaining +2 to AB, so they hit the dragon on a 5 and do about 14 points of damage. The dragon uses this round to dispose of the grappler.

At the beginning of next round, "Old blue" has suffered between 18 and 26 points of damage, while the four remaining knights have suffered 21. The dragon takes 2 more rounds to kill a knight, taking 6 more points. Now there are only three knights, doing 5 points of damage.

"Old Blue" has taken between 29 and 37 points of damage. It will take about 12 rounds to dispose of the three remaining knights, suffering around 30 points, enough to trigger its second morale check.

Conclusion: The knights are still canned dinner, but if the dragon stops to fight them, they can at least wound it.

17th match: 8 knights without bows vs. "Old Blue" in its lair

Since there are so few knights, they don't want to follow the same strategy as before. Instead, they draw lots, and the first three walk into death's maw to be fried. They give their potions to others. There's about 50% chance one knight will desert as a result.

For first scenario, we'll assume five knights remain after the initial three have sacrificed themselves to Blue's breath. They drink potions of protection from evil to gain +2 to AC. Three also drink potions of enlarge to grow and get +2 to damage and +20% hitpoints.

To the cave they go. Two enlarged knights form the back row with spears, while on enlarged and two normal-sized form the front. Back row presses. The front row fights defensively. The front row hits on a 14, doing 5 points on average hit, for 5 points sum per round. The back row hits on a 8, doing 6.5 points per hit, for a sum of 10 points per round.

We'll assume "Old Blue" can't use its tail in this scenario. It hits the front row on a 14, having to claws doing 4.5 each and one bite doing 11 points, for average total per round of 7 damage. Assuming it starts with the enlarged soldier, it takes 7 rounds to kill him. In this time, it suffers 105 points of damage! Enough to force both of its morale checks and probably decide this fight is not worth it.

If we assume only 4 knights engage the dragon, it suffers only 98 points by the time it kills the enlarged soldier. If we assume it kills the smallest soldier first, it suffers maybe 4 less points of damage in 7 turns.

In any case, the dragon risks death in both of the above. But wait! What if it tries to be clever and doesn't use its breath weapon for the first tree and instead saves it for the last?

Well, the knights will probably call it quits and hide while they still can if they can't smell ozone three times in succession. But if the first five have to fight one by one in succession, the fight goes something like this:

The first three knights are under no buffs and fight defensively. They hit the dragon on a 14, doing on average 3 points per two rounds. The dragon hits them on a 12, doing 9 points of damage per round. Each knight goes down in five rounds, dealing about 6 points to the dragon, so by the time of 4th knight it has suffered ~18 points.

The rest five realize what is happening, and drink their potions. The dragon now hits them on 14, while three of the five do +2 damage and have +20% hitpoints. Depending slightly on whether the dragon spends its breath on the normal or enlarged knights, it takes between 12 and 15 rounds to dispose of the two knights it doesn't fry, and takes between 15 and 30 points of damage - enough to wound it, but not severely enough to trigger a morale check. The last knight flees while he still can.

Conclusion: if the knights succesfully fool "Old blue" into prematurely using its trump card, they will succesfully drive the dragon away ~63% of the time and kill it ~47% of the time. If their gambit fails, they may drive away the dragon ~3% of the time, but can't hope for anything better. In any case, the knights suffer at least 3 casualties.

[Raineh Daze]

Matchlocks? Really? Can you please redo that bit with more appropriate weaponry? Something that was invented about 25 years before the end of the middle ages at best and not a particularly knightly weapon and is never, ever associated with dragonslaying is not the best choice. :smallannoyed:

I'm not expecting much of a different outcome, it's just that 'knights using matchlocks to kill dragons' seems entirely inappropriate. :smallsigh:

[SiuiS]

It is silly to assume that a trained knight is only level one. Even in 4E, which is strongest on the "1st level is already miles ahead of a commoner" bit, city guards in the MM are much higher than that.

We have no NPC classes, next is built on adventurers being special, building a bunch of level 5 fighters was beyond my means and I couldn't find knights in the bestiary. I wanted to do something with higher level but static troops, but it wasn't worthwhile since I ran out of concretes to use. That's also why the adventuring party went from "30% attacks hit and do an average of X damage" to "the party, like, totally owns, maaaan". Simply a matter of tone because numbers get less ordinal. Or, numbery. Whatever, I'm tired XD



Now that isn't right. 5th level adventurers don't have particularly higher saves than 1st-level fighters. Nor are their damage rolls or team synergy much higher, either. So if the conclusion is that a dragon will probably lose against 100 level-1 troops, then it will completely massacre a pitifully small band of level-5 troops.

At fifth level, there are multiple options for party members to help themselves or others succeed in saves. Paladins make allies better at it, clerics make allies better, etc. their saves are higher because we have no reason not to use an arbitrary array for the NPCs but can reasonably expect the PCs to have custom attributes (within reason, I aimed for +3 bonuses), and the end result is that while both may have to succeed on a 12 or higher on the die, the party is more likely to have someone grant advantage on that save or similar.

I fully expect a party to lose to a dragon if they have to hold a castle, though. Unless they're clever.


That's a common internet meme, but it's not actually in any of the rulebooks, and provably false once you start analyzing character abilities.

Elite and nonelite array are in 3.5, and there are no NPC rules for 5e, so I did what every DM I know does when pulling an NpC retainer out of their plot; I assigned numbers arbitrarily. Commoners get 10s across the board.

On the meme; the math actually holds out for a lot of cases. Those it doesn't are usually combat-balanced.


Anyway, the difference in ability between a commoner and a level-1 fighter isn't very large in any edition (unless you assume the fighter gets advantageous point buy and the commoner does not, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that, either).

1 attack per level vs. 1 attack period? Pretty big difference, I thought. That and proficiency.


Matchlocks? Really? Can you please redo that bit with more appropriate weaponry? Something that was invented about 25 years before the end of the middle ages at best and not a particularly knightly weapon and is never, ever associated with dragonslaying is not the best choice. :smallannoyed:

Gotta give points for class unless and style, though. If we did have a noble who did have the intelligence to utilize his resources properly, that's what would happen. It's a nice albeit silly example of Nope's Steel Net idea; using common human intellect to out-smart stuff with simple and effective tech.

Also, Shadows over Mystara, circa 1994, had airships that bombard satan until he crawls back into his hole as the end-game. So guns like, are a thing. Kinda.

[Raineh Daze]

Gotta give points for class unless and style, though. If we did have a noble who did have the intelligence to utilize his resources properly, that's what would happen. It's a nice albeit silly example of Nope's Steel Net idea; using common human intellect to out-smart stuff with simple and effective tech.

Also, Shadows over Mystara, circa 1994, had airships that bombard satan until he crawls back into his hole as the end-game. So guns like, are a thing. Kinda.

But consider how long China had gunpowder and didn't work out how to kill things effectively with it. Or how bizarre the method for making it is. That is not 'simple'. :smalltongue:

Matchlocks don't get style points when you're giving them to a bunch of knights, especially not if they don't have huge accuracy penalties because rifling hasn't been invented yet. :<

[Frozen_Feet]

The height of full plate armor was in 15th and 16th centuries, in the same period in which matchlocks were invented and became common. There are pictures of people in full plate shooting such weapons. That they aren't traditionally used for dragonslaying is a conceit of the genre, nothing else. All things considered, knights using matchlocks is vastly more realistic than a two companies' worth of soldiers not carrying a single ranged weapon. :smalltongue:

18th match: Knights with matchlock muskets and heavy crossbows vs. "Old blue" on an open field

We'll assume pairs, again. Blue swoops down and electrocutes two knights, one of which remains alive. Next, 7 guns fire on it, hitting on a 6, doing 6.5 point per shot, averaging 31.5 points. Quite a sting, but not enough to drop it.

Next, blue swoops on another pair, killing one more knight, while one survives (albeit heavily wounded). Now, the six remaining knights pull out their heavy crossbows. These too hit on a 7, averaging 4.5 points per shot, for 18.6 points. Blue probably won't stay and fight at this point; if it does, see the above description of open plain melee.

So our knights can't bring it down, but they can severely wound it for only 3 casualties. One knight is likely to desert.

But wait! Even with those muskets, our knightly budget is still rocking some 7800 sp. Surely we could do something with that?

Well, for start, we could buy each knight a potion of insulation for total of 4000, making them immune to electricity. And with the rest, we could buy all of them another crossbow.

We'll also assume the standard ambush, where the knights are spread out.

In this scenario, Blue swoops down to fry a knight. It is 50% likely to kill him. After this, all knights quaff their potions. Blue swoops down to fry another knight, only to find out it has no effect! 7 knights fire for 31.5 points of damage. If Blue tries once more, they fire their crossbows for 22.5 points, now forcing the second morale roll.

At this point, the dragon will either give up, or close in melee. But if it does the latter, the knights can still hit it with one volley, for a likely 18.6 points. At this point, the knights would stand a good chance of winning the fight in melee.

Conclusion: whether ambush or straight fight, the knights are likely to noticeably wound the dragon,and are very likely to succesfully repel it with one to three casualties.

Wild card: 8 Knights with matchlocks and extra swag vs. "Old Blue" in its lair

Like in above examples, we're going to use our leftover money for muskets and potions of insulation, but instead of crossbows we'll use our extra money to replace our spears with pikes (1d10 damage) and our sword&shield combo with greatswords (1d10 damage). What is left we'll use on potions of protection from evil.

Before going in, our heroes quaff their potions. Then, they all charge in. "Old Blue" tries to breathe on them, but finds it has no effect! The first three fire their muskets, hitting on a 7, 6.5 points per shot, for likely total of 14 points. Then they kneel.

Next round, if Blue doesn't try to breathe again, it will assault these strange intruders. It will hit them on a 10, doing 4.5 with two claws and 11 on its bite, for likely total of 11. Then, the second row shoots over the first one, also dealing 14 points. They kneel while the first row draw their weapons.

Blue attacks the front row again, doing 11 points. Third row shoots over the first two for 9 points.

Blue attacks. The most wounded knight retreats to 3rd row. This leaves two in the first and two in the second row to attack. They press, hitting Blue on 8, 5.5 points per hit, for 14 damage.

Blue has now taken 51 points. This round, it hits the knights on 8, doing 13 points. Now, the knights complete their line-up. Six knights hit the dragon for 21 points. Blue has now taken 72 points of damage, is below half its hitpoints and has to make a second morale check.

If necessary, the most wounded knight can again be swapped for a fresh one from the last row. In this turn, only 4 knights attack. Regardless, the knights should be able to take down the dragon in 2 or 3 turns, if it doesn't flee.

Conclusion: the dragon will flee ~63% of the time and be killed ~47% of the time. The knights suffer no casualties.

Bonus: if you really don't like matchlocks, you can replace them with heavy crossbows. The strategy works just as well with them. It may even work better, as the fight will take long enough for the last row to reload. A wounded knight might thus be able to score one extra hit!

[Raineh Daze]

Your challenge, then, is to explain why you have eight knights using a weapon that is only particularly effective for short-ranged volleys and can often be stopped by plate armour (after all, that's where bulletproof comes from) against a flying armoured behemoth. :smalltongue:

Honestly, by the point you're giving them what are basically Potions of Immune to Dragon, you've gone well beyond any 'generic' force. Unless your aim is to prove that adventurers have no reason to exist because nobility can basically send their direct retinue instead. :smallconfused:

[Frozen_Feet]

Hehehe. You don't get it, do you? Well, let me spell it our for you:

The knights are adventurers. :smalltongue:

As for why they use those matchlocks against a dragon, the reason is the same why a large-caliber short-range firearm might be used against any large and dangerous animal. It hurts them. If the dragon is flying, there's even a chance of rupturing or breaking a wing, and if I was in a world populated by giant flying monsters, I would take that chance. They are not particularly small targets or anything.

Also, I feel the need to point out that in any world with giant flyers, development of firearms and other ranged weapons will be paramount. Additionally, the most effective strategies against them (as described in the texts) are essentially the same as what modern armies use when faced with threat of fighters or combat helicopters. To summarize - when faced with aerial threat:


Move in small groups
when a threat is spotted, shout an alarm and duck for cover
don't shoot unless necessary, and shoot all at once to inflict maximum damage and give smallest chance to dodge
if you have to fire, fire with all you got! It doesn't matter if you can't damage the target, it doesn't matter if your weapon can even reach that far, just the slim chance of noise scaring your enemy away is worth the ****ing shot.


Seriously. The last one is important. Any serious army will carry ranged weapons even if the most serious aerial threat is a messenger pigeon. If there's even a chance of dragons and other flyers being around, even the worst shot in the company is going to at least be throwing rocks if it has the feeblest of chances of driving that monster away.

[Raineh Daze]

Hehehe. You don't get it, do you? Well, let me spell it our for you:

The knights are adventurers. :smalltongue:

Oh, we're sending the less notable members of the round table, then? Sounds fair. :smalltongue:


Also, I feel the need to point out that in any world with giant flyers, development of firearms and other ranged weapons will be paramount. Additionally, the most effective strategies against them (as described in the texts) are essentially the same as what modern armies use when faced with threat of fighters or combat helicopters. To summarize - when faced with aerial threat:

I feel the need to point out that the development of gunpowder is pretty much the most nonsensical discovery in the history of humanity after how to make beer.

And these worlds include magic anyway, so non-magical explosions aren't likely to get the same amount of attention. They're much less impressive, for a start.

Anyway, the question I want to ask is: why use matchlocks, which are prone to misfiring, short-ranged, and inaccurate? If you've got a party of 8, why wouldn't you be using something with more accuracy to start with? When a weapon's main weakness is only overcome by sheer numbers, wouldn't you go for something that does slightly less damage but is more reliable?

[Frozen_Feet]

Like perhaps heavy crossbows, which they were also using? :smalltongue:

In my examples, they're pretty much using them for the boom factor and because they could afford them. Like I noted, substitute heavy crossbows if you really don't like them.

I'll just have to disagree on gunpowder (and other explosives); materials for it are very abundant and it is plenty useful for various tasks, not just war or dragon-hunting.

What I wanted to illustrate with my examples was how relatively small and straight-forward improvements in equipment and quality of troops can tip the scale in favor of quality instead of quantity. I also wanted to show how choice of equipment and battlefield can decide the course. If you have no ranged weaponry and are on open terrain, even a weak dragon is terror incarnate. If, instead, you have a ranged weapon, it goes from "terror" to "skeet". In pretty much all cases, fighting the dragon in its lair, AKA confined space where it can't fly, is a better option. A lair. Like, you know, dungeon. Maybe it's Dungeons and Dragons for a reason? :smallwink:

[BayardSPSR]

I'm not sure it really matters whether massed peasants are more effective than a few PCs. After all, most parties probably won't chose to play as some arbitrarily high number of nobodies; one character per player is traditional and most probable.

What seems more important is whether those massed peasants are a greater danger to the PCs than a given dragon is.

I'm not saying it would necessarily be a bad thing for the greatest threat in a setting to be a peasant uprising (Marx would love it) - but do we want a rules system where the ultimate danger a DM can dredge up isn't a Tarrasque or a demilich, but a bunch of angry villagers?

[Raineh Daze]

How do the numbers change if you buff the dragons further? Say we were going to drag out Smaug and his nigh invulnerability due to gemstones.


I'm not sure it really matters whether massed peasants are more effective than a few PCs. After all, most parties probably won't chose to play as some arbitrarily high number of nobodies; one character per player is traditional and most probable.

If peasants are more effective than PC's, PC's are therefore at terrible risk from a bunch of peasants. Not the most heroic death ever.

[Scow2]

All the analysis of the dragon fight is just re-assuring me that Dragons really, really shouldn't be able to fly at-will in combat. Infinite overland flight is fine, but the complete immunity to melee renders the vast majority of dragonslayer archetypes unplayable. There has only been ONE notable archer-dragonslayer, Bard the Bowman.

Saint George? Nope, can't do diddly. Any of the Knights of the Round Table? Can't do diddly. Beowulf? Nope.

And that's just off the top of my head. In fact, most dragons in Western Mythology didn't fly. I think the mechanics need to be changed for dragons so that flight and/or ranged weapons aren't the only answer to the beasts.

[noparlpf]

All the analysis of the dragon fight is just re-assuring me that Dragons really, really shouldn't be able to fly at-will in combat. Infinite overland flight is fine, but the complete immunity to melee renders the vast majority of dragonslayer archetypes unplayable. There has only been ONE notable archer-dragonslayer, Bard the Bowman.

Saint George? Nope, can't do diddly. Any of the Knights of the Round Table? Can't do diddly. Beowulf? Nope.

And that's just off the top of my head. In fact, most dragons in Western Mythology didn't fly. I think the mechanics need to be changed for dragons so that flight and/or ranged weapons aren't the only answer to the beasts.

And even when they can fly, they're big and cumbersome, and don't necessarily have the agility and maneuverability to make fighting while flying practical.

[Raineh Daze]

All the analysis of the dragon fight is just re-assuring me that Dragons really, really shouldn't be able to fly at-will in combat. Infinite overland flight is fine, but the complete immunity to melee renders the vast majority of dragonslayer archetypes unplayable. There has only been ONE notable archer-dragonslayer, Bard the Bowman.

Saint George? Nope, can't do diddly. Any of the Knights of the Round Table? Can't do diddly. Beowulf? Nope.

And that's just off the top of my head. In fact, most dragons in Western Mythology didn't fly. I think the mechanics need to be changed for dragons so that flight and/or ranged weapons aren't the only answer to the beasts.

I don't know much about where Tristan and Lancelot fought their dragons, but Beowulf fought one in its cave, Saint George fought one outside its cave, and Sigurd stabbed Fafnir as he went to get a drink. If you're fighting it somewhere where it can freely fly around and attack you because you've got no cover or potential cover, then yeah, you're screwed.

The answer: don't fight dragons on open plains.

[Frozen_Feet]

A flightless dragon is not a serious threat to armies, though. It is more of a local threat. Though it should be apparent from the examples that a dragon inhabiting a hovel can keep a very strong armed force out.

This one's for Raine:

Wild card #2: 8 knights with longbows vs. 100 conscripts with longbows

At maximum range, the conscripts only hit our knights on 20, 3.5 damage per arrow, for 17,5 points per round. Our knights hit them on a 9, 3.5 damage per arrow, for 16,8 damage per round. In short, they kill 4 conscripts.

2nd round: conscripts deal 16,8 damage, for a total of 34,3. They've yet to drop a single knight. Knights deal 16,8 damage again, killing another 4 conscripts.

3rd round: conscripts deal 16,1 damage, for a total of 50,4. They drop their 1st knight. Knights deal 14,7, dropping 3 conscripts.

4th round: conscripts deal 15,8 damage, for a total of 66,2. Knights deal 14,7, dropping 3 conscripts.

5th round: conscripts deal 15,1 damage, for a total of 81,3. Knights deal 14,7, dropping 3 conscripts.

6th round: conscripts deal 14,5 damage, for a total of 95,8. They drop their second knight. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

7th round: conscripts are now at 80% starting forces. As before in the dragon examples, cascading morale failure happens. First morale roll leaves only 46 conscripts, which is less than half starting forces, triggering the second check, leaving just 27 conscripts. The conscripts deal 4,7 damage, for a total of 100,5. knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

8th round: conscripts deal 4,2 damage, for a total of 104,2. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

9th round: conscripts deal 3,7 damage, for a total of 107,9. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

10th round: conscripts deal 3,7 damage, for a total of 111,6. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

11th round: concsripts deal 2,6 damage, for a total of 114,2. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

12th round: consripts deal 2,1 damage, for a total of 116,3. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

13th round: conscripts deal 1,6 damage, for a total of 117,9. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

14th round: conscripts deal 1 damage, for a total of 118,9. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 conscripts.

