NEXT or PREVIOUS?

[Dellis]

As you might have guessed from the title, this post is about Next's pros and cons in respect to Previous editions.

To answer your first question: Yes, you can punch me for that pun. People who write puns expect retribution anyway.

I've started playing with 3rd edition, passed on to 3.5, and for a time played even the 4th edition.

And that little time playing that... uhm, not-D&D-thing, kind of traumatised me. I am now utterly unable to abide lack of customization, all-classes-feel-the-same-but-are-thus-perfectly-balanced systems.

I'm considering Pathfinder, but I've got this nagging doubt I should at least give NEXT the benefit of the doubt, and try it, no matter how much 4th traumatised me.

But to do that, I need to know beforehand: do classes "feel" different, or even warriors have powers stunning enemies, making things explode, like in the 4th edition? Do skills have gained back their prominence? Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition? (Spellbook in which you write spells and memorize then cast them, as opposed to spells like "powers", which have an hard upper limit, so that to learn new ones you must forget previous ones, like in 4th?)

Is it more a miniature game than ever, or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense? (Not that there's anything inherently bad with that, it's just not a style I like and thus makes no sense to me).

I need help choosing... if possible, without reading all the rulebooks first. Plus, there's nothing like hands-on commentary by people who actually tried this newest edition.

[Demonic Spoon]

No one is going to be able to determine your subjective opinion about an edition of D&D without having you read the rules. For what it's worth, you can peruse the free basic rules for all the core mechanics of the system.

All that said, 5e is much more like 2e/3e than it is 4e. The primary thing that 5e takes from 4e is its attempt to balance the classes, which it seems to succeed at fairly well. Aside from that, it plays like a much streamlined 2e/3e. You do note something about a "lack of customization" - I will say that, relative to 3.5e or PF, 5e does not have as many splatbooks full of feats/classes/prestige classes. It's not difficult to build out a character concept, as the system is a lot more flexible than 3e, but if what you really want is mechanical flexibility rather than narrative flexibility, that's something 3.5e/PF has more of.

[JumboWheat01]

You can grab the basic rules for 5th edition free from here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules). Wizards did this so everyone can try and enjoy it. The basics should tell you everything you need to know without having you spend a penny.

From my personal experience, it is much different from 4th Edition, while still retaining one key good point of 4th, it's easy to pick up and play. It seems to combine a bunch of features of 2nd, 3.5 and 4th editions into one cohesive unit. Is it perfect? No, it's not. Perfect's over-rated anyhoo.

[Belac93]

Classes feel very different. They all have very unique features, so you never, except maybe at levels 1-2, feel like you are playing no differently than your last character.


Do skills have gained back their prominence? Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition?
Skills have gained prominence. Amazingly useful once again. The spell system is similar. Basically, you have a number of 'spell slots,' that you can cast your spells from. Depending on what class you are, you can either prepare a certain number of spells from a huge list, or have spells known that you can cast. You can use any spell slot for any spell that is of the same level or lower than it.

e.g. Fireball is a 3rd level spell that deals 8d6 damage (I believe). So, it takes a 3rd level spell slot to cast it. However, if you cast it from a 4th level slot, it would deal 10d6. A 5th level slot would deal 12d6, and so on.


Is it more a miniature game than ever, or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense? (Not that there's anything inherently bad with that, it's just not a style I like and thus makes no sense to me).
It is an RPG again.

[Ruslan]

But to do that, I need to know beforehand: do classes "feel" different
Yes.

or even warriors have powers stunning enemies, making things explode, like in the 4th edition?
Why should a warrior not have powers stunning enemies? Last time a checked, a solid blow to the head can stun you pretty good. Nope on the explode part. Could have been cool though.


Do skills have gained back their prominence?
Yes. Although I'm not quite sure they ever lost it, but that's a different topic. Let's say, skills are important.


Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition? (Spellbook in which you write spells and memorize then cast them, as opposed to spells like "powers", which have an hard upper limit, so that to learn new ones you must forget previous ones, like in 4th?)Yay spellbook!


Is it more a miniature game than ever
No. "Theater of the Mind" (playing with no grid and no minis) is actually the default option. Minis are optional.


or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense?The game is what you make of it. But, all the tools to roleplay are definitely there. By the way, your character's personality is as much a part of charbuilding as its stats now. Just like all characters have a Dex score or an Armor Class, they all have to have a Bond, and Ideal, etc.



Not that there's anything wrong with that
Obligatory Seinfeld reference is obligatory.

[NewDM]

As you might have guessed from the title, this post is about Next's pros and cons in respect to Previous editions.

To answer your first question: Yes, you can punch me for that pun. People who write puns expect retribution anyway.

I've started playing with 3rd edition, passed on to 3.5, and for a time played even the 4th edition.

And that little time playing that... uhm, not-D&D-thing, kind of traumatised me. I am now utterly unable to abide lack of customization, all-classes-feel-the-same-but-are-thus-perfectly-balanced systems.

I'm considering Pathfinder, but I've got this nagging doubt I should at least give NEXT the benefit of the doubt, and try it, no matter how much 4th traumatised me.