15th round: conscripts deal ,05 damage, for a total of 119,4. Knights deal 12,6, dropping 3 concsripts.

Conclusion: 8 knights are enough to kill the whole conscript army with just 2 casualties of their own.

[Raineh Daze]

What do the numbers before and after the commas mean? I'm not familiar with the system you're using. :smallconfused:

[Amidus Drexel]

What do the numbers before and after the commas mean? I'm not familiar with the system you're using. :smallconfused:

They're decimals; it's a predominantly European way of doing it.

The math is pretty interesting, though; I like watching how it plays out.

[Raineh Daze]

They're decimals; it's a predominantly European way of doing it.

That is the second time I have forgotten that. :smallsigh:

I think I once got in argument with someone about whether I should use commas like that because the UK is in Europe.

[BayardSPSR]

7th round: conscripts are now at 80% starting forces. As before in the dragon examples, cascading morale failure happens.

Shouldn't the knights have cascading morale failure too? Two casualties leaves them at 75%, since there were only 8 to begin with.

[Scow2]

A flightless dragon is not a serious threat to armies, though. It is more of a local threat. Though it should be apparent from the examples that a dragon inhabiting a hovel can keep a very strong armed force out.

I'm more of a fan of "Limited flight" dragons. When I think of iconic dragon fights depicted in media, they don't usually just fly around in the air making strafing runs like a cheap bastard (Unless they're fighting each other). They usually stop their runs to land, likely catching their breath and resting their wings. Being able to fly around infinitely isn't something that should be taken as a given.

A dragon that has to land every 2-3 rounds is still a devastating force: On an open field, it can generally fly out of range of the army's footsoldiers (But not Noble Knights), and lure them on a chase, just to roast/snatch up the few bold enough to reach it in time and take off again leaving the army further demoralized. Or, it can land in the middle of the group, knocking everyone around it down, crushing several and slaughtering more, while leaving the knights forced to charge through their own infantry, and infantry forced to climb over each other to try and reach it before it just buffets them away and takes off again.

When attacking a city, a dragon has LOTS of safe perches to rest on (And probably damage in the process), so it's still not at great danger.

In aerial dragonfights, the dragons are usually high enough above the ground they can safely glide/fall to rest, recover, and then rejoin the fray.


Shouldn't the knights have cascading morale failure too? Two casualties leaves them at 75%, since there were only 8 to begin with.No, because Paladins are immune to fear, and other knights are made of MUCH sterner stuff than a bunch of Bloody PeasantsTM. Also, morale only works in groups large enough for mob mentality to set in.

[SiuiS]

And these worlds include magic anyway, so non-magical explosions aren't likely to get the same amount of attention. They're much less impressive, for a start.

This just means that someone, somewhere, is working out a safe way of creatin explosive runes buckshot. Whether chemical or mystical is irrelevant; the point is technology in the sense of application of scientific knowledge can turn a small edge into a game-breaking one. Quality and economics rule war. As I recall, bronze is actually superior to iron but much, much harder to make on large scale. So iron got the go-ahead. Stuff like that is important; a wizard costs like, 100 GP per level per spell! A gun involves boiling poop for a few hours, and paying someone to do that is like 10 GP. Which would you do?


How do the numbers change if you buff the dragons further? Say we were going to drag out Smaug and his nigh invulnerability due to gemstones.


It skews things upwards. In Next, the peasants are boned, the knights are as good as peasants, etc.



If peasants are more effective than PC's, PC's are therefore at terrible risk from a bunch of peasants. Not the most heroic death ever.

Not really an issue. Assuming basic tactics, half a party with decent rages attacks and the other half with tower shields means the party wins via coordinated motion. Lift shield, fire (possible AoE explosives), drop shield at angle to soak all arrows.


All the analysis of the dragon fight is just re-assuring me that Dragons really, really shouldn't be able to fly at-will in combat. Infinite overland flight is fine, but the complete immunity to melee renders the vast majority of dragonslayer archetypes unplayable. There has only been ONE notable archer-dragonslayer, Bard the Bowman.

Saint George? Nope, can't do diddly. Any of the Knights of the Round Table? Can't do diddly. Beowulf? Nope.

And that's just off the top of my head. In fact, most dragons in Western Mythology didn't fly. I think the mechanics need to be changed for dragons so that flight and/or ranged weapons aren't the only answer to the beasts.

I dunno. It's a matter of goals. A dragon against a human knight wants to fight. That's the dragon's goal; killing the knight. It could spend all day flying by and spitting, but that's unlikely to be effective because if that's all the dragon will do you can prepare for it. So it will come into melee. Otherwise it's not a monster, it's terrain.


They're decimals; it's a predominantly European way of doing it.

The math is pretty interesting, though; I like watching how it plays out.

Yeah. Although i thought every monster in Lamentations of the flame princess was unique? I didn't think there was a bestiary to pull standard dragons out of?

[Raineh Daze]

Not really an issue. Assuming basic tactics, half a party with decent rages attacks and the other half with tower shields means the party wins via coordinated motion. Lift shield, fire (possible AoE explosives), drop shield at angle to soak all arrows.

If peasants are more effective than PC's, the fancy tactics wouldn't really help. That's why it would be an issue. :smallconfused:

[BayardSPSR]

If peasants are more effective than PC's, the fancy tactics wouldn't really help. That's why it would be an issue. :smallconfused:

Not to mention that there's nothing to stop the peasants doing the same thing. After all, they've probably just slain a dragon and can afford to arm their survivors with whatever they want.

[Amidus Drexel]

Yeah. Although i thought every monster in Lamentations of the flame princess was unique? I didn't think there was a bestiary to pull standard dragons out of?

Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about... :smallamused:

He made one of the statblocks himself, and took the other one from a setting book, I believe.

[Frozen_Feet]

Shouldn't the knights have cascading morale failure too? Two casualties leaves them at 75%, since there were only 8 to begin with. Knights have better morale, so when the 2nd knight is lost, there's only 48% of one knight defecting. Since 5 knights is more than 4, one knight deserting will not trigger a second test.

If a knight deserts, the knights are still likely to win with just 3 casualties and one deserter.



He made one of the statblocks himself, and took the other one from a setting book, I believe. This is correct.

[Jerthanis]

I'm not sure it really matters whether massed peasants are more effective than a few PCs. After all, most parties probably won't chose to play as some arbitrarily high number of nobodies; one character per player is traditional and most probable.

I think the dangers inherent in this being a part of the system are twofold:

1.) A PC who takes advantage of this fact by cultivating a large stable of NPCs who will back him up will gain more power from his allies than from his own class features, spells, and abilities. This will present a difficult balancing issue for DMs who want to encourage out-of-the-box thinking and becoming invested in his campaign world, but don't want to run a game where this type of "PCs lead an army" gameplay is necessary to overcome his challenges. If 50 1st level guys with bows can take down a dragon, or a 14th level fighter can take down a dragon, then if he wants to challenge a 14th level fighter who has convinced 50 people to follow him into battle, he'd need the story to contain two dragons where otherwise he'd only need one.

2.) A group that contains a lot of PCs or few PCs will have drastic differences in their ability to deal with situations. I've run games for groups of 10 players, and when defensive abilities scale, you can still run single boss monsters for them. You just adjust the numbers so they only hit on a 15+, the monster saves on a 7+, the monster has DR the PCs don't bypass by default... in a game without any of these factors, where AC simply doesn't scale high enough that a PC won't hit on a 10, where saving throws are almost always about 50-50, you're going to face really rough difficulty making epic confrontations in groups with large numbers of PCs, and these aspects of the rules are going to contribute to that difficulty.

Considering the best strategy in any game like D&D where enemies are 100% effective until they're taken down, the best strategy is going to be focus-firing. With more individuals acting in a combat, the more swingy this is going to make combat. If you're leading 50 soldiers into battle versus anything that can threaten that many soldiers, you may be in a situation where 10-20 people act before you, and if you're the target of their focus-fire, you will probably die before you can react.

I should mention that this doesn't have to be a dealbreaker, it seems as if this system functions perfectly happily in this conceptual space. I just don't think it encourages the feeling of D&D of the elite band of specialists who conquer the unconquerable through their extreme specialization, suite of unique tools and cleverness. It seems as if instead that if they won, it will be because they brought enough people to the fight and if they lost it was because they didn't bring enough people to the fight.



What seems more important is whether those massed peasants are a greater danger to the PCs than a given dragon is.

I'm not saying it would necessarily be a bad thing for the greatest threat in a setting to be a peasant uprising (Marx would love it) - but do we want a rules system where the ultimate danger a DM can dredge up isn't a Tarrasque or a demilich, but a bunch of angry villagers?

I've been thinking about this lately, and why it bothers me in D&D the idea of a peasant uprising being a bigger deal than a terrorizing monster when I'm playing a Rokugan game right now in which we're trying to head off a peasant uprising, and it is discussed openly as it being a greater threat to the Rokugani status quo than Fu Leng or the Lying Darkness. I think the reason I like that idea in Rokugan is that you're by design a cog in a machine of a great empire, living and dying in service to the emperor and seeking out your place in a complex and detailed society. Rokugan is laserfocused on this idea of duty and a life of service.

I don't think D&D can't do that as well, but I like the idea that D&D could do that idea at levels 1-7, do a different idea at levels 8-14, and still another idea at 15-20. I like the idea of advancing through these levels and realizing at some point that you've transcended the problems you faced at an earlier point in your career and now face totally different problems. I like a D&D that can do a lot of things and tell a lot of different types of stories well, and it seems like this concept where there are NONE so powerful that they can antagonize a group of people of any real size tells a more limited scope of story than I can really get behind.

[navar100]

Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether peasants can finally defeat house cats.

[FabulousFizban]

I have always been of the opinion that dragons should be very rare, nigh invulnerable, eldritch terrors. I get that this is d&d & a party is going to want to face a dragon @ some point, but flooding the world w/ them in different categories seems to rob them of potency. Defeating a dragon should be a work of ingenuity & plot, im not sure you SHOULD be able to stab them in the hit points. If all you want is to test your character building prowess & fight a big lizard, we have drakes, and linnorms, and sea serpents. A dragon should be something special, something you really dont know if your long time character will walk away from

[Tehnar]

Now that we established that a peasant conscript army is the most dangerous thing in 5e (except perhaps a horde of cats) the question that remains is that:

a) intentional?
b) if it is intentional, is that a type of DnD people would want to play?


I for one, as a player, would not feel satisfied with defeating a monster if I knew a bunch of peasants could do the same. I think a large part of the joy in playing a character is knowing that he/it/she can do things a overwhelming majority of his race cannot; a feeling of elitism if you will.

Actually in most systems I can think off, you play a elite member of society (either by skills, standing, special abilities). I think the peasant horde cheapens that somewhat.

[Scow2]

Now that we established that a peasant conscript army is the most dangerous thing in 5e (except perhaps a horde of cats) the question that remains is that:

a) intentional?
b) if it is intentional, is that a type of DnD people would want to play?


I for one, as a player, would not feel satisfied with defeating a monster if I knew a bunch of peasants could do the same. I think a large part of the joy in playing a character is knowing that he/it/she can do things a overwhelming majority of his race cannot; a feeling of elitism if you will.

Actually in most systems I can think off, you play a elite member of society (either by skills, standing, special abilities). I think the peasant horde cheapens that somewhat.
The only reason a Peasant Horde is any type of threat is because you're throwing too many dice at a situation, and the system doesn't model the things that would interfere with those dice being thrown. The turn-based nature of the game makes people work with perfect coordination (At least when it comes to focused fire), making large groups too deadly against single targets.

I have no problem with a single level 1 adventurer being able to hit a dragon on a moderately lucky roll (17 or 18+) and dealing a small bit of damage. I do have a problem with 1,000 peasants being able to land ~150 highly-lethal attacks.

[Kurald Galain]

I for one, as a player, would not feel satisfied with defeating a monster if I knew a bunch of peasants could do the same. I think a large part of the joy in playing a character is knowing that he/it/she can do things a overwhelming majority of his race cannot; a feeling of elitism if you will.

Actually in most systems I can think off, you play a elite member of society (either by skills, standing, special abilities). I think the peasant horde cheapens that somewhat.
Well, it's the design principle. It's intentional that everything your character can do, everybody else in the world can do too (except for class features and spellcasting), albeit with a slightly higher or lower success rate. No, I'm not a fan of this either.

[Icewraith]

The only reason a Peasant Horde is any type of threat is because you're throwing too many dice at a situation, and the system doesn't model the things that would interfere with those dice being thrown. The turn-based nature of the game makes people work with perfect coordination (At least when it comes to focused fire), making large groups too deadly against single targets.

No you just have a few leader types with a defined chain of command dispersed throughout the horde. They don't have to actually be any better than the other peasants but for whatever reason they're in charge. All the peasants ready their action to shoot/throw/fire when one of the guys in charge yells "fire!" on their initiative count. Granted, the peasant mob is in bad shape if it gets surprised on the first round, but then what mob of ranged attackers isn't in bad shape if they get surprised and their coordination broken?

[Person_Man]

So I'm probably alone on this, but I think we're over analyzing the situation a bit here.

I like Bounded Accuracy. It mostly prevents the game designers from writing an endless series of fiddly +small number abilities/Feats/magic items/etc, which I hate. It keeps the math simple. It keeps the math intuitive, in that you have a reasonable idea of what +1 to something really means (roughly 5%). And most importantly, it means that my character, any character, has some chance of success at anything I might reasonably want him to do - if my 10th level Fighter wants to try and Trip an enemy there's a good chance he can do so even if he hasn't invested in 3 different Trip related Feats.

These are all good things. They make the game simpler, faster, and more fun.

I honestly don't care how 100 theoretical peasants or knights would do in a battle against a dragon (or a house cat) or some other monster, because D&D is not a reality simulation model or a mass combat game. It's not what D&D is about, it's never been what D&D is about, and it is highly doubtful that any of our games would ever feature such a scenario. It's ok for a game to have some willing suspension of disbelief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief).

To put it another way, if D&D Next is good at what it is intended to do (be a fun game about adventuring in small groups of heroes) I'm fine with whatever the "logical implication" of those rules might be for the "real world" - no matter how screwy and wrong they might be.

[BayardSPSR]

Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether peasants can finally defeat house cats.

If a peasant could beat a housecat one on one... that just wouldn't be D&D, would it?

To be (more) serious, at the numbers of peasants we're talking about, I think the humble commoner finally triumphs. One housecat beats one peasant, but I would expect a hundred peasants to beat a hundred housecats, unless they're also opposed by someone with high ranks in herding (cats). So I imagine it could be done with DM fiat, but we're naturally only speaking of RAW here.

Edit:


So I'm probably alone on this, but I think we're over analyzing the situation a bit here.

...

To put it another way, if D&D Next is good at what it is intended to do (be a fun game about adventuring in small groups of heroes) I'm fine with whatever the "logical implication" of those rules might be for the "real world" - no matter how screwy and wrong they might be.

To abandon all humor and speak completely seriously, that's not the issue. A hundred armed, encouraged, and coordinated peasants are the beginnings of a realistic army. I would expect a hundred peasants with muskets (I know someone brought those up) to be an absolute powerhouse in a fight as long as you can make them stand in line. That IS realistic. It IS realistic that an army of a given size would be more effective at killing something than a small group of plucky heroes. No real government I know of has ever elected to solve a problem using five quirky sociopaths.

The problem is that THAT has little to do with dungeons OR dragons. Realism is not what D&D's audience wants.

[Arkhosia]

If a peasant could beat a housecat one on one... that just wouldn't be D&D, would it?

To be (more) serious, at the numbers of peasants we're talking about, I think the humble commoner finally triumphs. One housecat beats one peasant, but I would expect a hundred peasants to beat a hundred housecats, unless they're also opposed by someone with high ranks in herding (cats). So I imagine it could be done with DM fiat, but we're naturally only speaking of RAW here.

So that's why I've never met a razorclaw shifter peasant!

[Scow2]

No you just have a few leader types with a defined chain of command dispersed throughout the horde. They don't have to actually be any better than the other peasants but for whatever reason they're in charge. All the peasants ready their action to shoot/throw/fire when one of the guys in charge yells "fire!" on their initiative count. Granted, the peasant mob is in bad shape if it gets surprised on the first round, but then what mob of ranged attackers isn't in bad shape if they get surprised and their coordination broken?

It's still too much organization. The leaders shouldn't even be as synchronized as they usually are. It's an artifact of the Turn-based system.

[Kurald Galain]

To put it another way, if D&D Next is good at what it is intended to do (be a fun game about adventuring in small groups of heroes) I'm fine with whatever the "logical implication" of those rules might be for the "real world" - no matter how screwy and wrong they might be.

I agree that the arguments about armies vs dragons are hypothetical and won't appear on your average game table.

That said, 5E is still not good at what it's intended to do. It would seriously bother me if a character who has invested resources into being good at something is still routinely beaten by a character who has not: my dextrous elven ranger will often be beaten at stealth checks by the clumsy dwarven barbarian, and the fighter isn't all that much better at melee attacks than the wizard is, even at high level.

There's also the lack of sense of accomplishment in leveling, in that a high-level character who's traveled the planes and beaten dragons will still routinely miss a low-level opponent like an orc in melee combat.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I honestly don't care how 100 theoretical peasants or knights would do in a battle against a dragon (or a house cat) or some other monster, because D&D is not a reality simulation model or a mass combat game. It's not what D&D is about, it's never been what D&D is about, and it is highly doubtful that any of our games would ever feature such a scenario.

Except that PCs having strongholds and running armies is something that definitely happens in many D&D games, whether AD&D's "you've reached name level, congratulations, you have a keep and followers, the rules for mass combat are in Chainmail and/or the DMG" and "the first few levels are lethal, let's get a bunch of hirelings to help us" or 3e's Leadership (and its many variants) and all of the rules in the Stronghold Builder's Guide, Miniatures Handbook, Heroes of Battle, etc.

Even assuming you never use the mass combat rules, if the game is going to support archetypes like summoners or warlords that either create lots of minions or benefit from having lots of minions--and it should, because 4e leaving out "real" necromancers and summoners was a major mark against it for many people--then you still need to worry about whether quantity outweighs quality. Sure, it would only be a few dozen creatures instead of a few hundred or a few thousand, but if those few dozen people outweigh four adventurers then the same problems arise.

[Icewraith]

No real government I know of has ever elected to solve a problem using five quirky sociopaths.



You mean like when you give a group of researchers a DARPA grant?

What about a Special Ops team?

Or alternatively, you're not thinking big enough. Consider the United Nations (although I'm not sure if they actually solve problems).

I would like as much consistency as possible if the next D&D is going to be worth buying, if the optimal solution to any combat encounter is "draft and equip a peasant army" that's going to bother me a little. If there's some debate about whether or not a dragon should be able to kill any army, a sufficiently powerful wizard must be able to kill an army (I think). Awesome wizards defeating entire armies is a thing that happens in campaign setting backstories, at least a few times in FR for starters.

Also, a wizard decimating an army is usually an opportunity for the artist to really show their stuff off.

[Raineh Daze]

You mean like when you give a group of researchers a DARPA grant?

What about a Special Ops team?

I believe you've missed the 'quirky sociopaths' bit out. You need a good reason to pick five nutjobs from unreliable backgrounds over a sizeable military force, or even just the best knights you have paired with the court magician and chaplain.

[Icewraith]

And the reason is that the conventional military force might not work or have already been defeated, but the five nutjobs don't think like normal people, can't be anticipated like normal people, and have special skills (archetypally demolitions, science, supervillainism, or superior physical combat) that normal people don't have the inclincation or natural ability or circumstances to acquire.

Look, the ten or twelve best knights in the kingdom are pretty good, but if you're going up against a dragon Boris the Berzerker can beat any five of them with one hand tied behind his back, and he will do just about anything if you offer him enough shiny objects. Your court magician is your court magician because magical talent is powerful and uncommon, ditto with your chaplain/priest that's important enough to be in your court (assuming divine magic is a thing). That's three of your five right there. If you do send your knights the only one who should have a shot at coming back is the captain of the guard or the awesome rookie and maybe one or two of the strongest guys in the bunch- ideally anyone named "Wedge". Maybe the other guy you should send is your master of assassins (you do have one right?), since he's a tough old bastard skilled with treachery, poison, and silence; and the only one with a mind twisted enough to have a shot at out-thinking the traps and wards the dragon has set in his lair.

This is assuming that you're King by virtue of birth alone, and not that your ancestors are a line of mighty warriors or powerful wizards and you yourself should be part of the dragon-slaying group (can we call it a party yet?).

I mean, you can bring your honor guard if you like but everyone knows they should get toasted in the opening rounds to prove how tough the dragon is. You might as well paint their armor red with black trim and send their salaries to their widows now. Make sure the paint job includes the insignia of a delta or arrow with a ring around it for good measure, and make sure the device is on the left side of the breastplate, maybe 3/4ths of the way up the ribcage?

[BayardSPSR]

You mean like when you give a group of researchers a DARPA grant?

What about a Special Ops team?

Or alternatively, you're not thinking big enough. Consider the United Nations (although I'm not sure if they actually solve problems).

None of those sound anything like any PCs I've ever heard of. And to be honest, you don't really get any governments going to any of those asking them to single-handedly solve specific problems. Relying on Special Forces alone to win a war, for example, would be an exercise in futility. And you don't assign a task force of an evolutionary biologist, a nuclear physicist, and a contract lawyer to cure cancer and expect them to do it.

Now that I think about it, I could imagine PCs acting as the United Nations - but they'd have to draft a lot of peasants to get there.

My question right now is this: what, exactly, are the mechanics by which the PCs will draft their hordes of peasants in 5e? It's clearly going to be critical that these rules function well, or the game just won't be balanced.

[Raineh Daze]

*SNIP*

You're not helping the case for sending independent adventurers rather than just the competent elements of your court. Oh, and they can also rely on material support and having a number greater than, say, five. Seriously.

'In fiction, they all die to show how dangerous the dragon is' will generally not be the reasoning used by a ruler of any description (doesn't even have to be a king with the way the feudal system works) to pick who goes to slay the damn thing.

I also have no idea why you'd have someone with a title like that. If you have assassins around rather than just using handy criminals, you are going to cause yourself trouble.

[Stubbazubba]

I believe you've missed the 'quirky sociopaths' bit out. You need a good reason to pick five nutjobs from unreliable backgrounds over a sizeable military force, or even just the best knights you have paired with the court magician and chaplain.

This does seem familiar...

World Security Council #1: This is out of line, Director. You're dealing with forces you can't control.
Nick Fury: You ever been in a war, Councilman? In a firefight? Did you feel an over abundance of control?
World Security Council #1: You saying that this Asgard has declared war on our planet?
Nick Fury: Not Asgard. Loki.
World Security Council #2: He can't be working alone. What about the other one? His brother.
Nick Fury: Our intelligence says, Thor is not a hostile. But he's worlds away, we can't depend on him to help either. It's up to us.
World Security Council #1: Which is why you should be focusing on phase 2, it was designed for exactly...
Nick Fury: Phase 2 isn't ready, our enemy is. We need a response team.
World Security Council #1: The Avengers Initiative was shut down.
Nick Fury: This isn't about The Avengers.
World Security Council #1: We're running the world's greatest covert security network and you're gonna leave the fate of the human race to a handful of freaks.
Nick Fury: I'm not leaving anything to anyone. We need a response team. These people may be isolated, unbalanced even, but I believe with the right push they can be exactly what we need.
World Security Council #2: You believe?
World Security Council #1: War isn't won by sentiment, Director.
Nick Fury: No, it's won by soldiers.

The answer might just be that your kingdom's army is repelling an invasion of Orcs, the great warrior eradicating an infestation of Kobolds, and your magicians are trying to seal away The Snarl. Or maybe your court magician has thought of thirteen thousand excuses for why he doesn't want to face the dragon in mortal combat and instead of listen to all of them, you just decided to hire someone a little more gung ho about this kind of thing. The obvious counterpoint is that if your court magician and chaplain and the general of your army are not hardened veterans willing to go into this fight, why would they ever rise to prominence in D&D-land? The equally obvious answer is: They wouldn't. But you have to explain how your party ends up doing it instead somehow, so maybe those resources are too valuable to risk? Who knows. The point is there are a million logistical reasons why you wouldn't want to send a gigantic, expensive army or your highly valuable, irreplaceable court resources to curb-stomp a threat when you can just pay this handful of vagabonds waiting to create trouble in a tavern to go do it for far less with a decent enough chance of success. Kingdoms make choices based on predicted ROI, not optimized rates of total success. Things have costs, and smart rulers pay attention to them.

Adventurers don't have to be the optimal tactic for every kingdom-level threat so long as they are by far the most convenient one. Kingdoms, or any nation-state for that matter, are seldom, if ever, run efficiently. That should not be the assumption.

[Icewraith]

I was being a little bit facetious on the sociopath thing, but my point is more that totally normal and mentally balanced people don't tend to acquire tremendous skill, incredible natural ability, or amazing power. Either the acquisition of the ability or the consequences of having it change them. It doesn't have to be a lot in most cases, mind you, but it's there.

The people fulfilling these really important positions might not be perfectly stable but they're there because they're the best you can find or afford as king. If there wasn't centralized government to fund their temples or support their magical research or provide prisoners to torture or order to maintain; one of them might start a kingdom or be a (gasp) adventurer!

Also, "Master of Assasins" sounds cooler than "Chief Spy", "Royal plot-foiler" or similar. His job is also to worry about the other country's assassins or anything else that might try and kill you, so a Dragon is certainly in his jurisdiction.

Special forces don't win wars necessarily, but they do infiltrate the enemy fortress and open the gates/blow up the defenses for the rest of the army. You might not cure cancer with the aforementioned group, but you could round up your best physicists, logicians, and mathematicians (Often the really completely brilliant people in these fields are there precisely because they don't see the world quite the same as regular people) to do something like crack the enemy's "unbreakable" code cipher or develop a superweapon to so devastating the opposing nation has no choice but to surrender. Governments don't necessarily hire stable people, they ideally hire the BEST people who are still stable ENOUGH.

[Kornaki]

The obvious counterpoint is that if your court magician and chaplain and the general of your army are not hardened veterans willing to go into this fight, why would they ever rise to prominence in D&D-land?

Because they picked and chose their fights that they could win instead of rushing into every 50/50 to the death street-fight that they could get their hands on?

I mean, come on, the chaplain? He goes around preaching about god and curing wounds, you can't think of a single reason he might be reticent about eating a face full of dragonfire?

[DeltaEmil]

The dragon is munching the chaplain's sheep, literally and figuratively.

So it's time to bust dragon kneecaps and summon an angelic horde to clobber the dragon, while the BMX Knight pops a hoofsie or does whatever death-daring BMX horse-riding skill tricks one does to distract the dragon.

Angelic Horde, come forth.

But currently, it's peasant horde, come forth.

[Icewraith]

If his creed's the "protect the weak and innocent" type and he wields the divine power of his god, he ought to be raring to go. If he thinks he's not up to the challenge maybe he knows a champion of his order who might be. If he knows the favor and funding of his church in the king's realm depend on his being useful to the defense of the nation, then yes, he should be ready to help tackle the odd dragon or orc horde that threatens the stability of the throne.

Edit:

On the plus side, we've found a setting and system where the 3.5 Bard would be absolute god-tier. Nobody is better at attracting and granting absurd combat bonuses to an arbitrarily large mob of commoners.

[Zeful]

and it should, because 4e leaving out "real" necromancers and summoners was a major mark against it for many people

Except minionmancers either are too effective, or they abjectly suck. Because there's no way to scale the rest of the party around the utterly shattered action economy that the minionmancer breaks simply by existing. So what would you rather have: A summon that essentially replaces you as you spend your actions on his abilities rather than your own, or a bunch of mook summons that only exist to be stomped on by your enemies and provide essentially no benefit?

[Raineh Daze]

Except minionmancers either are too effective, or they abjectly suck. Because there's no way to scale the rest of the party around the utterly shattered action economy that the minionmancer breaks simply by existing. So what would you rather have: A summon that essentially replaces you as you spend your actions on his abilities rather than your own, or a bunch of mook summons that only exist to be stomped on by your enemies and provide essentially no benefit?

Can I have a mob template for my undead horde?

[Kornaki]

Can I have a mob template for my undead horde?

There's an app for that

[Raineh Daze]

There's an app for that

iPhone, Android, or other?

[Flickerdart]

iPhone, Android, or other?
PalmOS. :smallamused:

[MukkTB]

I'm pretty sure that both a world where a peasant army is a threat and a world where a peasant army can't hope to touch the heroes even if the heroes start dancing in the middle of the ranks have interesting implications.

To be honest I've had my fill of being such a badass that the people (NPCs) around me can't even begin to weather the **** I get into regularly. It wouldn't be terrible to try worrying about the peasant army for a change. On the other hand, that doesn't feel very D&D to me. Its some grittier game.


On a side note it is quite fun being worlds tougher than the random low level NPCs one encounters on daily business. Especially the ones prone to talking smack and giving **** right up until some big monstrosity rips its way out of the ground next to them and bites off their heads. I encounter a lot of unhelpful NPCs on my travels. The last one got eaten by a T-REX after we got into an argument about my killing the zombies that were undermining his fort.

[Frozen_Feet]

You're not helping the case for sending independent adventurers rather than just the competent elements of your court. Oh, and they can also rely on material support and having a number greater than, say, five. Seriously.

Those "competent elements of your court" are your adventurers.

Seriously. Adventurer is a person who goes on adventure. When the king, his court magician, court chaplain, spy and three most trusted knights decide to go and slay the dragon, they become adventurers.

In older editions, "independent mercenary" phase was at level 1 when you were still no-bodies! By the time you hit level 9, you were supposed to be one of those kings or queens, with a court all of your own! Having dozens of retainers and leading armies of your own was part of the game.

Like I said: there was a reason for why early editions assumed you started in unconquered backwater boondocks, where no organized armies or kingdoms really existed. There was a reason why all those dangerous monsters default to living in ancient ruins, deep caverns, untamed wilderness and other places far from civilization.

Complaining about wise kings with strong armies acting like wise kings with strong armies should is completely missing the point. It's starting from the middle of the story. Literally. Think of Lord of the Rings, for start. Fellowship starts with a bundle of hobbits fleeing through the woods; by Return of the King, Aragorn is leading armies and Gandalf is his royal councilor, and half of the afore-mentioned hobbits have essentially become knights.

The thought that small bands of adventurers should always be solution to a problem is blind to conventions of D&D's own genre!

[SiuiS]

If peasants are more effective than PC's, the fancy tactics wouldn't really help. That's why it would be an issue. :smallconfused:

Uh, no. Because I just showed how fancy tactics turns 5 guys into a peasant blender. 100 peasants!
1 fireball!
59 peasants!

Peasant Armies ARE NOT ESTABLISHED AS MORE POTENT THAN PCS OR EVEN PROFESSIONALLY KITTED KNIGHTS. That was just DISPROVEN and therefore cannot be the basis of a problem presented. The problem is false.


Not to mention that there's nothing to stop the peasants doing the same thing. After all, they've probably just slain a dragon and can afford to arm their survivors with whatever they want.

Sure there is; logistics. A fireball doesn't care about shield walls. A shield wall reduces your peasant army to 50 arrows which is even more survivable. Unlike the peasant army, the PCs can fall back and regroup effectively. The shielded cleric can advance and pop armor-ignoring save dependent energy. So can the wizard if fireball is too much trouble. Unlike the peasants the fighter can wing and kill two guys at once. A fighter or barbarian or cleric or paladin in melee range can have an unimpeachable AC against the commoner's +0 and cleave through them anywhere from two to four at a time, more if the divinity uses an are smite technique.

Read the damn rules on what Pcs can and NPCs can't do before comparing them. It's right there! I've even brought it up already! You know how many Attacks against a fighter in melee range using two weapon fighting the peasants get? 8. To the fighters two+two guaranteed hits using expertise. Or hey want to use ranged and fall back? The PCs win that game because they can circumvent line of sight and potentially line of effect.

No, it's not "you have +38 armor and DR 15/—" but it is still a decided advantage.


Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about... :smallamused:

He made one of the statblocks himself, and took the other one from a setting book, I believe.

Ah. I missed that.


I have always been of the opinion that dragons should be very rare, nigh invulnerable, eldritch terrors. I get that this is d&d & a party is going to want to face a dragon @ some point, but flooding the world w/ them in different categories seems to rob them of potency. Defeating a dragon should be a work of ingenuity & plot, im not sure you SHOULD be able to stab them in the hit points. If all you want is to test your character building prowess & fight a big lizard, we have drakes, and linnorms, and sea serpents. A dragon should be something special, something you really dont know if your long time character will walk away from

Then only use the legendary template dragons. Your campaign is preserved and it doesn't take tools away from others.


Now that we established that a peasant conscript army is the most dangerous thing in 5e

Bull****. We've established the opposite, and this who chamber "someone said it so it must be true" stuff needs to be stamped out.


Well, it's the design principle. It's intentional that everything your character can do, everybody else in the world can do too

We haven't seen that established at all. For all we know, NPCs may actually default to "lose versus PC". It's not a simulation. They are actually taking steps to move away from simulations.


So I'm probably alone on this, but I think we're over analyzing the situation a bit here.

I like Bounded Accuracy. It mostly prevents the game designers from writing an endless series of fiddly +small number abilities/Feats/magic items/etc, which I hate. It keeps the math simple. It keeps the math intuitive, in that you have a reasonable idea of what +1 to something really means (roughly 5%). And most importantly, it means that my character, any character, has some chance of success at anything I might reasonably want him to do - if my 10th level Fighter wants to try and Trip an enemy there's a good chance he can do so even if he hasn't invested in 3 different Trip related Feats.

Truth.


I agree that the arguments about armies vs dragons are hypothetical and won't appear on your average game table.

That said, 5E is still not good at what it's intended to do. It would seriously bother me if a character who has invested resources into being good at something is still routinely beaten by a character who has not:

What is this routinely beaten?


my dextrous elven ranger will often be beaten at stealth checks by the clumsy dwarven barbarian,

Why? That's a 25% difference outside of skill dice. Not only is the elf succeeding 50% of the time given DC 15, and the dwarf failing all but 25% of the time, but comparing them? How often will the elf roll below ten while the dwarf rolls above fifteen at the same time?


and the fighter isn't all that much better at melee attacks than the wizard is, even at high level.

Bull**** again. The fighter is hitting with advantage and doing somewhere around 35 average damage to the wizard's normal attack at 1d8 If he's lucky.

Stick to actual facts, guys. Please?


Because they picked and chose their fights that they could win instead of rushing into every 50/50 to the death street-fight that they could get their hands on?

I mean, come on, the chaplain? He goes around preaching about god and curing wounds, you can't think of a single reason he might be reticent about eating a face full of dragonfire?

The chaplain doesn't get to heal wounds at all. He's a normal guy with the Proest background. A cleric is a war-front Templar.


Those "competent elements of your court" are your adventurers.

Seriously. Adventurer is a person who goes on adventure. When the king, his court magician, court chaplain, spy and three most trusted knights decide to go and slay the dragon, they become adventurers.

In older editions, "independent mercenary" phase was at level 1 when you were still no-bodies! By the time you hit level 9, you were supposed to be one of those kings or queens, with a court all of your own! Having dozens of retainers and leading armies of your own was part of the game.

Like I said: there was a reason for why early editions assumed you started in unconquered backwater boondocks, where no organized armies or kingdoms really existed. There was a reason why all those dangerous monsters default to living in ancient ruins, deep caverns, untamed wilderness and other places far from civilization.

Complaining about wise kings with strong armies acting like wise kings with strong armies should is completely missing the point. It's starting from the middle of the story. Literally. Think of Lord of the Rings, for start. Fellowship starts with a bundle of hobbits fleeing through the woods; by Return of the King, Aragorn is leading armies and Gandalf is his royal councilor, and half of the afore-mentioned hobbits have essentially become knights.

The thought that small bands of adventurers should always be solution to a problem is blind to conventions of D&D's own genre!

Yes.

[TuggyNE]

Why? That's a 25% difference outside of skill dice. Not only is the elf succeeding 50% of the time given DC 15, and the dwarf failing all but 25% of the time, but comparing them? How often will the elf roll below ten while the dwarf rolls above fifteen at the same time?

About one eighth of the time, in case you're curious.

[Kurald Galain]

About one eighth of the time, in case you're curious.
I'm pointing this out because it's something you'll see in gameplay. When the DM asks the whole party to roll (e.g.) a stealth check, the players call out what they have, and it's instantly obvious who has the highest result. If this consistently isn't the stealthy elf ranger, then said character may quickly get a reputation for being loud and clumsy.

Now this is fine in a beer-and-pretzels humoristic campaign, but it is not fine in an epic fantasy storyline. This leads me to conclude that 5E works best for slapstick settings, where people are expected to randomly fail all the time for the sake of humor.

Note that this is often used as intentional game design. The system for White Wolf is written so that you usually succeed at most tasks, because your character is supposed to be badass. By comparison, the system for Call of Cthulhu is written so that you often fail, because the intent is that you're a weak mortal playing with forces beyond your ken. Likewise, the system for Paranoia is written so that you fail all the friggin' time, because it's funnier that way.

[SiuiS]

I'm pointing this out because it's something you'll see in gameplay. When the DM asks the whole party to roll (e.g.) a stealth check, the players call out what they have, and it's instantly obvious who has the highest result. If this consistently isn't the stealthy elf ranger, then said character may quickly get a reputation for being loud and clumsy.

Now this is fine in a beer-and-pretzels humoristic campaign, but it is not fine in an epic fantasy storyline. This leads me to conclude that 5E works best for slapstick settings, where people are expected to randomly fail all the time for the sake of humor.

Note that this is often used as intentional game design. The system for White Wolf is written so that you usually succeed at most tasks, because your character is supposed to be badass. By comparison, the system for Call of Cthulhu is written so that you often fail, because the intent is that you're a weak mortal playing with forces beyond your ken. Likewise, the system for Paranoia is written so that you fail all the friggin' time, because it's funnier that way.

Two things off the top of my head, before I take a rabies shot and stop frothing.

1) this happens all the time anyway unless you're into brinksmanship. The difference between two graceful elves (thief and wizard) hiding at early levels is about 10%. I've never been in a game where starting with +10 or more didn't unbalance the game, except where there were already other issues present.

2) white wolf (nWoD) games are balanced on 3 dice, about 50% chance of success. It promotes tension. He ability to game the system comes from the designers saying "if you game the system you're an idiot because you're missing the point" and not really tightening the rules.

[Tehnar]

Two things off the top of my head, before I take a rabies shot and stop frothing.

1) this happens all the time anyway unless you're into brinksmanship. The difference between two graceful elves (thief and wizard) hiding at early levels is about 10%. I've never been in a game where starting with +10 or more didn't unbalance the game, except where there were already other issues present.