But to do that, I need to know beforehand: do classes "feel" different, or even warriors have powers stunning enemies, making things explode, like in the 4th edition? Do skills have gained back their prominence? Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition? (Spellbook in which you write spells and memorize then cast them, as opposed to spells like "powers", which have an hard upper limit, so that to learn new ones you must forget previous ones, like in 4th?)

Is it more a miniature game than ever, or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense? (Not that there's anything inherently bad with that, it's just not a style I like and thus makes no sense to me).

I need help choosing... if possible, without reading all the rulebooks first. Plus, there's nothing like hands-on commentary by people who actually tried this newest edition.

This post is full of edition war bait.

I played 4e and to me no classes felt or played the same, and fighters didn't make anything explode. But that's an entire thread on its own. 4e, like every edition before it is primarily a role playing game. The only real difference between 4e and other editions was that it was balanced and the rule books were written in a dry manner befitting the manual describing the physics of an engine. They kept the fluff and crunch separated.

As others have said 5e uses quite a few parts from 4e, it just inundates everything with colorful descriptions and goes back to the default of not assuming a grid. If a better reading experience doesn't 'traumatize' you, then you'll probably enjoy 5e.

[Dellis]

No one is going to be able to determine your subjective opinion about an edition of D&D without having you read the rules. For what it's worth, you can peruse the free basic rules for all the core mechanics of the system.

All that said, 5e is much more like 2e/3e than it is 4e. The primary thing that 5e takes from 4e is its attempt to balance the classes, which it seems to succeed at fairly well. Aside from that, it plays like a much streamlined 2e/3e. You do note something about a "lack of customization" - I will say that, relative to 3.5e or PF, 5e does not have as many splatbooks full of feats/classes/prestige classes. It's not difficult to build out a character concept, as the system is a lot more flexible than 3e, but if what you really want is mechanical flexibility rather than narrative flexibility, that's something 3.5e/PF has more of.

What I needed is, in fact, the same exact comparison you made. If it feels more like 4th edition, I'm fairly certain I want nothing to do with it. If it feels more like a simplified version of 3th, it's worth checking out.

This just draws out another question, though: is it feasible to convert a premade module made for Pathfinder (let's say, Council of Thieves) in NEXT rules?

As for customization, I may have not made myself completely clear: what I meant is not the possibility to fiddle around with classes, multiclasses, tons of talents and hundreds of prestige classes to get exactly what I want from a mechanical, optimization standpoint (since, by the way, I'm not one for optimization), but the possibility to create very different character concepts using the same class. Mechanical customization is involved, but is really just a means to attain a character which narratively feels different from the first: which is, if I'm not mistaken, exactly what you mean with narrative flexibility.

@NewDM Rereading my post, you may be right. I may have let too much of my own feelings about 4th edition pass through, which could derail a topic I just wrote to get insight on which edition might be right for me. No need to be that explicit about my views on 4th, for which I apologize, hoping it will be enough to defuse the threat of sparking edition wars. I'd still value greatly more viewpoints on this, though. Did NEXT, for you people who've tried it, feel more like 3e than 4e?

[Ruslan]

On the off-chance you're actually looking for a serious answer, it's not at all like 4e. It's way more like 3e.

[Reaper34]

anything is better than 4e.

5e has streamlined a lot of the game. not as many bonuses to add up but a few more dice rolls. since bonuses stay low skills can swing wildly. getting advantage(rolling 2x) on something is more important than stacking bonuses. ability scores can be raised more eaisly but cap out at 20. it's really a different system to 3e. the classes are customizable but feel kinda like multiclassing with some options. my personal irratation is only one ac for every attack, not 3 different situational ac's.

5e moves much faster than 3e. 3e makes more sense and is more "stable" with skill checks. i play and DM bot 3e and 5e. they are good at different things. maybe spend a little time on youtube and watch a few 5e games to maybe get the feel for it. don't know if this helps. personally i'd give it a shot and see. if you don't like it there is always pathfinder.

[Dellis]

Just to be clear, I'll state it in its own post instead of an edit:

I've no desire to see this thread turned into edition war, nor I'm trolling. I may have let too much of my feelings towards 4th (entirely subjective) show through, for which I apologize to people which have legitimately liked it. Editing the first post is out of the question since it'd make next posts lose sense, and I'd like for people to be able to read all the topic seamlessly, I hate when people do that.

If you will, then, reread the question as: I didn't like 4th. Is NEXT more like 3rd or 4th?

[DanyBallon]

As a matter of fact, 5e feels like 2e, and took some goods from both 3e and 4e.
D20 system introduce in 3e is a much better system than the one in use before that.
5e Bounded Accuracy, makes low CR creatures still a threat if in large number why you are at higher level, an untrained character may be lucky and beat a hard DC 20 skill check, while a proficient high level character may be unlucky and fail such a check.
On skill checks, you are encourage to make them only if there is a signifiant chance to fail, of if failure would have dire consequence.
Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic is a nice way to get rid of all these circumstance bonus that plagued 3.P
Caster are still strong, but martial are much more ressourceful than they were in 3.P

[Dellis]

As for ease of conversion: is it feasible or at all possible, in fact, to convert a 3.x/pathfinder adventure into a 5e? If possible, which difficult steps do you envision?