I've never been in a game where a large modifier difference (or a large difference in success rate) between different characters was a problem, in a certain area.

It shouldn't happen all the time, that a character that invested little to nothing is just as good as a character that invested a lot in the same area. At least in non slapstick games.

[Frozen_Feet]

Since no-one else seems to be interested in doing math comparison, could someone send me Next statblocks for concripts, men-at-arms and knights comparable to those I used before, along with at least one dragon? I'd like to do a comparison using actual playtest material, but I don't have access to any at the moment.

(It should be rather trivial for any of you to make a similar comparison based on my example, if someone else wants to give it a shot.)

[Tehnar]

I was planning on doing that tonight, if I can't find peasants statted out, Ill go with goblins or kobolds or something similar.

[Morty]

The way I see it, it's the job of both the GM and the players to make sure the PCs have a reason to solve the story's plot instead of ignoring it or handing it over to someone else, whether it's a more powerful character or the local authorities. The setting shouldn't be bent into a pretzel to make sure the PCs are always the only people who can actually solve problems.

[Raineh Daze]

Uh, no. Because I just showed how fancy tactics turns 5 guys into a peasant blender. 100 peasants!
1 fireball!
59 peasants!

Peasant Armies ARE NOT ESTABLISHED AS MORE POTENT THAN PCS OR EVEN PROFESSIONALLY KITTED KNIGHTS. That was just DISPROVEN and therefore cannot be the basis of a problem presented. The problem is false.

I did say 'would be'. Didn't say it was a problem, just why it would be it they're more effective.

Am I the only one who wonders about the discrepancy between 'must live away from people to not die' and 'is obliged to routinely terrorise the countryside'? :smallconfused:

[1337 b4k4]

Am I the only one who wonders about the discrepancy between 'must live away from people to not die' and 'is obliged to routinely terrorise the countryside'? :smallconfused:

No real discrepancy here. A ruler's domain might encompass many miles of land (minimum 24 under the older rule sets) only a small amount of which would be under the direct shadow and protection of the castle. Further out on the borders of the domain, villages might have a local bureaucrat and might have a constable if its large enough, but it's mostly going to be farmland and at least half a days ride from the castle if not further. The dragon lives in the wilds beyond the borders and flys in for a free meal of cattle and sheep before flying out again. When your a subsistence farmer, it doesn't take many cattle deaths to "terrorize" you.

[obryn]

To put it another way, if D&D Next is good at what it is intended to do (be a fun game about adventuring in small groups of heroes) I'm fine with whatever the "logical implication" of those rules might be for the "real world" - no matter how screwy and wrong they might be.
Yep, with you here 100%. I think this whole dragon vs. peasant thing is one of those side-effects that arises when you expect the rules of your game to account for every event in the world, as opposed to the important ones the people at the table are participating in.

-O

[DeltaEmil]

The problem arises when there will be hirelings and follower-rules, and Mearls seems to intend to recreate his OD&D-Heartbreaker, where people lead hordes of paid mercenaries into the dungeon and stuff.

I personally don't mind that a horde of peasants could defeat a dragon, but it's important to know if D&D 5th edition does want that kind of game or not, and it should be honest and upfront about what kind of fantasy type it wants to emulate.

The peasant horde vs. dragon situation is a cornerstone that needs to evaluated.

[BayardSPSR]

The problem arises when there will be hirelings and follower-rules, and Mearls seems to intend to recreate his OD&D-Heartbreaker, where people lead hordes of paid mercenaries into the dungeon and stuff.

I personally don't mind that a horde of peasants could defeat a dragon, but it's important to know if D&D 5th edition does want that kind of game or not, and it should be honest and upfront about what kind of fantasy type it wants to emulate.

It looks to me like you're answering your own question. If the designer wants to make a game about hirelings and followers, that's probably what he's going to make; that's what the game he makes is going to 'want' to be.

The entire 'peasants vs dragons' argument is just a facetious way of looking at the fact that the rules are already trending towards the direction of quantity having a quality all its own.

I'll say very clearly here: there is nothing inherently wrong with that being the game's focus. It's been that way before.* Personally, I think it makes it interesting and sets it apart from all the more narrative-oriented games that have come up in the next few decades. I'm actually pleased to see it trying to be more than just "3.5/4e but more marketable", which was my initial fear. It also means that parties will matter more than the did in 3.5, where the purpose of the party was the cheerlead for the caster at higher levels.

Let me remove the sarcasm from my earlier "question over the mechanics to conscript peasants with". What hireling rules have we seen so far? Do they work well, and are they balanced? Based on the stated intentions, this may become very important.

*Edit: Hireling/follower-focused, I mean.

[SiuiS]

Since no-one else seems to be interested in doing math comparison, could someone send me Next statblocks for concripts, men-at-arms and knights comparable to those I used before, along with at least one dragon? I'd like to do a comparison using actual playtest material, but I don't have access to any at the moment.

(It should be rather trivial for any of you to make a similar comparison based on my example, if someone else wants to give it a shot.)

There are nine at present; what I did was as close as we will get.

Oh ho-ho! I was using the wrong data. We do have some.

Human Commoner AC 10, 4 HP
All attributes 10
Pack tactics: cumulative +1 bonus for each commoner within 5' of target.
Proficient with club (+3(?!?!?!) AttB, d4 damage).
"Proficient" with thrown rocks (+3 AttB ranges 20/80, d4)
Not proficient with slings, apparently. Nor longbows.

Human Warrior AC 12, 11 HP (2d8+2)
STR/DEX/CON +1
Disciplined: can mark a target within reach. Attack by fellow Disciplined unit is at advantage.
Proficient with Spear (+4 AttB, melee or 20/80, d6+1)

War chief AC 17, HP 22 (4d8+4)
STR/DEX +2, CON/CHA +1
Commander: disciplined units within 30' get +2 melee damage. Does not stack.
Multi attack: can make two sword attacks.
Proficient with long sword (+5 AttB, d8+2)
Proficient with Javelin (+5 AttB, 30/120 d6+2)

Human Berserker AC 12, 13 HP
STR/CON +2, INT -1, WIS -2
Rage: can take disadvantage on attack to gain +5 damage.
Proficient with great sword (+5 AttB, d12+2)

Apparently, the knights with longbows who could survive a blast of breath was giving humanity too much credit! I especially like how there's no raisin for commoners to be at +3 attack since they are listed as level 1 mooks with no attributes of worth.

Yeah, okay. So "all NPCs are monsters" bothers me. I do like the transparency available from monsters being built on the same system as PCs.

So let's see. All the damage boosts save potentially Rage are useless on ranged attacks. So we have at best, d6+2 against flying (or reach!) enemies. A dragon with AC 16 will be hit something like 15% of the time, so 15*(d6+2=3-8, avg. 5) 45-120 avg. 75 damage to a dragon that is fully capable of splitting movement as action (descend to breathing distance, attack, return to safety) until the numbers thin.



The way I see it, it's the job of both the GM and the players to make sure the PCs have a reason to solve the story's plot instead of ignoring it or handing it over to someone else, whether it's a more powerful character or the local authorities. The setting shouldn't be bent into a pretzel to make sure the PCs are always the only people who can actually solve problems.

Yeah, but as has been pointed out, "that's not a rules issue", and so isn't worth discussing? I dunno. I always though application was important, too. Handing someone a DMG without a note about common sense is like neglecting gun safety because safe practices aren't germane to the mechanisms of ballistics.



I personally don't mind that a horde of peasants could defeat a dragon, but it's important to know if D&D 5th edition does want that kind of game or not, and it should be honest and upfront about what kind of fantasy type it wants to emulate.

The peasant horde vs. dragon situation is a cornerstone that needs to evaluated.

Peasant v. Dragon I explicitly something they want to be "possible, but not probable". I wouldn't be surprised if both peasants and dragons were built specifically to make this contest as close as it is, and they extrapolated other monsters from there.

[Frozen_Feet]

I did say 'would be'. Didn't say it was a problem, just why it would be it they're more effective.

Am I the only one who wonders about the discrepancy between 'must live away from people to not die' and 'is obliged to routinely terrorise the countryside'? :smallconfused:

As a flying carnivore, a dragon's operative radius is dozens of miles. Its lair could be on top of a mountain or in the middle of nowhere, and it could still destroy a setlement per week.

Think of it for a moment. To gather a conscript force of 100 strong, there pretty much has to be at least twice as many more people (women, children and elders) and 10 times as much livestock (cattle, chickens, horses) nearby. These hundreds of unarmed people and animals have no defense whatsoever if the men are away.

Besides, you overestimate what it takes to scare people. Wolves here have not attacked a human in a century, but many people still regard them with a mix of fear and genocidal hatred. There are five million humans here, and maybe 250 wolves.

A single dragon attack will keep people on their toes for a decade.

[SiuiS]

It looks to me like you're answering your own question. If the designer wants to make a game about hirelings and followers, that's probably what he's going to make; that's what the game he makes is going to 'want' to be.

The entire 'peasants vs dragons' argument is just a facetious way of looking at the fact that the rules are already trending towards the direction of quantity having a quality all its own.

I'll say very clearly here: there is nothing inherently wrong with that being the game's focus. It's been that way before.* Personally, I think it makes it interesting and sets it apart from all the more narrative-oriented games that have come up in the next few decades. I'm actually pleased to see it trying to be more than just "3.5/4e but more marketable", which was my initial fear. It also means that parties will matter more than the did in 3.5, where the purpose of the party was the cheerlead for the caster at higher levels.

Let me remove the sarcasm from my earlier "question over the mechanics to conscript peasants with". What hireling rules have we seen so far? Do they work well, and are they balanced? Based on the stated intentions, this may become very important.

*Edit: Hireling/follower-focused, I mean.

Good points.

And, there are none. There's the possibility o more sneaky edits in the most recent release, what with the Orc and gnome, but I don't have ready access to those. Not right now.

[Morty]

Yeah, but as has been pointed out, "that's not a rules issue", and so isn't worth discussing? I dunno. I always though application was important, too. Handing someone a DMG without a note about common sense is like neglecting gun safety because safe practices aren't germane to the mechanisms of ballistics.


I think you're missing my point. What I meant to say was that it's perfectly fine if a large, conventional army can handle monsters, including dragons, because the system doesn't need to bend over backwards to make sure the PCs are the only people capable of handling problems.

[Scow2]

Apparently, the knights with longbows who could survive a blast of breath was giving humanity too much credit! I especially like how there's no raisin for commoners to be at +3 attack since they are listed as level 1 mooks with no attributes of worth.


In case you didn't notice... EVERY goddamn monster in the manual has an arbitrary +3 attack bonus. It's one of the things that ticks me off about D&D Next because of the clear discrepency between monsters and player characters.

[Raineh Daze]

Peasants are also clearly superior for dealing with large creatures if you work out how to get them there:


Pack tactics: cumulative +1 bonus for each commoner within 5' of target.

+8 for a normal creature. +12 for a large one. +16... yeah, it quite easily gets to the point where commoners cannot fail to hurt the most enormous of monsters.

[Scow2]

Peasants are also clearly superior for dealing with large creatures if you work out how to get them there:



+8 for a normal creature. +12 for a large one. +16... yeah, it quite easily gets to the point where commoners cannot fail to hurt the most enormous of monsters."Working out how to get them there" is the operative term, and is nigh-impossible to achieve. It's difficult to move adjacent to something when your feet are moving away from it. Or you're reduced to a pile of gibs.

[Raineh Daze]

"Working out how to get them there" is the operative term, and is nigh-impossible to achieve. It's difficult to move adjacent to something when your feet are moving away from it. Or you're reduced to a pile of gibs.

They still gave the possibility for peasants to completely break bounded accuracy. Just... what.

Also, the wording, such as it is, makes me suspect that you could get 8 commoners around them, then have the rest throw rocks--and they'd all have a +11 bonus...

[Friv]

Peasants are also clearly superior for dealing with large creatures if you work out how to get them there:



+8 for a normal creature. +12 for a large one. +16... yeah, it quite easily gets to the point where commoners cannot fail to hurt the most enormous of monsters.

Nope, they only get the bonus to a maximum of +5 (not sure if that's meant to include the +3 they inexplicably start with).

[Raineh Daze]

Nope, they only get the bonus to a maximum of +5 (not sure if that's meant to include the +3 they inexplicably start with).

Ah. If it includes the +3, then, uh... what.

[Friv]

Ah. If it includes the +3, then, uh... what.

Allow me to pull up the exact wording, for those who don't have the playtest at hand:



Pack Tactics: The commoner gains a cumulative +1 bonus to attack
rolls, to a maximum of +5, for each friendly creature that is within 5 feet of its target.

Probably, this means that the bonus goes up to +5, and having up to five other peasants next to you gives you a bonus on top of your basic +3. So peasants can reach +8 to hit.

[Water_Bear]

So does that mean that if you catapulted a bunch of peasants wrapped in damp straw and glue at the dragon that the rest of your conscripts could pepper it with super-accurate bow shots? Even with whatever their non-proficiency penalty is, +5 is nothing to sneeze at especially when you can roll dozens or hundreds of d20s a turn.

[Person_Man]

I agree that the arguments about armies vs dragons are hypothetical and won't appear on your average game table.

That said, 5E is still not good at what it's intended to do. It would seriously bother me if a character who has invested resources into being good at something is still routinely beaten by a character who has not: my dextrous elven ranger will often be beaten at stealth checks by the clumsy dwarven barbarian, and the fighter isn't all that much better at melee attacks than the wizard is, even at high level.

There's also the lack of sense of accomplishment in leveling, in that a high-level character who's traveled the planes and beaten dragons will still routinely miss a low-level opponent like an orc in melee combat.

Fair enough. OK. So let's assume the following:


1) D&D Next should be a fun game, which is about the roleplaying, exploration, and combat of a small (1-8) party of Player Characters in a fantasy world. (Not mass combat, not "what would happen if..." situations that rarely happen in a typical D&D game).

2) The math which models the PCs actions in and out of combat should be relatively simple and intuitive.

3) If an action is something that a heroic humanoid could theoretically do, there should be some reasonable minimum chance of success, so that the PC never feels as if can't do things unless they invest in it.

4) If a player does level up and invest in being really amazing at something, they should have a reasonably high chance of success at that thing, but not so high that it's automatic.

What would your ideal math be? I ask honestly because I'm open to different ideas on this, not facetiously to try and prove a point.


Yes, the world's greatest Rogue might be noticed by a random Barbarian 1 out of 5ish times. But I'm ok with that, because in an actual D&D game, you don't want any challenging action to have a 100%ish chance of success, because then it's not a challenge, and it starts to destroy game balance, and it makes the game less fun.

To provide another example, lets say I optimize my Barbarian's to hit and damage so that I hit 95% of the time and kill 95% of enemies in one hit. But other people in my party aren't as good at optimization as I am, or they focus on non-combat things. Is combat still a challenge for me? Will it still be fun? Will the imbalance in my party cause problems? In 3.X/PF, the answer was yes, and it caused endless headaches for the DM. I would prefer D&D Next to fix this problem, and I am open to alternative solutions.

[Kurald Galain]

Probably, this means that the bonus goes up to +5, and having up to five other peasants next to you gives you a bonus on top of your basic +3. So peasants can reach +8 to hit.

So what we're seeing here is that if an adventuring party hires just a single peasant as a henchman, that peasant will likely be their best fighter :smallcool:

[Raineh Daze]

What would your ideal math be? I ask honestly because I'm open to different ideas on this, not facetiously to try and prove a point.

Yes, the world's greatest Rogue might be noticed by a random Barbarian 1 out of 5ish times. But I'm ok with that, because in an actual D&D game, you don't want any challenging action to have a 100%ish chance of success, because then it's not a challenge, and it starts to destroy game balance, and it makes the game less fun.

There's a key word in this statement, which I've gone and bolded. See, why is the world's greatest rogue incapable of sneaking past 5 people in a row without a high chance of failure? Or let's say it's a group of peasants who've just been to a wedding. Should the world's greatest rogue really fail to sneak past a bunch of drunkards?

If the only way to achieve actually sneaking past large groups reliable is to declare success because it's not heroic/challenging enough to be worth rolling for, I have to question the existence of a skill system in the first place. Just use ability scores in that case, maybe at bonuses to the things through some external system. A skill system that leads to supposed masters failing to random guys dragged off the street isn't worth keeping... :smallsigh:

[Kurald Galain]

Fair enough. OK. So let's assume the following:
For the record I don't personally agree with points 3 and 4. I do think that a character invested at being "really amazing" at something should have automatic success at standard difficulty tasks (but not at hard tasks). I disagree that having a significant chance of failure is what makes things "challenging" and "fun".

And personally I'd throw in point 5 to state that a character that has invested into being good at something should almost always beat a character that has not - because otherwise, what's the point in investing?

Anyway, given all that I would just write down what I want the probabilities to be, and then put a system around it that does that. For example,

{table]Skill|Easy|Moderate|Hard
None|50%|20%|5%
Talent or training|80%|50%|20%
Talent and training|95%|80%|/50%
[/table]

For "talent" read "high relevant ability score", and for "training" read "trained in the relevant skill". This may need more DCs than just three, of course.

So a simple d20 system does this well enough if the modifiers for "talent" and "trained" are high enough (I'd say in the +5 to +10 range), and it may be useful to insert a rule for automatic successes/failures on a 20 and 1 respectively. A simple dice pool system also does this well enough (you roll more dice if you're more talented or trained, require more successes for moderate/hard, and get an extra roll if you get maximum). In my experience, dice pools are relatively slow to play, and a flat d20 is too random, so I would go for a 3d6 roll-to-beat-DC.

The math involved isn't hard (and shouldn't be hard, to keep the game accessible). The point is to write down probabilities you want and then design the math around it, not to write down a simple system and just hope the probabilities turn out what you'd like them to be. The important part is deciding what you want the above table to look like; I suspect that what WOTC is looking for is more something like this,
{table]Skill|Easy|Moderate|Hard
None|60%|50%|40%
Talent or training|70%|60%|50%
Talent and training|80%|70%|60%
[/table]

[Water_Bear]

Yes, the world's greatest Rogue might be noticed by a random Barbarian 1 out of 5ish times. But I'm ok with that, because in an actual D&D game, you don't want any challenging action to have a 100%ish chance of success, because then it's not a challenge, and it starts to destroy game balance, and it makes the game less fun.

But that's designing entirely backwards; instead of saying "this task is no longer a challenge to a character who has invested heavily in X" it says "this task must always be a challenge regardless of investment." Except what actually works like that?

If I and the winner of the World's Strongest Man (or the World's Strongest Woman for that matter) competition both do 1,000 dead-lifts I can give you a 100% guarantee that I will lose all 1,000 of those contests. If I and Gary Kasparov (or a smartphone chess app) play 1,000 chess games I can say with absolute certainty that I will win exactly 0 games. And the same goes for pretty much any other example you might care to name; there is a level of innate talent and skill which is simply unapproachable by an untrained person.

Rather than trying to artificially force specialists to be "challenged" by rank amateurs, why not make sure that there's always some new level of challenges available? A chess expert will kick my butt easily but by annihilated by a Grand-master, who will themselves lose consistently against a $500 commercial chess computer. In that same way, why should a ninja be worried about being seen by distracted Orcs but always have a chance of getting past an overcaffeinated Beholder?

Its a fundamental problem with bounded accuracy when a game of heroic fantasy cannot even contain the range of human skill in the real world.