I'm a fan of summoners - anything like that in 5e, even homemade or from third parties?

[JumboWheat01]

As for ease of conversion: is it feasible or at all possible, in fact, to convert a 3.x/pathfinder adventure into a 5e? If possible, which difficult steps do you envision?

I'm a fan of summoners - anything like that in 5e, even homemade or from third parties?

Well a Conjuration Wizard is a pretty powerful minionmancer. They get a bonus to the sturdiness of their summons. They even can't lose their concentration on Conjuration spells, which all summoning skills belong to.

Oh yeah, concentration, the main bane of full casters this expansion. You can only concentrate on one spell that requires concentration at a time, and if you get hit, you need to make a saving throw in order to hold onto your concentration. That's what makes a Conjuration Wizard so good at minionmancing.

Edit: In fact, take a look this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491). There are many nice guides (some not fully updated, I'll admit,) that may be able to answer many of your questions.

[DanyBallon]

Converting is pretty easy, I've done so for Kingmaker. At first you'll want to have a table for converting scaling DCs of PF to 5e non scaling DC (such table exist on the internet) but you'll soon realise that it's easier to set on the fly the DC from what you believe is an appropriate challenge. As for converting monster, since 5e NPC/monster creation don't follow the same rules as PCs creation, it's quite easy to just give them stats that feels appropriate. The DMG has a table to estimate the appropriate CR of a creature based on its AC, HP, avg dmg over 3 rounds and on its to hit bonus. Its not perfect but is a useful guide to convert monster on the fly when you are familiar with it.

[obryn]

I'm a huge 4e fan, and leaving aside the hilarious idea that an RPG 'traumatized' you, no, 5e is very little like 4e. This is intentional; it's D&D Throwback Edition. The entire game is structured like a flatter, simpler 3.x.

So it's not much like 4e at all except for a few superficial things, and this 4e fan doesn't like 5e much at all. In fact, my table won't even consider it. So congrats, you should love it.

[Dellis]

Well a Conjuration Wizard is a pretty powerful minionmancer. They get a bonus to the sturdiness of their summons. They even can't lose their concentration on Conjuration spells, which all summoning skills belong to.

Oh yeah, concentration, the main bane of full casters this expansion. You can only concentrate on one spell that requires concentration at a time, and if you get hit, you need to make a saving throw in order to hold onto your concentration. That's what makes a Conjuration Wizard so good at minionmancing.

Edit: In fact, take a look this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491). There are many nice guides (some not fully updated, I'll admit,) that may be able to answer many of your questions.

I'll take a look, thanks! ^_^ There's a lot of material in that topic: I'll be sure to use it to guide my decision. Thanks!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Overall, I'd say 5e plays quite a lot like 3e; the sort of simplified, streamlined 3e we all wanted. That said...


But to do that, I need to know beforehand: do classes "feel" different, or even warriors have powers stunning enemies, making things explode, like in the 4th edition?
The classes are pretty much like 3e ones. Good 3e ones, admittedly, with stuff at every level and unique abilities, but there's nothing approaching the martial options of a ToB or 4e class.


Do skills have gained back their prominence?
No, they're relatively useless. Except for Rogues and Bards, being trained in a skill (the only differentiation that exists) is worth, at level 20, a grand total of +6 (and even with them it's only +12). Barring deliberate DM effort, the d20 roll drastically overshadows your modifier.


Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition? (Spellbook in which you write spells and memorize then cast them, as opposed to spells like "powers", which have an hard upper limit, so that to learn new ones you must forget previous ones, like in 4th?)
Yeah. Prepared casters work like Spirit Shamans (ie, prepare their list of spells known and cast spontaneously off that) and everyone has Heighten Spell, but spells only scale when cast out of higher-level slots and there are no bonus slots for high ability scores. Cantrips are more useful though, being very limited choice but at-will options; your basic offense and utility at all levels.


Is it more a miniature game than ever, or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense? (Not that there's anything inherently bad with that, it's just not a style I like and thus makes no sense to me).
4e scorn aside, no-- it doesn't have the same tactics/positioning bent (obsession?)

[Dellis]

I'm a huge 4e fan, and leaving aside the hilarious idea that an RPG 'traumatized' you, no, 5e is very little like 4e. This is intentional; it's D&D Throwback Edition. The entire game is structured like a flatter, simpler 3.x.

So it's not much like 4e at all except for a few superficial things, and this 4e fan doesn't like 5e much at all. In fact, my table won't even consider it. So congrats, you should love it.

I'll take the bashing since I deserve it, sorry to have written without thinking it through. That said, thank you for your opinion: I'll probably go and try NEXT then. At least, after having read a bit of the rules through the given links.