[Raineh Daze]

I wonder if there's a way to fit DC's in a neat scale with the blasted skill dice thingies? Something like 3d6+Ability Modifier as a default, initial investment gets 4d6, best 3, as the actual roll, and then you add the extra dice stuff on top of that? Or 4d6, best 3,+1d4+ability mod; then 5d6, best 3,+1d6+ability mod and leave it at that. Or something. I don't know. :smallredface:

[Kurald Galain]

Rather than trying to artificially force specialists to be "challenged" by rank amateurs, why not make sure that there's always some new level of challenges available? A chess expert will kick my butt easily but by annihilated by a Grand-master, who will themselves lose consistently against a $500 commercial chess computer.
That's precisely it, yes. A high-level ranger shouldn't be "challenged" by climbing a tree, but should have a decent chance at climbing a backwards-sloping ice wall while carrying the princess in his off hand.

The motto is that highly-trained characters can do awesome things that ordinary people can't. A simple and effective system for that is to give each task a rank from 1 to 5 (where 1 is climbing a tree and 5 is the aforementioned ice wall with princess), and give each character a rank from 1 to 5 (1-2 points for attribute, 0-3 points for skill training). If your rank is higher than the task, you automatically succeed; if lower, you automatically fail; if equal, you roll for it.

Of course, you can do the same with 1d20 (again) assuming the modifiers are high enough. The point is that some people want tasks and characters to routinely run off the RNG (because skill beats luck) whereas others think that that's not fair. Just don't bring in horror stories of crappy DMs, because with a crappy DM the game is going to suck regardless of what system you're using.

Or, in other words, this all comes back to the "combat as war" mindset (the former) vs "combat as sport" (the latter).

[navar100]

There's a key word in this statement, which I've gone and bolded. See, why is the world's greatest rogue incapable of sneaking past 5 people in a row without a high chance of failure? Or let's say it's a group of peasants who've just been to a wedding. Should the world's greatest rogue really fail to sneak past a bunch of drunkards?

If the only way to achieve actually sneaking past large groups reliable is to declare success because it's not heroic/challenging enough to be worth rolling for, I have to question the existence of a skill system in the first place. Just use ability scores in that case, maybe at bonuses to the things through some external system. A skill system that leads to supposed masters failing to random guys dragged off the street isn't worth keeping... :smallsigh:

A skill system can still have that, just not at level 1. Eventually your total skill modifier is high enough that you really can't fail at some tasks. A level 1 rogue can't sneak past all the drunkard wedding guests, but a level 10 rogue can. The fun is still there because you've earned the spoils of that autosuccess. What's changed is the bar of what makes an encounter challenging. That level 10 rogue can still fail to sneak past a coven of liches.

It's the DM's problem, not the game's, if he can't stand that what was challenging at level 1 doesn't remain so when the party reaches level 10. 3E allows a character to be just that good to autosucceed at something. That's a feature, not a bug. That's what earning levels entitles you. The fun is in the earning and enjoying the spoils. The fun of a challenge moves on to some other task that was impossible at level 1.

It appears Bounded Accuracy will remove this autosuccess. That will satiate players who loathed PCs autosucceeding what used to be a challenge, but it will now p*** off players who actually liked they can eventually autosucceed on stuff that used to be challenging and move on to other challenging stuff. (Raises hand.) Such a thing does not indulge me into wanting to play 5E.

[Scow2]

And we come back to the skills discussion. :smallsigh:

Up until 3rd edition, a Rogue never had a 100% chance of sneaking past something. The problem with Stealth is that it's always an opposed check, which means there's a 25% chance of the DC being 5 points higher than it should be, and 5% chance of it being stupidly large, with those percentages ballooning stupidly fast when you start adding other 'observers'. Non-PC opposed checks need to die horribly. In all the modules I've seen, the check to see a monster has always been a static DC.

Keep in mind that D&D Next does not have any "skills" at all. It has Ability checks. Skills are just honing of an ability check. It does NOT have or want the stratification of previous editions. If you want to be able to do something crazy, you get a class feature, feat, or other ability to do it, not a +Stupidly Large Number on a roll.

[Raineh Daze]

*Snip*

Check the first line of my quote. 'World's greatest rogue'. Clearly not a level 1 character.


Up until 3rd edition, a Rogue never had a 100% chance of sneaking past something. The problem with Stealth is that it's always an opposed check, which means there's a 25% chance of the DC being 5 points higher than it should be, and 5% chance of it being stupidly large, with those percentages ballooning stupidly fast when you start adding other 'observers'. Non-PC opposed checks need to die horribly. In all the modules I've seen, the check to see a monster has always been a static DC.

Then we just go back to the same master rogue opening doors. Instead of sneaking past peasants at a wedding, he decides to break into their houses. Eventually, he is repeatedly stymied by a crude, obvious lock.

Meanwhile, one of the wedding guests somehow cracks into a noble's strongbox on his first try.

[obryn]

The problem with Stealth is that it's always an opposed check, which means there's a 25% chance of the DC being 5 points higher than it should be, and 5% chance of it being stupidly large, with those percentages ballooning stupidly fast when you start adding other 'observers'. Non-PC opposed checks need to die horribly. In all the modules I've seen, the check to see a monster has always been a static DC.
Yep. Opposed d20 rolls are basically probability purgatory.

I've gone on at length about this before, but despite generating a rudimentary curve, said curve is extremely shallow and disadvantageous for the more-skilled character.

[Scow2]

Then we just go back to the same master rogue opening doors. Instead of sneaking past peasants at a wedding, he decides to break into their houses. Eventually, he is repeatedly stymied by a crude, obvious lock.

Meanwhile, one of the wedding guests somehow cracks into a noble's strongbox on his first try.He might take more than 6 seconds to open the lock. Nothing terrible about that.The d20 roll represents the myriad things that can go right or wrong for someone attempting an action in a situation.

If the wedding guest manages to open the lock on a noble's strongbox the very first try, it would mean they already have Proficiency with Thieves' Tools, meaning they do know what they're doing. It just went easier than expected.

[Frozen_Feet]

Re skills: 3E actually had not just one, but two mechanics that always allowed a more skilled character to outperform a less skilled one. Both could be reintroduced without abandoning bounded accuracy.

They were called Take 10 and straight ability comparisons. Take 10 could be rephrased as straight skill comparison, as that's what it becomes in many opposed tests.

[SiuiS]

I think you're missing my point. What I meant to say was that it's perfectly fine if a large, conventional army can handle monsters, including dragons, because the system doesn't need to bend over backwards to make sure the PCs are the only people capable of handling problems.

No, I didn't miss it. I was being facetious since the usual retort to something reasonable is "it's not a rule so nyeh". You'll notice i personally agreed with you in there.


Peasants are also clearly superior for dealing with large creatures if you work out how to get them there:


Maximum +5. Sorry.



Probably, this means that the bonus goes up to +5, and having up to five other peasants next to you gives you a bonus on top of your basic +3. So peasants can reach +8 to hit.

Which is about right for a gang beatin where five guys with clubs accost you simultaneously and beat you down.

What the **** is this doing in a game where a fifteen tone magical lizard barely gets that for being a fifteen ton magical lizard? The hay if I know.


So does that mean that if you catapulted a bunch of peasants wrapped in damp straw and glue at the dragon that the rest of your conscripts could pepper it with super-accurate bow shots? Even with whatever their non-proficiency penalty is, +5 is nothing to sneeze at especially when you can roll dozens or hundreds of d20s a turn.

There is no non-proficiency penalty. It's disadvantage. Which means with +8, they're consistently rolling 13 or so? It's basically the same thing as the commoner rail gun. If the DM allows it, he's already given up.


But that's designing entirely backwards; instead of saying "this task is no longer a challenge to a character who has invested heavily in X" it says "this task must always be a challenge regardless of investment." Except what actually works like that?

You missed the part where it's a worthy challenge. Your examples fail because you aren't a worthy challenge. You aren't the leveled barbarian to their leveled rogue; you're chaff. You're the guy who's a background element when they win, no roll involved.

If The system only models appropriate challenges then you've ruined your own argument, because you're trying to say that you both are and are not an appropriate challenge.


He might take more than 6 seconds to open the lock. Nothing terrible about that.The d20 roll represents the myriad things that can go right or wrong for someone attempting an action in a situation.

If the wedding guest manages to open the lock on a noble's strongbox the very first try, it would mean they already have Proficiency with Thieves' Tools, meaning they do know what they're doing. It just went easier than expected.

Air, you're bein sensible. I'm gonna need to see some swearing or something or I'll have these commoners escort you out of the thread.

[Scow2]

You missed the part where it's a worthy challenge. Your examples fail because you aren't a worthy challenge. You aren't the leveled barbarian to their leveled rogue; you're chaff. You're the guy who's a background element when they win, no roll involved.

Actually, it would still be a roll: ~DC 10-12 stealth check, which a high-level rogue should be able to pull off VERY easily.

[Tehnar]

N

You missed the part where it's a worthy challenge. Your examples fail because you aren't a worthy challenge. You aren't the leveled barbarian to their leveled rogue; you're chaff. You're the guy who's a background element when they win, no roll involved.

If The system only models appropriate challenges then you've ruined your own argument, because you're trying to say that you both are and are not an appropriate challenge.


Since there is no definition of appropriate challenges, and no clear criteria of determining them (other then DM fiat) you have no right to dismiss those examples.

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid mode of argumentation, while dismissal of ideas with no arguments presented is not. You have not presented a valid reason why a peasant is not a challenge, other then DM fiat. You can easily replace peasant with goblin, kobold, or some other weak but otherwise perfectly frequent PC opposition.

[Scow2]

D&D Next DOES make big numbers of enemies scary. Its focus is on discrete groups of small ones, though. 5 Peasants CAN put the hurt on even a hero if they get the jump on him... but the hero should be able to shrug off their d6s of damage before they get hurt too badly.

[Felhammer]

They were called Take 10 and straight ability comparisons. Take 10 could be rephrased as straight skill comparison, as that's what it becomes in many opposed tests.

Ugh, I hate take 10 and take 20. I hope they are not re-introduced in the core rules.

Ability comparisons where in Next via how Initiative was being settled.

[BayardSPSR]

The random +3 seems silly, but I actually like that mobbing rule (mob rule? clubbing rule?). As a DM, I like that the PCs will have to have a minimum of respect for the people they're supposed to be helping, especially at low levels when they have no excuse for being mad with power and status. At worst, if they start stabbing villagers for xp, then it's not too hard to pull off a successful stoning... At low level, of course.

But as a player, I love the idea of having a mob of peasants carry my things and stone people on command. Next doesn't do that yet, but I hope it does eventually.

I have no meaningful comment on the whole "bounded accuracy" thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a more extreme variant of the critical success/critical miss concept, or even the massive potential for variance in a system based on d20s. Next is still going to be based on d20s, so I don't see the problem (if we consider it a problem) going away.

Then again, if the minimum chance of failure or success at anything is always 25%, I don't see why they don't just base the system on d4s and be done with it. Simple, easy, elegant - but of course D&D has never been about simplicity, ease, or elegance. Maybe I'm just jaded.

[Person_Man]

Anyway, given all that I would just write down what I want the probabilities to be, and then put a system around it that does that. For example,

{table]Skill|Easy|Moderate|Hard
None|50%|20%|5%
Talent or training|80%|50%|20%
Talent and training|95%|80%|/50%
[/table]

For "talent" read "high relevant ability score", and for "training" read "trained in the relevant skill". This may need more DCs than just three, of course.

So a simple d20 system does this well enough if the modifiers for "talent" and "trained" are high enough (I'd say in the +5 to +10 range), and it may be useful to insert a rule for automatic successes/failures on a 20 and 1 respectively. A simple dice pool system also does this well enough (you roll more dice if you're more talented or trained, require more successes for moderate/hard, and get an extra roll if you get maximum). In my experience, dice pools are relatively slow to play, and a flat d20 is too random, so I would go for a 3d6 roll-to-beat-DC.


Well, that actually all sounds very reasonable. All it needs is a set of well defined criteria for what is an easy, moderate, or hard task.

To address the other concerns people have on variance, perhaps something like this would work:


All tasks are resolved by 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier (capped at +5) + 1/4 your class level (minimum +1, max +5) for tasks you are trained/proficient/skilled/etc in.

Things like Trip or Grapple are opposed tasks. Everything else has a DC, set by DM. General guideline: Easy = 10, Moderate 15, Hard 20, Extraordinary (stuff that only the best of the best could do) 25.

Situational modifiers/Circumstances/Feats/Spell/Special Abilities/DM fiat/etc can grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage. Advantages and Disadvantages cancel each other out. You may roll up to 3d20. This eliminates all fiddly modifiers, while also eliminating most of the variance issues.

1 always fails. 20 always succeeds. DM is also allowed to auto-pass or auto-fail for tasks he considers incredibly easy or physically impossible.

[lesser_minion]

There's a key word in this statement, which I've gone and bolded. See, why is the world's greatest rogue incapable of sneaking past 5 people in a row without a high chance of failure? Or let's say it's a group of peasants who've just been to a wedding. Should the world's greatest rogue really fail to sneak past a bunch of drunkards?

Why shouldn't the world's greatest rogue fail to sneak past a bunch of drunkards? Assuming that "the world's greatest rogue" must be really good at passing stealth checks is far less reasonable than you think.

If a character is "the world's greatest rogue" then it's because she's pulled off some of the most difficult and daring missions (be those rescues, kidnappings, burglaries, sabotages, assassinations, or any other kind of covert mission you can imagine her taking on).

But that doesn't necessarily imply that she's good at passing stealth checks. Not all rogues are sneaky types, and the first thing any sneaky type rogue worth her salt actually learns is not how to pass stealth checks, it's how to avoid having to roll them in the first place, through things like careful planning and skilled intelligence-gathering to inform those plans.

[Raineh Daze]

Why shouldn't the world's greatest rogue fail to sneak past a bunch of drunkards? Assuming that "the world's greatest rogue" must be really good at passing stealth checks is far less reasonable than you think.

Fine, replace 'world's greatest rogue' with 'world's greatest sneak'. The point's the same. They'll still fail to get past a crowd of party-goers.


But that doesn't necessarily imply that she's good at passing stealth checks. Not all rogues are sneaky types, and the first thing any sneaky type rogue worth her salt actually learns is not how to pass stealth checks, it's how to avoid having to roll them in the first place, through things like careful planning and skilled intelligence-gathering to inform those plans.

See, what you've just described there is an average sneak to me. One that has to use such tricks to get past the rabble. The world's greatest would only consider such things when there's a real risk of being caught--otherwise, sneak right past, no need to worry about being spotted by a few drunken peasants.

They're not the world's foremost sneak if they can't get past a few drunkards reliably. :|

Hell, the greatest could probably walk down a busy street without being seen by anyone who's not exceptional.

[Stubbazubba]

In the same vein for making skills work, there's a series of articles by the Angry DM that would make awesome rules for when to roll skills, and when to auto-succeed/fail:

Source: Angry DM (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/3/)

Only roll when the following 3 conditions are all met:

There is a chance of success
[2]There is a chance of failure, and
[3]Failure carries a cost or risk


#1 means it's actually in the mathematical capability of the player (and hopefully that means it's within the sensible constraints of the game, but if not, that applies, too). #2 means there's an actual end-point beyond which you cannot attempt again, and #3 means failing the skill check(s) gets you to the failure point.

If you come up to a lock on a door that you are capable of opening and sitting there working on it doesn't risk anything, there shouldn't be a roll. The GM double checks the numbers to make sure it's in your skill level, and voila, you succeed. It's like Take 10, but better. However, if you are trying to outrun the palace guards and need to get into a locked room to hide and they're hot on your heels, then stopping to pick the lock gives them the time they need to turn the corner, spot you, and possibly catch you if you fail to get it open. Failure here carries a definite cost, so a check is warranted. Now, I might give you two checks; 1 to see if you can get in there before they round the corner and spot you, and the second to see if you are spotted, but manage to get through the door before they catch you. Of course, after the first failure, the PC will have to decide if continuing on that lock is the best use of his time, but that's the point.

[Flickerdart]

Why shouldn't the world's greatest rogue fail to sneak past a bunch of drunkards? Assuming that "the world's greatest rogue" must be really good at passing stealth checks is far less reasonable than you think.

If a character is "the world's greatest rogue" then it's because she's pulled off some of the most difficult and daring missions (be those rescues, kidnappings, burglaries, sabotages, assassinations, or any other kind of covert mission you can imagine her taking on).

But that doesn't necessarily imply that she's good at passing stealth checks. Not all rogues are sneaky types, and the first thing any sneaky type rogue worth her salt actually learns is not how to pass stealth checks, it's how to avoid having to roll them in the first place, through things like careful planning and skilled intelligence-gathering to inform those plans.
I'm not sure I can get behind "if you're rolling in the first place you're doing it wrong" as a game mechanic.

[Scow2]

I'm not sure I can get behind "if you're rolling in the first place you're doing it wrong" as a game mechanic.

I can, as long as there's always the risk of having to make a die roll. It's what would make encounters actually interesting, instead of by-the-numbers, "Help Me RNG!" encounters.

[lesser_minion]

See, what you've just described there is an average sneak to me. One that has to use such tricks to get past the rabble. The world's greatest would only consider such things when there's a real risk of being caught--otherwise, sneak right past, no need to worry about being spotted by a few drunken peasants.

A sneak who doesn't take the time to plan and observe before embarking on a mission is incompetent. That would be like a surgeon who considered himself so skilled that he didn't see the need to wash his hands, wear gloves, or keep his tools clean.


I'm not sure I can get behind "if you're rolling in the first place you're doing it wrong" as a game mechanic.

I'm not saying that you should never roll a stealth check, I'm saying that stealth checks are far, far less important when you're trying to sneak in or out of some location than they sound.

Really, the problem here is that D&D's whole stealth vs. perception skill model is silly and self-defeating. It makes sense in games like Fate, Burning Wheel, and their various close relatives, but that's not how D&D does things.

[Raineh Daze]

A sneak who doesn't take the time to plan and observe before embarking on a mission is incompetent. That would be like a surgeon who considered himself so skilled that he didn't see the need to wash his hands, wear gloves, or keep his tools clean.

Garrett, from Thief. It is entirely possible (and therefore the most narratively appropriate) for him to go through all three games without being seen or interacting with anyone except for those he needs to, whilst taking absolutely all the loot. And he pulls off that walking-down-a-street trick I mentioned. That is the world's greatest sneak; it is a completely different idea from the world's greatest planner.

There is a level of stealth skill where no amount of planning is going to affect the outcome. Just before that, the only planning you do is concerned with those who actually could spot you.

[Stubbazubba]

For the record I don't personally agree with points 3 and 4. I do think that a character invested at being "really amazing" at something should have automatic success at standard difficulty tasks (but not at hard tasks). I disagree that having a significant chance of failure is what makes things "challenging" and "fun".

And personally I'd throw in point 5 to state that a character that has invested into being good at something should almost always beat a character that has not - because otherwise, what's the point in investing?

Anyway, given all that I would just write down what I want the probabilities to be, and then put a system around it that does that. For example,

{table]Skill|Easy|Moderate|Hard
None|50%|20%|5%
Talent or training|80%|50%|20%
Talent and training|95%|80%|/50%
[/table]

For "talent" read "high relevant ability score", and for "training" read "trained in the relevant skill". This may need more DCs than just three, of course.

So a simple d20 system does this well enough if the modifiers for "talent" and "trained" are high enough (I'd say in the +5 to +10 range), and it may be useful to insert a rule for automatic successes/failures on a 20 and 1 respectively. A simple dice pool system also does this well enough (you roll more dice if you're more talented or trained, require more successes for moderate/hard, and get an extra roll if you get maximum). In my experience, dice pools are relatively slow to play, and a flat d20 is too random, so I would go for a 3d6 roll-to-beat-DC.