[NewDM]

@NewDM Rereading my post, you may be right. I may have let too much of my own feelings about 4th edition pass through, which could derail a topic I just wrote to get insight on which edition might be right for me. No need to be that explicit about my views on 4th, for which I apologize, hoping it will be enough to defuse the threat of sparking edition wars. I'd still value greatly more viewpoints on this, though. Did NEXT, for you people who've tried it, feel more like 3e than 4e?

Thanks.

As in any edition of D&D you can wrangle the rules to make any concept. In fact in this edition with the right background and feats you can make a pretty good ranger out of a fighter, which bodes well for customization. Conversion is also relatively easy. You will have to rework any skill checks and DCs. You will also probably have to redo encounters but not by much. You can use the same monsters just reduce or increase their number to match encounter guidelines.

To me all the editions played much the same. In all the editions I've played (2E to 5E) I use a grid and miniatures or tokens so none of that bothers me. It feels a little simplified if you use a grid, but I also played some 2e without a grid and it plays much like that. Most that liked 3E like 5E. In fact if you want to try it out go to http://www.roll20.net and join a game for a few sessions online using the voice chat and virtual table. If you don't like grids you can still try to find one that does theater of the mind.

[Demonic Spoon]

This just draws out another question, though: is it feasible to convert a premade module made for Pathfinder (let's say, Council of Thieves) in NEXT rules?

The math is fundamentally different (google bounded accuracy), but the 5e math is simple enough that conversion is pretty simple.

There are guidelines in the DMG for determining the CR of a creature based on its stats, so you can use that to convert any monsters that don't exist in the 5e MM (by rebuilding the monster thematically, not by directly porting its stats). As far as I know quite a few people run converted 2e-3e modules in 5e.


I'll take the bashing since I deserve it, sorry to have written without thinking it through. That said, thank you for your opinion: I'll probably go and try NEXT then. At least, after having read a bit of the rules through the given links.

don't worry about it too much, it's just that quite a number of threads in the past have devolved into edition wars so people are pretty hostile towards things that seem to be encouraging that (like your vehement dislike of 4e in the OP)

[EvilAnagram]

I'm a huge 4e fan, and leaving aside the hilarious idea that an RPG 'traumatized' you, no, 5e is very little like 4e. This is intentional; it's D&D Throwback Edition. The entire game is structured like a flatter, simpler 3.x.

So it's not much like 4e at all except for a few superficial things, and this 4e fan doesn't like 5e much at all. In fact, my table won't even consider it. So congrats, you should love it.

I wouldn't call it flatter than 3.x, but I think simpler is fair. As a 2e and 4e fan, I think 5e is my favorite edition.

[NewDM]

I wouldn't call it flatter than 3.x, but I think simpler is fair. As a 2e and 4e fan, I think 5e is my favorite edition.

Actually, bounded accuracy is 'flatter' because the number ranges go from 5 to 30, instead of other editions where it went from 10 to 60+.

[EvilAnagram]

Actually, bounded accuracy is 'flatter' because the number ranges go from 5 to 30, instead of other editions where it went from 10 to 60+.

I suppose it is if you're using bar graphs? When I spoke of flatness I was referring to depth of play and customization, not the numbers you can reach when adding to your die rolls. I suppose I assumed that obryn meant that as well.

[obryn]

I suppose it is if you're using bar graphs? When I spoke of flatness I was referring to depth of play and customization, not the numbers you can reach when adding to your die rolls. I suppose I assumed that obryn meant that as well.
No, it was meant as a mathematical comment. But now that you mention it... Yeah, that too. :smallbiggrin:

[PotatoGolem]

As someone who loved 3.5 and now can't go back to it, I highly recommend you check out 5e. It's got most of what made 3.5 great without all the bookkeeping and constant math.

It's also balanced without feeling samey. The classes feel very different, but unlike 3.5 there's no trap builds and really no way to end up building characters that are orders of magnitude more or less powerful than their partymates.

As an aside, what shocked me coming from 3.5 is that paladins, bards, monks, and half elves are all good in 5e. Paladin in particular has my vote for most fun class

[JumboWheat01]

As an aside, what shocked me coming from 3.5 is that paladins, bards, monks, and half elves are all good in 5e. Paladin in particular has my vote for most fun class

And don't forget half-orcs! Playing a half-orc in 3.5 was almost like a purposefully made handicap on your character. Half-orcs rock in 5e.

[PotatoGolem]

And don't forget half-orcs! Playing a half-orc in 3.5 was almost like a purposefully made handicap on your character. Half-orcs rock in 5e.

In fact, half-orcs paladins are great! As opposed to 3.5, where they were at best an embarrassment to the party

[Lollerabe]

I'll second that, lawful evil half Orc oath of vengeance paladin of bane, high on my character contingency list :)

The fact that many of my friends consider the bard one of the strongest classes in 5e is just awesome. As a former 3,5e/pf player myself.. The freakin bard yo!

Dellis I think you'll love 5e, I have around 4-5 friends that all used to play 3,5/pf as well, and they all consider 5e their favorite addition hands down.

As far as class balance, yup every class feels unique and awesome, you can of course optimize but unlike pf (personal opinion here) there isn't a HUGE gain by doing so.
You have to actively try to make a useless character, for it to be 'useless', which IMO is a good indicator of 5e's class/race balance.

[djreynolds]

I got so tired of focus and specialization in 3.5.

I mean it is a sword, I got it. I'll figure it out, the pointy end goes this way.

But I did like the skill system better, not the complexity of it. Hide and move silently, yeah stealth. I'm not going to sneak past the guards wearing a clown outfit with boots of elven kind, or wear a cloak of elvenkind and wear squeaky clown shoes.

But I liked the skill investment, I could be a fighter awesome in lore, but I had to work at it and I could become an expert in it. But I needed a higher intelligence as it was based on the ability and the points I put into it.

[OldTrees1]

But to do that, I need to know beforehand: do classes "feel" different, or even warriors have powers stunning enemies, making things explode, like in the 4th edition? Do skills have gained back their prominence? Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition? (Spellbook in which you write spells and memorize then cast them, as opposed to spells like "powers", which have an hard upper limit, so that to learn new ones you must forget previous ones, like in 4th?)

Is it more a miniature game than ever, or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense? (Not that there's anything inherently bad with that, it's just not a style I like and thus makes no sense to me).

I need help choosing... if possible, without reading all the rulebooks first. Plus, there's nothing like hands-on commentary by people who actually tried this newest edition.

You will need to read the rules. There is some intentional inaccuracies below that I am using to communicate the broad strokes at expense of the little details. Reading the rules should correct for that.

Yes, classes feel different but they do feel less differentiated than 3rd edition. Casters retained an at will magical attack and there is less feature/level density with which to differentiate similar classes. However they are sufficiently differentiated.

Skills gain back their prominence but the skill system seems dominated by the d20. Only the classes with Expertise(Bard and Rogue) can improve their skill modifiers at a reasonable rate if the DCs remain static(as in what was a DC 25 at 1st level is still a DC 25 at 11th level). However the skill section in the DMG is vague about whether the DCs are meant to be static or relative (what was a DC 25 at 1st level might be a DC 15 at 11th level).

Spells in 5E are a lot like Swordsages in 3E. This bears some vauge similarities to Spells in 4E but unlike 4E your upper limit continues to grow as you gain levels.

5E is a faster, less mechanically dense, more balanced compared to 3E.

Personally I currently prefer 3E modified with the innovations of 5E, but given a homebrew inclined group I would prefer a 5E modified(I would double the feature : level ratio and improve the skill system further).

[NewDM]

You will need to read the rules. There is some intentional inaccuracies below that I am using to communicate the broad strokes at expense of the little details. Reading the rules should correct for that.

Yes, classes feel different but they do feel less differentiated than 3rd edition. Casters retained an at will magical attack and there is less feature/level density with which to differentiate similar classes. However they are sufficiently differentiated.

Skills gain back their prominence but the skill system seems dominated by the d20. Only the classes with Expertise(Bard and Rogue) can improve their skill modifiers at a reasonable rate if the DCs remain static(as in what was a DC 25 at 1st level is still a DC 25 at 11th level). However the skill section in the DMG is vague about whether the DCs are meant to be static or relative (what was a DC 25 at 1st level might be a DC 15 at 11th level).

Spells in 5E are a lot like Swordsages in 3E. This bears some vauge similarities to Spells in 4E but unlike 4E your upper limit continues to grow as you gain levels.

5E is a faster, less mechanically dense, more balanced compared to 3E.

Personally I currently prefer 3E modified with the innovations of 5E, but given a homebrew inclined group I would prefer a 5E modified(I would double the feature : level ratio and improve the skill system further).

Actually its pretty clear that DCs are meant to be static. Some quotes:

"When you land in difficult terrain. you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise. you land prone." It doesn't say "If you are not an agile character when you land...". Its meant for everyone.

Many spells that force an ability or skill check also give a static DC and doesn't say "If you aren't particularly strong or particularly dexterous". The developers just didn't think they had to spell it out because its pretty clear from all the examples and text.

[OldTrees1]

Actually its pretty clear that DCs are meant to be static. Some quotes:

"When you land in difficult terrain. you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise. you land prone." It doesn't say "If you are not an agile character when you land...". Its meant for everyone.

Many spells that force an ability or skill check also give a static DC and doesn't say "If you aren't particularly strong or particularly dexterous". The developers just didn't think they had to spell it out because its pretty clear from all the examples and text.

Ah, recently one of the defenders of the skill system said that the DCs should be handled as relative. If the DCs are static, then the skill system does seem lacking to 3E players unless your character has Expertise(limited to Bards and Rogues).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ah, recently one of the defenders of the skill system said that the DCs should be handled as relative. If the DCs are static, then the skill system does seem lacking to 3E players unless your character has Expertise(limited to Bards and Rogues).
You pretty much have to do a lot of Oberani-type hacking to make it work well, as far as I can see/in my experience. Whether or not that's a positive thing is up to the individual.

[DanyBallon]

Skills DC are up to the DM to decide, PHB and DMG gives guidelines ith specific examples. A DM can decide that the same lock is easy (DC 10) for a dexterous or proficient character, hard (DC 15) for a non-dexterous and non-proficient character, while the DM may dcide that a dexterous rogue will auto-succeed agains that particular lock.