The math involved isn't hard (and shouldn't be hard, to keep the game accessible). The point is to write down probabilities you want and then design the math around it, not to write down a simple system and just hope the probabilities turn out what you'd like them to be. The important part is deciding what you want the above table to look like; I suspect that what WOTC is looking for is more something like this,
{table]Skill|Easy|Moderate|Hard
None|60%|50%|40%
Talent or training|70%|60%|50%
Talent and training|80%|70%|60%
[/table]

Agreed pretty much entirely, but especially with the bolded. Though in order to keep things simple I still think a d20 roll should remain the assumption until it proves unfeasible to maintain the outcomes we want. To conform to that, the table (using my numbers that I worked out about two weeks ago, coincidentally), goes like this:

{table]Skill|Easy (10)|Moderate (15)|Hard (20)|Extreme (25)
Untrained (+2)|65%|40%|15%|0%
Expertise (+6)|85%|60%|35%|15%
Mastery (+10)|100%|80%|55%|35%[/table]

Add in + [Level/Rate] Bonus to pad out the low levels and high levels (if desired), adjust DCs accordingly, and you have a working math framework. Now you just have to make sure that nothing provides more than a +2, maybe a +3 numerical bonus on top of that.

I'd also introduce a ton of things to do with skills that scale up to Extreme levels; raising an army of 5,000 in a week would be one Extreme Diplomacy or Inspiration or Leadership check (whatever the relevant skill would end up being called). Feats like that don't require taking another ability, they're just a use of the skill you've already invested in. Scaling sheer surfaces unaided? Hard Climb check. Spider Climbing? Extreme Climb check. Holding up the sky? Extreme Athletics check. Attacking a flying opponent within 25' of the ground with a jump? Hard Athletics check. Attacking a flying opponent within 60' of the ground with a jump? Extreme Athletics check. Attacking a flying opponent further away than that? Extreme Athletics check + 1 Dis for every 40'. (Also, any successful attack should probably have a good chance of downing a flying creature).

Whatever comes up should use the skill system to resolve it, not plot coupons that give you limited-use special abilities, although special abilities should exist that alter the way the skill system works in your favor (advantage, etc.).

EDIT:


A sneak who doesn't take the time to plan and observe before embarking on a mission is incompetent. That would be like a surgeon who considered himself so skilled that he didn't see the need to wash his hands, wear gloves, or keep his tools clean.

Can't we just abstract that into the skill roll? I mean, what else is the roll if not abstracting the sum total of his best effort to sneak through? Are you really gonna double the time it takes for me to sneak down a street by making me roll to "plan" my sneaking, and then roll to "perform" my sneaking?

[Icewraith]

The problem with setting DCs to abilties is when you have multiple easy or medium difficulty conditions, at what point does it escalate? Or do you just get disadvantage on the roll?

I do worry that Peasant Horde optimization may be turning into a thing.

[lesser_minion]

Garrett, from Thief. It is entirely possible (and therefore the most narratively appropriate) for him to go through all three games without being seen or interacting with anyone except for those he needs to, whilst taking absolutely all the loot. And he pulls off that walking-down-a-street trick I mentioned. That is the world's greatest sneak; it is a completely different idea from the world's greatest planner.

It's a video game convention that planning is glossed over and things are just made artificially easier to compensate. You can see the same thing in nearly every RTS ever made. It is not, however, correct to assume that the planning never happened, it's just presented in a non-literal fashion.


Can't we just abstract that into the skill roll? I mean, what else is the roll if not abstracting the sum total of his best effort to sneak through? Are you really gonna double the time it takes for me to sneak down a street by making me roll to "plan" my sneaking, and then roll to "perform" my sneaking?

We have magic using classes, and as a result, a full-fledged magic system is part of the game. We have combat orientated classes, and as a result, there is a full-fledged combat system in the game.

If there are to be stealth-themed classes, then the stealth and awareness rules need to have the same level of care, attention, and detail put into them that the magic and combat rules do.

[Raineh Daze]

It's a video game convention that planning is glossed over and things are just made artificially easier to compensate. You can see the same thing in nearly every RTS ever made. It is not, however, correct to assume that the planning never happened, it's just presented in a non-literal fashion.

It's not correct to assume that planning happened when one of the things going on is dodging undead in a sunken lava-filled city, another is creeping around behind the back of a trickster god because otherwise everything's screwed, and a third involved going into an abandoned orphanage/asylum... and then having to go back through time and complete further tasks, most definitely without being caught*

Anyway, the point is that a lot of unexpected and undesirable things happened that couldn't be planned for, yet the way these things work and the narrative suggests that not getting detected whatsoever is what happened.

Also, any master sneak who has to plan to dodge drunken partygoers doesn't deserve the title. Master of creeping around: someone with their wits and perception dulled will still catch them. No, not really. :smallsigh:

*I admit I don't remember the plot for the second game very well, hence why I've gone for the first and then Shalebridge Cradle.

[Frozen_Feet]

As far as stealth goes, the fault is more in the premises. It assumes characters are passively looking for hidden characters. It asks the question "how likely is this character to be spotted spontaneously?"

It should ask the question "how likely is character to be hidden?" This should rely only on circumstance and the character's own skill. Once hidden, a character should not be able to be found spontaneously. Only other characters who actively search for something suspicuous get a chance.

This active check should also only depend on circumstance and the searching character's skill.

Within bounded accuracy, this would mean low level characters always have a significant chance to find a hidden character, but only when actively searching. To examine how this affects the drunk partygoers example: a master sneak will succesfully hide near-always, and after this can move past any number of them, because they are not actively searching for him. A dedicated search party would still find him, but such party won't exist if he gives no reason to look.

This is where the planning part becomes crucial, along with misdirection and mischief. A cunning sneak can avoid attention almost indefinitely and keep reaping benefits of hiding, while a stupid sneak will waste even a perfect sneak skill.

[Stubbazubba]

As far as stealth goes, the fault is more in the premises. It assumes characters are passively looking for hidden characters. It asks the question "how likely is this character to be spotted spontaneously?"

It should ask the question "how likely is character to be hidden?" This should rely only on circumstance and the character's own skill. Once hidden, a character should not be able to be found spontaneously. Only other characters who actively search for something suspicuous get a chance.

This active check should also only depend on circumstance and the searching character's skill.

Within bounded accuracy, this would mean low level characters always have a significant chance to find a hidden character, but only when actively searching. To examine how this affects the drunk partygoers example: a master sneak will succesfully hide near-always, and after this can move past any number of them, because they are not actively searching for him. A dedicated search party would still find him, but such party won't exist if he gives no reason to look.

This is where the planning part becomes crucial, along with misdirection and mischief. A cunning sneak can avoid attention almost indefinitely and keep reaping benefits of hiding, while a stupid sneak will waste even a perfect sneak skill.

So you're saying he pulls out a disguise or whatever else planning/preparing he needs to do, then rolls Stealth (with his preparation giving him Adv, perhaps) to "go into Stealth mode," and barring catastrophic failure, he is undetected unless someone actively searches for him, at which point that someone makes a perception/search check against a DC that is pinned to the sneak's degree of hidden-ness?

For instance, Master Thief has Stealth Mastery, which gives him a +10 to his Stealth roll, goes out at night, which gives him Advantage on his Stealth check, and is wearing a Cloak of Silence, which gives anyone trying to see him Disadvantage on their roll. He wants to make it Hard for anyone to see him, which is a DC 20 Stealth check, which he has a 79.75% chance of making. Assuming he does, a sentry searching for him with Perception Expertise (+6) has a 12.25% chance of seeing him. Is that right?

That's all well and good, but how does that improve significantly over the current system?

[lesser_minion]

Anyway, the point is that a lot of unexpected and undesirable things happened that couldn't be planned for, yet the way these things work and the narrative suggests that not getting detected whatsoever is what happened.

I'm not claiming that planning is necessary or that it's always possible, I'm claiming that anyone even remotely competent at sneaking around will plan as much as possible.

And, because the mechanical effect of planning is to reduce the number of people who even get a roll to notice you, this means that you can pull off the most difficult and daring missions -- and hence, be the world's greatest sneak -- without needing that high a stealth skill.


Also, any master sneak who has to plan to dodge drunken partygoers doesn't deserve the title. Master of creeping around: someone with their wits and perception dulled will still catch them. No, not really. :smallsigh:

You don't know anything about the circumstances that these characters are in, and I didn't say that planning was necessary for a good sneak to get past drunken partygoers, I said that any competent sneak would still plan and observe.

Why? Well, why are these guards permitted to be drunk? Are their leaders really just that incompetent? Or is there a good reason for them not to care? Is it possible that they want to funnel prospective thieves and saboteurs down this approach for some reason?

[Scow2]

So you're saying he pulls out a disguise or whatever else planning/preparing he needs to do, then rolls Stealth (with his preparation giving him Adv, perhaps) to "go into Stealth mode," and barring catastrophic failure, he is undetected unless someone actively searches for him, at which point that someone makes a perception/search check against a DC that is pinned to the sneak's degree of hidden-ness?

For instance, Master Thief has Stealth Mastery, which gives him a +10 to his Stealth roll, goes out at night, which gives him Advantage on his Stealth check, and is wearing a Cloak of Silence, which gives anyone trying to see him Disadvantage on their roll. He wants to make it Hard for anyone to see him, which is a DC 20 Stealth check, which he has a 79.75% chance of making. Assuming he does, a sentry searching for him with Perception Expertise (+6) has a 12.25% chance of seeing him. Is that right?

If the sentry has Perception Expertise... yes, yes that is right. It's still a ridiculously small chance.

And, honestly? I'm not sure "Never detected ever" is a good stealth design. It just doesn't really make for good drama or gameplay if you can do something without fail.

Just because someone "Sees Something" doesn't mean it's game-over: You can make a quick diversion and hide again before they reach you, and possibly make them think that they hadn't seen you.

[noparlpf]

I'm not sure I can get behind "if you're rolling in the first place you're doing it wrong" as a game mechanic.

That was basically Dread. Jenga is hard, so you want to try to avoid doing anything crazy enough to warrant pulling more than one block.
D&D is all about rolling dice, though.

[Raineh Daze]

You don't know anything about the circumstances that these characters are in, and I didn't say that planning was necessary for a good sneak to get past drunken partygoers, I said that any competent sneak would still plan and observe.

Why? Well, why are these guards permitted to be drunk? Are their leaders really just that incompetent? Or is there a good reason for them not to care? Is it possible that they want to funnel prospective thieves and saboteurs down this approach for some reason?

... I do know the circumstances, because I started it with the supposed master sneak being unable to avoid the drunken peasantry leaving a wedding. :smallconfused:

Anyway, I'm fully onboard with the idea of not having a chance to roll for perception unless something draws your attention to it. If you're hidden, you're hidden; unless someone's raised the alarm random guard #3 shouldn't spot you on pot luck as he walks down a corridor.

Makes infiltration far more fun--things go fine until you do something to raise the alarm, and then...

[Frozen_Feet]

That's all well and good, but how does that improve significantly over the current system?

It means a sneak can move past unaware crowds undetect, so "auto-fail due to billion checks" does not happen. I will expound on the implications tomorrow.

[Stubbazubba]

It means a sneak can move past unaware crowds undetect, so "auto-fail due to billion checks" does not happen. I will expound on the implications tomorrow.

True, it enables hiding in a crowd. But that's far from the most common stealth scenario faced by sneaks in D&D. What's far more likely is trying to sneak through a dungeon on alert, where pretty much everything is either looking for you to kill or hunting you to eat (killing also involved, just to be clear). So every single monster or instance of monsters ends up rolling to see you anyway, and we're pretty much back where we started.

[Scow2]

... I do know the circumstances, because I started it with the supposed master sneak being unable to avoid the drunken peasantry leaving a wedding. :smallconfused:

Anyway, I'm fully onboard with the idea of not having a chance to roll for perception unless something draws your attention to it. If you're hidden, you're hidden; unless someone's raised the alarm random guard #3 shouldn't spot you on pot luck as he walks down a corridor.

Makes infiltration far more fun--things go fine until you do something to raise the alarm, and then...
I... kind of agree with this approach, but passive sentries should still be a threat. Right now, you're thinking of "The Party's awesome rogue". I'm thinking of "The darkmantle on the cieling, or bugbears in the shadows." And, at higher levels, "The assassins sent to kill you."

[Grod_The_Giant]

I... kind of agree with this approach, but passive sentries should still be a threat. Right now, you're thinking of "The Party's awesome rogue". I'm thinking of "The darkmantle on the cieling, or bugbears in the shadows."
Mmm. Maybe 3 levels of observation? "Not paying attention" (you don't get to roll Perception), "passive" (take 10 on Perception checks/roll Stealth against Perception+10) and "searching" (taking an action to make an opposed roll)

[Raineh Daze]

Mmm. Maybe 3 levels of observation? "Not paying attention" (you don't get to roll Perception), "passive" (take 10 on Perception checks/roll Stealth against Perception+10) and "searching" (taking an action to make an opposed roll)

Hmm. But how would you differentiate between the first and the second?

The second basically puts us exactly back at square one for whenever you'd really want to make a stealth check, which is great for the whole bounded accuracy thing, but bad for actually having a group of more than 1 get past a single sentry...

[Thrudd]

Hmm. But how would you differentiate between the first and the second?

The second basically puts us exactly back at square one for whenever you'd really want to make a stealth check, which is great for the whole bounded accuracy thing, but bad for actually having a group of more than 1 get past a single sentry...

Having the party get past a sentry should be a problem, unless the entire party is unarmored rogues.

I think you only need a stealth check when there's a chance that someone might be looking for you. You don't need a stealth check to walk through a disinterested neutral crowd. In fact, the crowd may give you advantage on a stealth check to avoid detection by guards or an active searcher (ala Assassin's Creed). An alerted guard or an active searcher gets an opposed roll vs your stealth check. A passive/unsuspecting guard gets no opposed roll, but their presence may increase the DC of the roll. That's what I would say. If you are picking pockets in a crowd, only the victim of the theft becomes an active searcher when (if) they notice the theft, the entire crowd doesn't get opposed rolls against you.

[Scow2]

Personally... I hate opposed rolls except from Important NPCs. Everyone else should take 10. It keeps the rogue from having to beat a DC 20+ stealth check to slip past a random guard.


Right now... the stealth system does NOT really model Assassin's Creed or Thief-style stealth gameplay. All it really works for is maybe slipping past a single encounter (Or series of discrete encounters), or getting the jump on something. The other skills work fine.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Actually, on the subject of stealth systems, I've been experimenting with a homebrew setup I felt like sharing; The details of the chassis aren't important, but there are 4 rolls the player makes while trying to stealth their way through an area:

Hide rolls cover both your ability to stay in the shadows and move without making noise. If you're moving overtly in an area with active sentries, you make Hide checks versus their Search checks. A decent Hide modifier can save you in a pinch, but you really want to avoid making these checks altogether if you can.

Infiltration rolls are your ability to covertly move from place to place through hidden passageways: Crawling along the ceiling rafters, through ventilation ducts, etc. Your character gets a roll to determine whether they find any route they can use or not, but the player can get huge bonuses to this roll by describing what they want to do with what's in the area (or what would likely be in the type of area they're in). Players are encouraged to ask the DM for details about the make-up of the area and come up with their own crazy ideas to infiltrate successfully.

If you enter an area covertly and exit it covertly with Infiltration, any sentries in the area don't even get a roll to detect you. Stopping to tamper with anything in the area though (like slipping poison into a stew or swiping some valuables off a desk) takes you back to overt movement though and sentries get a chance to detect you again. If you're in an area without any current sentries and you do something overt (and there's any chance of any sentries arriving) there's a chance a sentry shows up. The longer you stick around the greater the chance.

Disable rolls are actually several different types of roll, but the basics of the system is that you get a sentry in the area to stop actively searching for you, either by literally knocking them out or killing them, or disabling them more metaphorically through disguises or guile. "Hi, I'm with the Acme termite extermination company..." If you enter an actively patrolled area covertly, you get a bonus to any Disable attempts. If you fail at disabling you get a random number of attempts to try again until the sentry raises the alarm, and then it's time to...

Escape! Once the alarm is raised, any active sentries automatically know where you are and which way you go when you leave (even if you're using Infiltration to move covertly) unless you pass an Escape roll. Once again the player is given bonuses and encouraged to come up with their own tricks to get away, but the results of the escape check are secret: The player doesn't get to (immediately) know whether they actually succeeded or not.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Actually, on the subject of stealth systems, I've been experimenting with a homebrew setup I felt like sharing; The details of the chassis aren't important, but there are 4 rolls the player makes while trying to stealth their way through an area:

Hide rolls cover both your ability to stay in the shadows and move without making noise. If you're moving overtly in an area with active sentries, you make Hide checks versus their Search checks. A decent Hide modifier can save you in a pinch, but you really want to avoid making these checks altogether if you can.

Infiltration rolls are your ability to covertly move from place to place through hidden passageways: Crawling along the ceiling rafters, through ventilation ducts, etc. Your character gets a roll to determine whether they find any route they can use or not, but the player can get huge bonuses to this roll by describing what they want to do with what's in the area (or what would likely be in the type of area they're in). Players are encouraged to ask the DM for details about the make-up of the area and come up with their own crazy ideas to infiltrate successfully.

If you enter an area covertly and exit it covertly with Infiltration, any sentries in the area don't even get a roll to detect you. Stopping to tamper with anything in the area though (like slipping poison into a stew or swiping some valuables off a desk) takes you back to overt movement though and sentries get a chance to detect you again. If you're in an area without any current sentries and you do something overt (and there's any chance of any sentries arriving) there's a chance a sentry shows up. The longer you stick around the greater the chance.

Disable rolls are actually several different types of roll, but the basics of the system is that you get a sentry in the area to stop actively searching for you, either by literally knocking them out or killing them, or disabling them more metaphorically through disguises or guile. "Hi, I'm with the Acme termite extermination company..." If you enter an actively patrolled area covertly, you get a bonus to any Disable attempts. If you fail at disabling you get a random number of attempts to try again until the sentry raises the alarm, and then it's time to...

Escape! Once the alarm is raised, any active sentries automatically know where you are and which way you go when you leave (even if you're using Infiltration to move covertly) unless you pass an Escape roll. Once again the player is given bonuses and encouraged to come up with their own tricks to get away, but the results of the escape check are secret: The player doesn't get to (immediately) know whether they actually succeeded or not.
I've also decided that D&D really needs a full Stealth Subsystem (though I haven't ironed out the details for Gold & Glory (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293626) yet).

I think it might be better to make a Tactical & Strategic Mechanic for Stealth (which your Hide & Infiltrate is leaning towards). I wouldn't make an additional mechanic for escaping though (it should be part of the Strategic Mechanic) and while I like the idea of a Disable mechanic I'd need to think more of it to add into a HP game.

<Obligatory "of course 5e won't do that" Remark>

[tasw]

Agincourt. The French had over 10,000 knights.

They still lost, but hey.

Seriously, for them to be a threat to anything much, you shouldn't be able to toss less than an army at a dragon and be expected to obtain victory.

The french also walked into hostile terrain, defensive positions, massed archers and did so with a level of arrogance bordering on short bus stupidity.

They did NOT have 10,000 odds against 1 fire breathing dinosaur. Very different situation.