For those who wants a simpler method DMG have an optionnal rules where you compare the relevant ability score minus 5 to the check DC and if you beat the DC then you automatically succeed. Proficient characters auto-succeed vs DC 10 and proficient character above 11th level auto-succeed vs DC 15

[NewDM]

Skills DC are up to the DM to decide, PHB and DMG gives guidelines ith specific examples. A DM can decide that the same lock is easy (DC 10) for a dexterous or proficient character, hard (DC 15) for a non-dexterous and non-proficient character, while the DM may dcide that a dexterous rogue will auto-succeed agains that particular lock.

For those who wants a simpler method DMG have an optionnal rules where you compare the relevant ability score minus 5 to the check DC and if you beat the DC then you automatically succeed. Proficient characters auto-succeed vs DC 10 and proficient character above 11th level auto-succeed vs DC 15

Those are nice house rules to cover the problems with the skill system but RAW the DCs are static. As I've shown in many threads at this point. I'm not going to quote all the relevant parts of the books that prove this but a cursory glance at when it tells you to roll against a specific DC, it clearly states that this DC is for everyone.

For instance Arcane Lock specifies a solid +10 to the DC of a locked or stuck door to open it. It does not say "a strong character can ignore this increase" or "a weak character trying increases the DC by 15".
Counter Spell and Dispel Magic do not say the "spell casting ability check is 10 + spell level, unless you are really smart or really dumb."
Earthquake does not say "DC 20 escape check unless you are really strong, then its DC 10". It in fact says "The DM can adjust the DC higher or lower, depending on the nature of the rubble." which indicates DCs are set based on the environment, not the character attempting the action.

Giant Spider web attack says "As an action, the restrained target can make a DC 12 Strength check, bursting the webbing on a success. ". It does not say "... a DC 12 Strength check, unless they are very strong or very weak."

The net in the PHB says "A creature can use its action to make a DC 10 Strength check, freeing itself or another creature within its reach on a success" instead of saying "... a DC 10 Strength check, unless its really strong or really weak,"

Alchemists fire is the same, as are the hunter's trap, the lock, the manacles, and rope.

The section on ability checks says "For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class.". It does not say "... the difficulty of the task for a specific character ..."

It goes on to use this language to indicate something that should be obvious to anyone that reads it. DC's are a representative of the environmental factors. The players ability bonus is representative of their abilities. The DMG reinforces this by saying "Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table." It does not say "think of how difficult a task is for a specific character".

I mean house rules are all fine and great, but don't lead new players into thinking your house rules are the game rules, they might get the wrong idea.

[DanyBallon]

An ability check is related to a character. DM set the DC for a check that apply to this character. Another character trying the exact same action is asking for a completely new ability check, and again the DM sets the DC in regards of the new character attempting the task.

When a DC is set in a description (like in a spell), it's a case of "specific beat general".

[Zman]

As you might have guessed from the title, this post is about Next's pros and cons in respect to Previous editions.

To answer your first question: Yes, you can punch me for that pun. People who write puns expect retribution anyway.

I've started playing with 3rd edition, passed on to 3.5, and for a time played even the 4th edition.

And that little time playing that... uhm, not-D&D-thing, kind of traumatised me. I am now utterly unable to abide lack of customization, all-classes-feel-the-same-but-are-thus-perfectly-balanced systems.

I'm considering Pathfinder, but I've got this nagging doubt I should at least give NEXT the benefit of the doubt, and try it, no matter how much 4th traumatised me.

But to do that, I need to know beforehand: do classes "feel" different, or even warriors have powers stunning enemies, making things explode, like in the 4th edition? Do skills have gained back their prominence? Is the spell system like it was in the 3rd edition? (Spellbook in which you write spells and memorize then cast them, as opposed to spells like "powers", which have an hard upper limit, so that to learn new ones you must forget previous ones, like in 4th?)

Is it more a miniature game than ever, or did it come back to being a roleplaying game, no open-the-door-kill-monster and "tank - damage dealer - healer" MMORPG nonsense? (Not that there's anything inherently bad with that, it's just not a style I like and thus makes no sense to me).

I need help choosing... if possible, without reading all the rulebooks first. Plus, there's nothing like hands-on commentary by people who actually tried this newest edition.

Given all of your posts in this thread I will simplify things for you, 5e is exactly what you are looking for and will feel like a fast improvement over 3.5 while suffering none of the inherent pitfalls of 4e. After playing 5e I will not touch 3.P again, literally can't stand it, and I only managed a single game of 4e.

[NewDM]

An ability check is related to a character. DM set the DC for a check that apply to this character. Another character trying the exact same action is asking for a completely new ability check, and again the DM sets the DC in regards of the new character attempting the task.

When a DC is set in a description (like in a spell), it's a case of "specific beat general".

I've got someone asking Sage Advise about this (I don't do twitter). Hopefully we'll get an answer at some point. If you want to help you can also ask. The more people that ask, the better chance it gets answered.