On the subjects of "Knights shouldn't be able to kill Dragons"... sorry, but Dragon-slaying is what knights do. It's part of the job description. Real-world knights just tend to not be as awesome as Fantasy Knights are. Part of the Prerequisites to being a Knight are "Be a hero of some sort" first. They are the military elite, and are superior to most Adventurers until at least the mid levels.

given the level of life long training I would put your average rookie knight at 6th level.

[Seerow]

but the player can get huge bonuses to this roll by describing what they want to do with what's in the area (or what would likely be in the type of area they're in). Players are encouraged to ask the DM for details about the make-up of the area and come up with their own crazy ideas to infiltrate successfully.

Not sure I like this. It makes a very major part of the system reliant on DM May I gameplay.


If you're in an area without any current sentries and you do something overt (and there's any chance of any sentries arriving) there's a chance a sentry shows up.

That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.


Disable rolls are actually several different types of roll, but the basics of the system is that you get a sentry in the area to stop actively searching for you, either by literally knocking them out or killing them, or disabling them more metaphorically through disguises or guile. "Hi, I'm with the Acme termite extermination company..." If you enter an actively patrolled area covertly, you get a bonus to any Disable attempts. If you fail at disabling you get a random number of attempts to try again until the sentry raises the alarm, and then it's time to...

So if you enter stealthfully, you get bonuses to disabling. That's good... until you add the part where disabling includes talking your way past guards. So you enter stealthily, and then exit from hiding to talk to the guard to bluff your way past him, then go right back to being stealthy? It just seems like making killing/knocking out disabling, and bluffing past is a different subsystem (eg the social system).

[Scow2]

Not sure I like this. It makes a very major part of the system reliant on DM May I gameplay.



That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.



So if you enter stealthfully, you get bonuses to disabling. That's good... until you add the part where disabling includes talking your way past guards. So you enter stealthily, and then exit from hiding to talk to the guard to bluff your way past him, then go right back to being stealthy? It just seems like making killing/knocking out disabling, and bluffing past is a different subsystem (eg the social system).

And killing/knocking out is handled by the Initiative, Combat, and Sneak Attack subsystems. There should be a "Re-hide" stealth check, and ability to make a guard second-guess seeing something (Like hiding again before it can take any actions)

[Seerow]

And killing/knocking out is handled by the Initiative, Combat, and Sneak Attack subsystems. There should be a "Re-hide" stealth check, and ability to make a guard second-guess seeing something (Like hiding again before it can take any actions)

Honestly I don't mind having knocking out a couple guards who are unaware of you as a part of the stealth system. That's something that's never been handled well in D&D, but is pretty iconic in fiction.

Maybe it only works on lower HD enemies or something, and past a point you have to go to initiative/combat. But if you want a good exploration minigame, you need to be able to bypass mook guards without full blown combat. And in D&D that's really not possible.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Not sure I like this. It makes a very major part of the system reliant on DM May I gameplay.

I didn't explain this right: It doesn't work like D&D circumstance modifiers (which really are just DM fiat), it's more like Wushu's "you get extra dice for each piece of detail you add to what you're doing" but modified somewhat, since your descriptions aren't your only source of bonuses. If you come up with something cool you get bonuses by default (unless it's so inappropriate or stupid that I have to veto it). My goal with the system is to make the players feel like they're superninjas while still making stealth really dangerous and tense unless you know what you're doing.


That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.

Lemme use the example of poisoning the stew.

You enter the kitchen covertly and the cook is absent for whatever reason (maybe because you successfully created a distraction to get him out of the kitchen for a few moments). You get out of your hiding place and put the poison in the stew. This succeeds automatically, but then I roll a 50/50 chance that the cook will suddenly decide to come back (if the cook *can't* come back, then I'll have someone else wander in to check on things, maybe an assistant): This result is secret and I ask the player what they want to do next.

Let's say they decide to high-tail it and get out of there: So long as they succeed at their Infiltrate check to get back out without causing any suspicion, it doesn't matter what I rolled because the cook has no chance to detect you're there at all.

But let's say they choose to stick around and keep messing about the kitchen (like swiping some expensive imported spices off the rack). If I rolled that yes, the cook does come back, then they need to make a Hide check as the cook comes back in as they're swiping the spices. If I rolled no, then they succeed at getting the spices without needing to make a Hide check and I roll again, then the process repeats as long as the player keeps hanging about the kitchen.

Messing around in places where you're not supposed to be is very risky: If you get to an empty room you get 1 free action to spend doing whatever you want, then after that you're playing chicken.


So if you enter stealthfully, you get bonuses to disabling. That's good... until you add the part where disabling includes talking your way past guards. So you enter stealthily, and then exit from hiding to talk to the guard to bluff your way past him, then go right back to being stealthy? It just seems like making killing/knocking out disabling, and bluffing past is a different subsystem (eg the social system).

If you drop down from the ceiling right in front of a guard's face, come up with a bluff, then reattach to the ceiling then yeah, that's obviously absurd, but the assumption is when you enter the room covertly that the guard has no idea where you came from and once the guard is disabled they stop paying attention to what you're doing. You need to apply some common sense to the system for it to work but I don't really think of that as a problem.

[tasw]

The caster levels don't really seem necessary - yes, there should probably be some kind of dragon that has them, but there's plenty of room for dragons that are well below human intelligence, do not speak, and are just big lizards that breath fire which might also fly. That still leaves the potential for them to be very dangerous for a number of reasons, which pretty much covers the core traits of "dragons", as pulled from european legend.

Thats more D@D cannon then anything else. I can and do run dragons as just big ass predators sometimes, about bear smart. Only a few are people smart.

[Scow2]

If you drop down from the ceiling right in front of a guard's face, come up with a bluff, then reattach to the ceiling then yeah, that's obviously absurd, but the assumption is when you enter the room covertly that the guard has no idea where you came from and once the guard is disabled they stop paying attention to what you're doing. You need to apply some common sense to the system for it to work but I don't really think of that as a problem.Rules that defy common sense when written was the biggest mark against Skill Challenges in 4th edition.

Please let's avoid having that clusterbomb again.

[TuggyNE]

Rules that defy common sense when written was the biggest mark against Skill Challenges in 4th edition.

Please let's avoid having that clusterbomb again.

But can it really unite all the editions without having that?

[Frozen_Feet]

So every single monster or instance of monsters ends up rolling to see you anyway, and we're pretty much back where we started.

If every single monster is rolling, the characters have already failed stealth. The point of stealth is that it removes unaware observers from the picture, potentially allowing a character to sneak past gaps in target location's security. You exploit opportunities left by unaware enemies, and then avoid alert enemies and obvious hiding spots like a plague. A skill roll, in these cases, is enabler and a fail-safe; it is not sole metric of how stealthy you are being.

More of my thoughts on the subject can be found in this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15681735#post15681735)

[SiuiS]

Since there is no definition of appropriate challenges, and no clear criteria of determining them (other then DM fiat) you have no right to dismiss those examples.


No, actually. I have every right to dismiss those examples because we were discussing a specific system which set out those rules you claim don't exist.

Of you're going to be pedantic, keep up. This was specifically about Person_Man's thing wherein "you roll only when it's appropriate" or similar was laid out – in which case no, 98# weakling, you don't get to roll to arm wrestle Conan, and any example which requires you to be too weak to win but also strong enough to win is absurd and inadmissible.


Fine, replace 'world's greatest rogue' with 'world's greatest sneak'. The point's the same. They'll still fail to get past a crowd of party-goers.


Real world sneaks should probably inform this, yeah?

In which case, throw on a shirt from a nearby clothes line, pretend to be drunk, and lounge in the gutter. They may see you but you're still fictionally stealth'd.


Garrett, from Thief. It is entirely possible (and therefore the most narratively appropriate) for him to go through all three games without being seen or interacting with anyone except for those he needs to, whilst taking absolutely all the loot. And he pulls off that walking-down-a-street trick I mentioned. That is the world's greatest sneak; it is a completely different idea from the world's greatest planner.

There is a level of stealth skill where no amount of planning is going to affect the outcome. Just before that, the only planning you do is concerned with those who actually could spot you.

That's called invisibility, not stealth.

The walking down the street trick requires a man with a hat. Done.

Isn't this circular logic though? You should only have to plan for those who can see you. They can see you so you should plan for ten, except you shouldn't have to plan for them because they shouldn't be able to see you because... Why?


I... kind of agree with this approach, but passive sentries should still be a threat. Right now, you're thinking of "The Party's awesome rogue". I'm thinking of "The darkmantle on the cieling, or bugbears in the shadows." And, at higher levels, "The assassins sent to kill you."

Sentries – people who are paid and trained to stand there and watch are not passive observers. They are active observers and as such do not need to be considered in whether passive observation should be a thing when they are distracted (boredom, comely wench or serving lad, talking to a decoy) they are no longer actively searching. Problem solved.



given the level of life long training I would put your average rookie knight at 6th level.

The knight is the warrior who can do solo stuff reliably, but also works well in groups. The lowest level at which you can reliably strap on armor, heft shield and sword, and go do something important for your lord is about where knighthood should sit.

In next, I would say this is third level; potentially 36 HP, expertise dice, and sufficient feat investment to be a worthwhile opponent.



That feels like a video game mechanic. You do something and it triggers a roll to see if a sentry shows up? If the player is keeping track of patrols he should be able to judge whether or not a sentry will be coming in within a window of 30-60 seconds or so.

"You shouldn't have to keep an eye on patrols i you're a great sneak, just use your high stealth score and be functionally invisible. Of you're tracking patrols, you're mediocre."

[BayardSPSR]

There's still an issue with the reliance on RP'd stuff - anyone can RP. Why should I play a Rogue with ranks in Hide or whatever when another class can do the same stuff almost as well (with the differences only coming out in worst-case scenarios, where both have a reasonable chance of success or failure) - plus any number of other things! If these rules stay the same, we have to abandon the idea that skills can meaningfully balance classes. As the rules are, being able to hide well practically amounts to fluff.

This isn't necessarily bad. It doesn't seem to be what people want, though.

[Stubbazubba]

Infiltration rolls are your ability to covertly move from place to place through hidden passageways: Crawling along the ceiling rafters, through ventilation ducts, etc. Your character gets a roll to determine whether they find any route they can use or not, but the player can get huge bonuses to this roll by describing what they want to do with what's in the area (or what would likely be in the type of area they're in). Players are encouraged to ask the DM for details about the make-up of the area and come up with their own crazy ideas to infiltrate successfully.

I'm with Seerow in that it almost seems a little backwards to put so much player narrative power in something as puzzle-like as a Stealth challenge. What I would do is generate a small list of environmental features that might be of use in Stealth encounters. This can be done before the session or on the spot if necessary. Things like open windows, covered drains, conveniently-placed clotheslines, etc. Then let the PCs search for and use these. That feels more appropriate to me.


Disable rolls are actually several different types of roll, but the basics of the system is that you get a sentry in the area to stop actively searching for you, either by literally knocking them out or killing them, or disabling them more metaphorically through disguises or guile. "Hi, I'm with the Acme termite extermination company..." If you enter an actively patrolled area covertly, you get a bonus to any Disable attempts.

This will be the meat of the interesting part of the system, and needs to have a lot of panache to work right. I'd probably expand it into a whole list of various Stealth encounters. Taking down guys in secret and bluffing your way past guards can use two different systems, and probably should. Bonuses from being covert would apply to some, but not others (the aforementioned bluff example). Poisoning a stew or swiping the royal seal would also be among these Stealth encounters.

[Scow2]

There's still an issue with the reliance on RP'd stuff - anyone can RP. Why should I play a Rogue with ranks in Hide or whatever when another class can do the same stuff almost as well (with the differences only coming out in worst-case scenarios, where both have a reasonable chance of success or failure) - plus any number of other things! If these rules stay the same, we have to abandon the idea that skills can meaningfully balance classes. As the rules are, being able to hide well practically amounts to fluff.

This isn't necessarily bad. It doesn't seem to be what people want, though.

Because the rogue can handle the situations where "The **** hits the fan" far better than everyone else? Which, as an adventurer, comes up VERY often.

The rogue's shtick isn't even necessarily being great at sneaking - it's that he has twice as many skills as anyone else, a reliable way of delivering the fastest-scaling source of damage in the game, and having a number of other tricks up his sleeve.


My problem with "Active sentries are constantly rolling" - why wouldn't a sentry be taking 10 on his check? Rolling has a 50% chance of him NOT seeing what he's looking for. Him taking 10 on the check is the DM saying that "Given these guy's environmental awareness, it would take a DC (11-16, more if they have a WIS boost). Just roll the skill die for each of them, and you have a bit of swing but not the chance of a simple sentry forcing the rogue to beat a DC 26 stealth check.

[obryn]

If these rules stay the same, we have to abandon the idea that skills can meaningfully balance classes.
I think that sounds like a good move, in general.

-O

[Grod_The_Giant]

The rogue's shtick isn't even necessarily being great at sneaking - it's that he has twice as many skills as anyone else...
But if everyone has about the same effectiveness with skills, and the primary determinant is roleplaying, that doesn't matter.

[Tehnar]

No, actually. I have every right to dismiss those examples because we were discussing a specific system which set out those rules you claim don't exist.


Person_man's post that Water Bear quoted had nothing to do with any mechanic of rolling when appropriate. Let me repost it here (with Water bear quoting the part I bolded):


Fair enough. OK. So let's assume the following:

1) D&D Next should be a fun game, which is about the roleplaying, exploration, and combat of a small (1-8) party of Player Characters in a fantasy world. (Not mass combat, not "what would happen if..." situations that rarely happen in a typical D&D game).

2) The math which models the PCs actions in and out of combat should be relatively simple and intuitive.

3) If an action is something that a heroic humanoid could theoretically do, there should be some reasonable minimum chance of success, so that the PC never feels as if can't do things unless they invest in it.

4) If a player does level up and invest in being really amazing at something, they should have a reasonably high chance of success at that thing, but not so high that it's automatic.

What would your ideal math be? I ask honestly because I'm open to different ideas on this, not facetiously to try and prove a point.


Yes, the world's greatest Rogue might be noticed by a random Barbarian 1 out of 5ish times. But I'm ok with that, because in an actual D&D game, you don't want any challenging action to have a 100%ish chance of success, because then it's not a challenge, and it starts to destroy game balance, and it makes the game less fun.

To provide another example, lets say I optimize my Barbarian's to hit and damage so that I hit 95% of the time and kill 95% of enemies in one hit. But other people in my party aren't as good at optimization as I am, or they focus on non-combat things. Is combat still a challenge for me? Will it still be fun? Will the imbalance in my party cause problems? In 3.X/PF, the answer was yes, and it caused endless headaches for the DM. I would prefer D&D Next to fix this problem, and I am open to alternative solutions.


Since Person_Man's post had nothing to do with any mechanic when to roll, you don't have justification for dismissal of anything, just poor reading comprehension.



Of you're going to be pedantic, keep up. This was specifically about Person_Man's thing wherein "you roll only when it's appropriate" or similar was laid out – in which case no, 98# weakling, you don't get to roll to arm wrestle Conan, and any example which requires you to be too weak to win but also strong enough to win is absurd and inadmissible.

I am keeping this up because you fail at reading.

Even if Person_Man present a system to determine when to roll or not (he did not in the quoted post, and AFAIK he did not in this thread iteration), you don't have the right to dismiss Reductio ad absurdum arguments, because such arguments were made to point out inconsistencies in 5E's resolution system, not Person_Man's. As 5E currently has no mechanics (or guidelines) to determine when to roll or not Reductio ad absurdum arguments are perfectly valid.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think that sounds like a good move, in general.

Seconded. The idea that they ever could is just baffling.

[BayardSPSR]

Because the rogue can handle the situations where "The **** hits the fan" far better than everyone else? Which, as an adventurer, comes up VERY often.

I wouldn't say 'far', but like 'marginally' I guess the word is extremely subjective in this context.

Let me put it a different way: the rogue can usually handle these situations when other classes do not. But the rogue will sometimes fail to handle these situations when other classes do.

The system is built around binary 'success' or 'failure'. There is no 'better' or 'worse'; there is only 'more likely to succeed' and 'less likely to succeed', translating into 'success' or 'failure' for any given instance. This means that in any given instance, the best rogue is more likely to succeed than the worst other-person, but instances will occur where the best rogue fails and the worst other-person succeeds.

Other people have offered amusing hypothetical examples; I won't add more.


The rogue's shtick isn't even necessarily being great at sneaking - it's that he has twice as many skills as anyone else, a reliable way of delivering the fastest-scaling source of damage in the game, and having a number of other tricks up his sleeve.

The thing is, if things stay the way they are, the 'twice as many skills' part is irrelevant for balancing the class. If the 'other tricks' are tied to skills, those are irrelevant too, because the mechanic does not have a meaningful influence on the power of characters.

But the rogue can still stab things, which is nice. Unfortunately, there are other classes built around stabbing things too. I hope this doesn't lead us into the 3.5-style "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit" effect.

[Kurald Galain]

Clearly, if the game rewards taking two or three skills and specializing in them, and relying on your teammates for the other skills, then having twice as many skills as other characters is not going to make a class more powerful.

For instance, in 4E most characters have about four skills, but there exists a specific bard build that effectively has all of them. While this sounds cool, in practice if you have this character in the group, then the fighter or wizard are still going to be your primary guy for (e.g.) athletics and knowledge checks, simply because they're better at them, and you'll still end up making social checks almost all of the time because bards excel at those.

So having thirteen more trained skills than everybody else has an effective added value of close to zero. It's still a fun build, sure, but it's absolutely not overpowered (and may be underpowered depending on how much you give up to get these skills trained).

Just as how in 3E, getting more feats than everybody else failed to balance the fighter, so too in 5E, getting more skills than anybody else won't (by itself) balance the rogue.

[Scow2]

Clearly, if the game rewards taking two or three skills and specializing in them, and relying on your teammates for the other skills, then having twice as many skills as other characters is not going to make a class more powerful.

For instance, in 4E most characters have about four skills, but there exists a specific bard build that effectively has all of them. While this sounds cool, in practice if you have this character in the group, then the fighter or wizard are still going to be your primary guy for (e.g.) athletics and knowledge checks, simply because they're better at them, and you'll still end up making social checks almost all of the time because bards excel at those.

So having seventeen trained skills instead of four has an effective value of close to zero. It's still a fun build, sure, but it's absolutely not overpowered.

But, D&D Next has more skills than 4e did, so having multiple skills is still useful, and there are enough that a party of 4 with no rogues does NOT have all the skills it needs where they need to have them. They can get by, but the rogue's party has a wider set of skills to draw on OR double-down on for double effectiveness (using coordination)

[Person_Man]

Clearly, if the game rewards taking two or three skills and specializing in them, and relying on your teammates for the other skills, then having twice as many skills as other characters is not going to make a class more powerful.

For instance, in 4E most characters have about four skills, but there exists a specific bard build that effectively has all of them. While this sounds cool, in practice if you have this character in the group, then the fighter or wizard are still going to be your primary guy for (e.g.) athletics and knowledge checks, simply because they're better at them, and you'll still end up making social checks almost all of the time because bards excel at those.

So having thirteen more trained skills than everybody else has an effective added value of close to zero. It's still a fun build, sure, but it's absolutely not overpowered (and may be underpowered depending on how much you give up to get these skills trained).

Just as how in 3E, getting more feats than everybody else failed to balance the fighter, so too in 5E, getting more skills than anybody else won't (by itself) balance the rogue.

100% agreed.

WotC has recognized that D&D is about Exploration, Roleplaying, and Combat. I have no idea why they don't just design around those mostly separate sub-games, and just give every character equal-ish resources or tracks in each.

Everyone gets a set of Skills for Exploration - tracking, picking locks, disarming traps, athletics, perception, etc, and you get more if you have higher Intelligence.