[DanyBallon]

I've got someone asking Sage Advise about this (I don't do twitter). Hopefully we'll get an answer at some point. If you want to help you can also ask. The more people that ask, the better chance it gets answered.

Is there a way to do so without a Twitter account? I don't do Twitter either...

[Ruslan]

An ability check is related to a character. DM set the DC for a check that apply to this character. Another character trying the exact same action is asking for a completely new ability check, and again the DM sets the DC in regards of the new character attempting the task.

When a DC is set in a description (like in a spell), it's a case of "specific beat general".
Can you quote anything from either the PHB nor DMG to support your point of view (that by default DCs are character-specific and not task-specific) ?

[NewDM]

Is there a way to do so without a Twitter account? I don't do Twitter either...

There is an email here: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016

[Tehnar]

5e is not for you if you want:


Support: no digital products, a bare bones SRD, 2-3 adventure paths per year are all telling signs that WotC does not really care about DnD. I think the DnD is down to 8 (or 6) employees, and I know they outsource most of their products to other studios. And they killed their own forums.

A skill system and ability system that does not produce random outputs or is dependent on DM fiat: a lot has been said about this from the inception of 5e, I think there are two or three threads going on right now that go more in depth.

Tactical combat: Tactics in 5e are more of a resource management affair then a positioning or terrain/cover use. Its just a race between party DPS and team monster DPS, with the deciding factor being how many spells do the casters want to blow per encounter.

Balanced classes: Its still full caster or go home. The way casters dominate the game is different, but they still dominate.

A scale of peasant farmer with sword to multiuniverse hero: While it says in PHB/DMG that your adventures can take you from heroic to epic, the epic part really doesn't happen. 5e plays like levels 1-6 of 2nd ed/3.5, or 4th heroic tier throughout its level range. The answer to the question "How many guys with bows is required to kill a monster" is not many, usually less then 50 for most monsters, including the biggest dragons. Only the Tarrasque and some avatars are immune to ordinary guys with bows.

[EvilAnagram]

Bait

Well, this is all flame-bait, but I'll address your points anyways.


Support: WotC is constantly putting out new test material for free online and releasing 2-3 well-tested, solid books every year instead of vomiting out dozens of half-assed adventures and poorly tested splats.
Skills: Fewer skills that are widely applicable instead of three dozen specific skills that need heavy resource dedication.
Tactics: If you only pay attention to optimization boards instead of playing the game, you might think DPS is all that matters. Otherwise, you'd be aware that there are tons of tactical options from spells and class features to widely available actions to simply using skills in creative ways.
Balanced Classes: Every class is perfectly playable next to every other class, and I doubt anyone who claims that it's caster edition has ever played it.
Scale: Most creatures should probably be susceptible to death by army-with-perfect-discipline to keep a reasonable scale, and many creatures (e.g.: dragons) are perfectly capable of taking on armies with clever tactics. The fact that the armies aren't helpless makes that all the more impressive.

[NewDM]

Well, this is all flame-bait, but I'll address your points anyways.


Support: WotC is constantly putting out new test material for free online and releasing 2-3 well-tested, solid books every year instead of vomiting out dozens of half-assed adventures and poorly tested splats.
Skills: Fewer skills that are widely applicable instead of three dozen specific skills that need heavy resource dedication.
Tactics: If you only pay attention to optimization boards instead of playing the game, you might think DPS is all that matters. Otherwise, you'd be aware that there are tons of tactical options from spells and class features to widely available actions to simply using skills in creative ways.
Balanced Classes: Every class is perfectly playable next to every other class, and I doubt anyone who claims that it's caster edition has ever played it.
Scale: Most creatures should probably be susceptible to death by army-with-perfect-discipline to keep a reasonable scale, and many creatures (e.g.: dragons) are perfectly capable of taking on armies with clever tactics. The fact that the armies aren't helpless makes that all the more impressive.


Actually while WotC is putting out materials, they are clearly labeled as not usable in most games. 2-3 well tested books every year is nice, but its still a far cry from what I'd call 'support'.

The skill categories are a nice change from early editions; however, its nothing new from 4e.

DPR is actually pretty important in this edition. The greatest status effect is dead and with the lowered hit points and the weakened conditions and difficulty and resources required to apply conditions, means damage is king. If you want tactics you might want to look at another edition like 4th. In 5th you pretty much run up and engage beating things to death with your weapons and the spell casters blast things.

Unfortunately I'm playing in a game as a melee Wizard (not Blade Singer) and I'm dealing more damage than the barbarian with a combination of Flaming Sphere, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, and War Caster. I'm also not taking as much damage despite having about 1/2 the HP due to mirror image, scale mail (mountain dwarf), shield, and False Life.

I'm not sure an army taking on a dragon is a positive.

[EvilAnagram]

Actually while WotC is putting out materials, they are clearly labeled as not usable in most games. 2-3 well tested books every year is nice, but its still a far cry from what I'd call 'support'.
How is that not support? They're providing new material regularly with greater focus on quality over quantity. Sure, I enjoyed the Dragon articles, but they are actively trying to keep bloat from overtaking the game, to great effect.