Everyone gets a set of Traits for Roleplaying (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidation, Sense Motive, membership to organizations, useful contacts, languages, etc), and you get more if you have higher Charisma.

Everyone gets a balanced set of combat stuff (your class abilities).

Feats can cover any of the three areas, so that if you really want to specialize, you can do so, but without totally sucking in the other areas.

[BayardSPSR]

But, D&D Next has more skills than 4e did, so having multiple skills is still useful, and there are enough that a party of 4 with no rogues does NOT have all the skills it needs where they need to have them. They can get by, but the rogue's party has a wider set of skills to draw on OR double-down on for double effectiveness (using coordination)

In a party of four with no rogues, the chance of everyone failing a given check is 31.6% (assuming everyone is as bad demihumanly as possible at that skill). This is only marginally worse than a single rogue (assuming the rogue is as good as demihumanly possible at that skill). With a party of five, the chance drops to 23.7% - less likely than the best (individual) rogue imaginable.

That only applies for checks that only require a single pass, like a listen or spot check. For a check that everyone must pass, like hide (assuming everyone's hiding) a four-strong party composed entirely of the best possible rogues will still get someone caught 68.4% of the time. A party with fewer rogues is even more screwed.

So ignoring coordination for the time being, adding a rogue to a party will, depending on the demands of the test, either make them marginally less bad (where everyone has to succeed) - or be less helpful than five random peasants would be (where only one person has to succeed).

Remember, all of these calculations were done assuming that the rogue is extremely good at everything, and that anyone else is completely incompetent at everything. If we used more realistic numbers, the situation would be even more dire.

[Ashdate]

But, D&D Next has more skills than 4e did, so having multiple skills is still useful, and there are enough that a party of 4 with no rogues does NOT have all the skills it needs where they need to have them. They can get by, but the rogue's party has a wider set of skills to draw on OR double-down on for double effectiveness (using coordination)

I don't really see what you're arguing here. In this game - or in any version - skills have rarely been a particularly powerful part of a character's toolbox. The ability to hit things hard with a sword tends to be better than the ability to vertically jump X feet, if for no reason than rolling d20s to attack things tends to come up more often than rolling d20s to jump things.

(and let's not even talk about magic, which often looks at the meager limitations of skill checks and laughs at them.)

If you wanted skills to be an appreciable part of a character's strengths, then you would need to seriously buff them (I believe this would be true of any edition). You could do it, but I suspect you could only do so by overhauling the system such that skills are not a thing that you sometimes do when you're not swinging a sword or casting a spell, but an absolutely valid option to use in the heat of battle instead.

As an example, allow the poorly named "Break an Object" skill to allow characters to sunder weapons, allow "Intimidate" checks to prevent an enemy from attacking, and use "Recall Lore" to gain significant bonuses against particular enemies.

(and probably only allow characters trained in these skills to access these bonus features.)

As is, additional skills aren't bad, but they do not represent a very significant portion of a character's power. Even if we accept that currently, characters might the only party member trained in a particular skill, the value of that training is not particularly meaningful under the current skills system (as +1d6 is not as meaningful towards making a roll as the d20 you roll with it).

Put another way, the 3.5 Rogue is often cited as the stereotypical "skill monkey", thanks to the oodles of skill points they get (let us put aside that half of those typically go into rogue "only" skills), in a system that rewarded skill specialization, and included numerous ways to mitigate the d20 roll (primarily through the skill rank modifier, but also through ever increasing ability scores and the ability to "take 10". Yet I stammer to think of the time when someone examined the sum total of their skill expertise and said "wow, that's really powerful!"*

*There was a time, I remember, when 3e was released when everyone and their mother started their adventuring career as a rogue before jumping over to a Paladin or Monk for the skill points, but I think most would agree that was during a time when people were overvaluing skills.

[Scow2]

I don't really see what you're arguing here. In this game - or in any version - skills have rarely been a particularly powerful part of a character's toolbox. The ability to hit things hard with a sword tends to be better than the ability to vertically jump X feet, if for no reason than rolling d20s to attack things tends to come up more often than rolling d20s to jump things.

(and let's not even talk about magic, which often looks at the meager limitations of skill checks and laughs at them.)

If you wanted skills to be an appreciable part of a character's strengths, then you would need to seriously buff them (I believe this would be true of any edition). You could do it, but I suspect you could only do so by overhauling the system such that skills are not a thing that you sometimes do when you're not swinging a sword or casting a spell, but an absolutely valid option to use in the heat of battle instead.

As an example, allow the poorly named "Break an Object" skill to allow characters to sunder weapons, allow "Intimidate" checks to prevent an enemy from attacking, and use "Recall Lore" to gain significant bonuses against particular enemies.

(and probably only allow characters trained in these skills to access these bonus features.)

As is, additional skills aren't bad, but they do not represent a very significant portion of a character's power. Even if we accept that currently, characters might the only party member trained in a particular skill, the value of that training is not particularly meaningful under the current skills system (as +1d6 is not as meaningful towards making a roll as the d20 you roll with it).

Put another way, the 3.5 Rogue is often cited as the stereotypical "skill monkey", thanks to the oodles of skill points they get (let us put aside that half of those typically go into rogue "only" skills), in a system that rewarded skill specialization, and included numerous ways to mitigate the d20 roll (primarily through the skill rank modifier, but also through ever increasing ability scores and the ability to "take 10". Yet I stammer to think of the time when someone examined the sum total of their skill expertise and said "wow, that's really powerful!"*

*There was a time, I remember, when 3e was released when everyone and their mother started their adventuring career as a rogue before jumping over to a Paladin or Monk for the skill points, but I think most would agree that was during a time when people were overvaluing skills.

...why does everything have to be about Combat? Monsters are at their WORST when they're just an hour-or-two slogfest that you have to punch until it falls over, then get on with the quest.

If your campaigns don't make ability checks a big part (And are designed so that the inevitable skill failures can change the direction of the adventure but not end it unless it's atrocious) of the adventure, you're 'doing it wrong' because you're forgetting the "Dungeons" part of "Dungeons & Dragons."

[Ashdate]

...why does everything have to be about Combat? Monsters are at their WORST when they're just an hour-or-two slogfest that you have to punch until it falls over, then get on with the quest.

If your campaigns don't make ability checks a big part (And are designed so that the inevitable skill failures can change the direction of the adventure but not end it unless it's atrocious) of the adventure, you're 'doing it wrong' because you're forgetting the "Dungeons" part of "Dungeons & Dragons."

The problem with skills isn't their usefulness in the "Dungeon" (although I again point out that their usefulness has often been undermined in other editions of D&D, in part due to magic and poorly written skill systems), and not even really that - in the Next context - that "training" is fairly underwhelming in regards to succeeding on skills rolls.

The problem is if you're using skills as a measure to "balance" particular classes, then you're in for a lot of disappointment. Skills have simply never been that powerful, save perhaps for the days when Rogues got class specific "skills". Even if you spend a significant portion of your character's time using "skills" (and I'm certainly not against that!), the larger measure of a character's ability is going to come from the rest of the numbers and abilities on your character sheet.

[Raineh Daze]

...why does everything have to be about Combat? Monsters are at their WORST when they're just an hour-or-two slogfest that you have to punch until it falls over, then get on with the quest.

If your campaigns don't make ability checks a big part (And are designed so that the inevitable skill failures can change the direction of the adventure but not end it unless it's atrocious) of the adventure, you're 'doing it wrong' because you're forgetting the "Dungeons" part of "Dungeons & Dragons."

Because minimum competency at combat is required to not die. Combat skills tend to directly correlate with ability to survive out-of-combat stuff going wrong. Because being unable to contribute to one skill check leaves you with nothing to do for a far smaller time (and you can probably improvise some way to help) than being nothing more than a combat liability.

If you can't help in combat at all, you're either dead or sidelined for far longer than if you can't contribute to one skill.

[Scow2]

The problem with skills isn't their usefulness in the "Dungeon" (although I again point out that their usefulness has often been undermined in other editions of D&D, in part due to magic and poorly written skill systems), and not even really that - in the Next context - that "training" is fairly underwhelming in regards to succeeding on skills rolls.

The problem is if you're using skills as a measure to "balance" particular classes, then you're in for a lot of disappointment. Skills have simply never been that powerful, save perhaps for the days when Rogues got class specific "skills". Even if you spend a significant portion of your character's time using "skills" (and I'm certainly not against that!), the larger measure of a character's ability is going to come from the rest of the numbers and abilities on your character sheet.Skills work to shore up weak ability checks, or drive a strong one even higher. And there ARE some checks only a rogue can do, such as find and disarm traps, and open locks.


Because minimum competency at combat is required to not die. Combat skills tend to directly correlate with ability to survive out-of-combat stuff going wrong. Because being unable to contribute to one skill check leaves you with nothing to do for a far smaller time (and you can probably improvise some way to help) than being nothing more than a combat liability.

If you can't help in combat at all, you're either dead or sidelined for far longer than if you can't contribute to one skill.
Minimum competency at ability checks should be similarly required to actually get anything done and not die doing it. If combat's taking too long, that's a different problem.

[Raineh Daze]

Minimum competency at ability checks should be similarly required to actually get anything done and not die doing it. If combat's taking too long, that's a different problem.

It's a problem if combat is taking longer than a minute or two?

[Ashdate]

Skills work to shore up weak ability checks, or drive a strong one even higher. And there ARE some checks only a rogue can do, such as find and disarm traps, and open locks.

I think you're examining skills in a bubble where everything else on the character sheet doesn't matter. The rest of the stuff does matter, and it's that rest of stuff that more often defines a character (including their strengths) rather than the skills they picked to be trained in. And it's because of that rest of stuff that skills are overshadowed.

This has little to do with how much time the party spends in/out of combat, and more to do with the fact that

a) the game must go on. If not one in the party can pick a lock, them the DM has to work with that limitation.
b) skills are often easily replaceable. Don't have someone who can pick locks? Well, bash the door down. Or climb through the window. Or use a spell. The same can't always easily be said for many other aspects of the game, in particular combat.
c) Even assuming training and expertise in a skill, the limits places upon them rarely allow for such extraordinary feats such as to match the other abilities that a character has access to.

If you want skills to be a meaningful part of a characters "power level" (if you might allow me to use that phrase), then you need to make them extraordinarily useful. That would include (but yes, is not limited to) combat. It would also mean that training should be incredibly meaningful, which it currently isn't in the Next playtest.

(you're also mistaken about rogues; indeed, the ability to open locks and find and disarm traps aren't technically skills in Next, they're feats.)

[Talakeal]

100% agreed.

WotC has recognized that D&D is about Exploration, Roleplaying, and Combat. I have no idea why they don't just design around those mostly separate sub-games, and just give every character equal-ish resources or tracks in each.

Everyone gets a set of Skills for Exploration - tracking, picking locks, disarming traps, athletics, perception, etc, and you get more if you have higher Intelligence.

Everyone gets a set of Traits for Roleplaying (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidation, Sense Motive, membership to organizations, useful contacts, languages, etc), and you get more if you have higher Charisma.

Everyone gets a balanced set of combat stuff (your class abilities).

Feats can cover any of the three areas, so that if you really want to specialize, you can do so, but without totally sucking in the other areas.

This guy gets it. Having to match my skills to my combat abilities has always been my least favorite part of D&D.

[Friv]

Here's a funny question, which I realize is never going to be valuable because the D&D Next people aren't going to read it... should skills be binary?

What I mean is, rather than having skills be d20 + Modifier, why not just have them be "You can do X Now", and maybe have some tiers of what X is?

If your Skill rating is equal to the tier rating, you have to make an Ability check at DC 12. If your Skill rating is above the tier rating, you succeed, and if it's below, you fail.

So hiding is Tier 0, but moving quickly while hidden is +1, and moving where there's not enough darkness is +1. You need Sneak 2 to move quickly through non-shadowy areas and be able to stay hidden. If you have Sneak 0, you can't use that as an option.

Climbing a rope is Tier 0, but a cliff face is Tier 1 and a smooth wall is Tier 2. If you have Climb 2, you can always climb the castle wall. It's just an extra adventure option for you.

Crafts 1 lets you craft various mundane goods, and Crafts 2 lets you craft masterwork goods. It's automatic, it just takes time and materials.

Jumping 1 adds a certain distances to your jumps.

And so on, and so forth. Save the randomness for combat and direct challenges, and use Skills to improve your breadth of abilities. Then having more of them is more valuable. You start the game with a few Tier 1 skills, and you can add more or upgrade them as time goes on.

(For this to work, I assume that there wouldn't be a lot of tiers of each skill. I'm sort of imagining the following scale:
0 - Just an adventurer
1 - Trained
2 - Expert
3 - Legend)

[Water_Bear]

Honestly, the best way to do skills in a D&D-like game is probably something close to the old Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

You get a bunch of NWP slots which are mostly separate from your combat customization abilities, with more at higher levels but a decent number starting out as well. Each one you can choose (ideally; I'm ignoring the lame ones like "heraldry") covers an entire skill set or profession rather than a single specific task. Their effectiveness is mainly about ability scores, but more specialization can and does significantly boost your odds. And they all (again, ignoring the lame ones) open up new ways to interact with the world rather than just being essentially pay-walls for roleplay.

The best I've seen it done is in Adventurer Conqueror King's Proficiencies, but 2e's NWPs were still pretty good for the most part. And both naturally light-years ahead of our current skill system.

Plus it gives you an "in" with the grognards, which is a big part of 5e's hype.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, the best way to do skills in a D&D-like game is probably something close to the old Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

It's funny how the 5E playtest keeps pointing out that 2E was a much better game than people give it credit for (and how its ruleset solves quite a number of the issues in 3E).

[Talakeal]

It's funny how the 5E playtest keeps pointing out that 2E was a much better game than people give it credit for (and how its ruleset solves quite a number of the issues in 3E).

2E truly was the best edition of D&D. It just had so much strange math and so many seemingly arbitrary restrictions that an overhaul was needed, and gaming companies seem to be unable to bring themselves to do subtle updates.


I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?

It is a simpler skilll system. Each character receives a small number of NWPs based on their class, and a few more for having a high INT (and I believe an extra one every three levels).

There is a skill list, similar to the 3E skill list but a bit longer and with a lot more "fluffy" skills. Being trained costs one NWP slot (two if it is a cross class proficiency). A trained character rolls a d20 and if they roll under the relevant attribute is succsesful. A DM could modify this roll for an especially easy or challenging task.

I believe a few of the more useful NWPs required an extra slot, and there was an optional rule allowing you to spend extra slots for a +1 bonus to the roll, but it was mostly just a simpler skill system which had binary levels of training. You were either trained in a given skill or not, and your attribute alone determined how good you were at a trained skill.

[Water_Bear]

I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure board rules don't allow posting non-OGL content, so you'll have to hunt down examples yourself. But I can help on the basic idea.

Essentially, NWPs each were associated with a single ability score and if you needed to roll for part of it's function you rolled 1d20 with a result of less than the ability score + modifiers . Most NWPs could be taken more than once to add a bonus which increased your odds.

For the most part, each one gave you at least one task you could do automatically without a check and then at least one more difficult task to roll for both related to the general concept. And because the game was a lot more freeform these sorts of thematic abilities could easily be stretched to do whatever cool things you could think up.

The main disadvantages to 3e/4e style skills is that roll-under is considered confusing and they are more up in the air than later edition's more precise skills. The main advantages being that they are less fussy and allow for a more broad realistic range of skills (you can build 0th level blacksmiths who are as good as any PC could hope to be just by specializing all their NWP slots and having one above-average score).


It's funny how the 5E playtest keeps pointing out that 2E was a much better game than people give it credit for (and how its ruleset solves quite a number of the issues in 3E).

Yeah, 2e was hardly the best edition of D&D (Rules Cyclopedia 4 Life) but you can absolutely see why people are still playing it today. Of course, "solving" problems with a future iteration isn't a particularly impressive way of doing that; that's more just WotC's ineptitude in how they chose to implement Feats.

[navar100]

There is no objective best version of D&D, only your personal subjective favorite. I liked 2E well enough but having played 3E I don't want to go back to it. I have no outright objection if 5E takes inspiration from 2E, I just don't want to play 2E anymore. I find 3E is the best version of D&D so far, more Pathfinder now truth be told. However, it's really only the best version for me. Hooray for those who prefer and still play 2E.

[1337 b4k4]

The main disadvantages to 3e/4e style skills is that roll-under is considered confusing

For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why people think this way. I can understand the dislike (and confusion) that was generated by descending AC but I can't think of a single person I've ever played with who was confused for longer than 2 seconds by a "roll under" check and I think that WotC's insistence of not using them while relying on ability scores for skill checks is a major issue. Experienced players get it easily in my experience and inexperienced players simply ask what they need to roll, and "roll a d20 less than 17" is no more difficult for them than "roll a d20 over 17" is. Basically the main difference is that roll over makes it easy to put the math burden on the player "roll d20 plus your skill bonus plus this and that" rather than on the DM to calculate the target number.

[Talakeal]

For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why people think this way. I can understand the dislike (and confusion) that was generated by descending AC but I can't think of a single person I've ever played with who was confused for longer than 2 seconds by a "roll under" check and I think that WotC's insistence of not using them while relying on ability scores for skill checks is a major issue. Experienced players get it easily in my experience and inexperienced players simply ask what they need to roll, and "roll a d20 less than 17" is no more difficult for them than "roll a d20 over 17" is. Basically the main difference is that roll over makes it easy to put the math burden on the player "roll d20 plus your skill bonus plus this and that" rather than on the DM to calculate the target number.

It might have worked if it was consistent, but the rolling low on skills and saves and rolling high in combat was confusing, as was high attributes being a good thing but wanting low AC and Thac0.

I am told this was intentional as a way of countering misweighted dice, but it is very inconsistent and confusing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why people think this way. I can understand the dislike (and confusion) that was generated by descending AC but I can't think of a single person I've ever played with who was confused for longer than 2 seconds by a "roll under" check and I think that WotC's insistence of not using them while relying on ability scores for skill checks is a major issue. Experienced players get it easily in my experience and inexperienced players simply ask what they need to roll, and "roll a d20 less than 17" is no more difficult for them than "roll a d20 over 17" is. Basically the main difference is that roll over makes it easy to put the math burden on the player "roll d20 plus your skill bonus plus this and that" rather than on the DM to calculate the target number.
As Talakeal said, it's a consistency thing. "Roll and add this number" is easy. "Roll and try to get below this number" is easy. But when you have both in a system, and have to remember which method gets used where, then it gets confusing.

[1337 b4k4]

Sure, I get the argument, I just don't buy it. I seriously don't know any people (and I've mentioned I play with people with hardly no interest in the rules at all) for whom it's an issue. Perhaps though that's why I never see it as an issue, I always play and run in games where when checks come up (for anything), the DM calls for them in the form of "roll a dX, you need to beat/need to stay under Y"

And to be honest, at least when it was roll under for saves (was that AD&D because my basic books have descending save numbers as you level) it was consistent. If you were rolling against your characters innate ability, you wanted to roll low (ability checks, saves, theif skills) if you rolled against another person/monster, you wanted to roll high (attack rolls)

[Talakeal]

And to be honest, at least when it was roll under for saves (was that AD&D because my basic books have descending save numbers as you level) it was consistent. If you were rolling against your characters innate ability, you wanted to roll low (ability checks, saves, theif skills) if you rolled against another person/monster, you wanted to roll high (attack rolls)

That sounds really good in theory (I am saying that a lot today). In practice though Thac0 was just BaB with less intuitive math and arbitrary caps.