DPR is actually pretty important in this edition. The greatest status effect is dead and with the lowered hit points and the weakened conditions and difficulty and resources required to apply conditions, means damage is king. If you want tactics you might want to look at another edition like 4th. In 5th you pretty much run up and engage beating things to death with your weapons and the spell casters blast things.
And here my players are solving encounters with Hypnotic Pattern and Leomund’s Tiny Hut (they're planners). Your party might focus on DPR, but there are plenty of magical tools that are more potent than DPR, and blaster casters are possibly the least useful kind. Hell, my last wizard had one damagimg AoE and no attack roll spells, but he was consistently ending or simplifying encounters. Tasha’s Hideous Laughter on a big bad, and it isn't so bad. Sleep, and half the guards go down. Transmute Rock to mud and all the baddies are stuck.


Unfortunately I'm playing in a game as a melee Wizard (not Blade Singer) and I'm dealing more damage than the barbarian with a combination of Flaming Sphere, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, and War Caster. I'm also not taking as much damage despite having about 1/2 the HP due to mirror image, scale mail (mountain dwarf), shield, and False Life.
And my party's Fighter took down a CR 4 monster by himself with Polearm Master, while the Valor Bard would have died easily. If you're better at building a DPR character, you'll be able to do just that.

On the other hand, the Bard managed to save a noble from assassins without dealing any damage at all. He also easily escaped the city watch while the Paladin with DPR out the ass was taken down.


I'm not sure an army taking on a dragon is a positive.
If you somehow managed to train a perfectly disciplined army that did not falter from the fear aura, nor fail as the dragon took out dozens of men with its breath attack on each strafing run, it would deserve its victory.

[OldTrees1]

Well, this is all flame-bait, but I'll address your points anyways.
Thin skin much? That was not flame-bait they posted. Every single one of those points is a reasonable concern to evaluate before adopting 5E.

As someone coming from 3E, here are the 2 I would list as most important to examine for oneself.

Support:
WotC is providing support for 5E, but even you admit that the volume is lower. Personally that alone would have and did sway me to stick to 3E when 5E first came out. However, with the increased yet still much lower amount of support now, I see no problem with 5E on this point. Different people will have different break points on this issue and thus it is one to honestly consider for oneself (rather than label as "bait").

Skills:
5E made some improvements but the math does not hold up to some people's expectation unless the DCs become relative (which has its own can of worms). Again it is something to consider and make an informed & personal judgement on before adopting 5E.

[Ruslan]

And my party's Fighter took down a CR 4 monster by himself with Polearm Master, while the Valor Bard would have died easily.Unless he could get off some kind of Charm spell of course, in which case he would have teamed up with the CR 4 monster to take down a CR 5 monster :smallbiggrin:

[Jakinbandw]

Unless he could get off some kind of Charm spell of course, in which case he would have teamed up with the CR 4 monster to take down a CR 5 monster :smallbiggrin:

Oh no.. Charm. Now he has advantage on Diplomacy checks while the monster rips his face off. Maybe next round he had try convince it to leave him only half dead, instead of completely dead.

[JumboWheat01]

Oh no.. Charm. Now he has advantage on Diplomacy checks while the monster rips his face off. Maybe next round he had try convince it to leave him only half dead, instead of completely dead.

Half-dead's better than full-dead. Lot cheaper to revive from that.

[Demonic Spoon]

Actually while WotC is putting out materials, they are clearly labeled as not usable in most games. 2-3 well tested books every year is nice, but its still a far cry from what I'd call 'support'.

The funny thing is that UA is probably more well-tested and usable in a game many 3.5e splatbooks. WotC is just accurately labeling the stuff that isn't polished yet.


If you somehow managed to train a perfectly disciplined army that did not falter from the fear aura, nor fail as the dragon took out dozens of men with its breath attack on each strafing run, it would deserve its victory.

Assuming the dragon even stayed and fight. Armies are big and obvious. The dragon could just leave and burn down a bunch of undefended villages instead.

As an aside, bounded accuracy makes me a better DM in this way because it forces me to play villains intelligently and not just rely on the fact that the PCs are the only ones super-human enough to even touch them.

[EvilAnagram]

Thin skin much? That was not flame-bait they posted. Every single one of those points is a reasonable concern to evaluate before adopting 5E.
I genuinely disagree.

Also, I don't see how calling bait out makes me thin-skinned... I'm not upset that it's bait, it simply is.



Support:
WotC is providing support for 5E, but even you admit that the volume is lower. Personally that alone would have and did sway me to stick to 3E when 5E first came out. However, with the increased yet still much lower amount of support now, I see no problem with 5E on this point. Different people will have different break points on this issue and thus it is one to honestly consider for oneself (rather than label as "bait").
The label of "bait" came from his obviously hyperbolic claim that it's completely unsupported and WotC clearly doesn't care.


Skills:
5E made some improvements but the math does not hold up to some people's expectation unless the DCs become relative (which has its own can of worms). Again it is something to consider and make an informed & personal judgement on before adopting 5E.

I honestly don't see any problems with the math. In my eyes, it works much better than 4e's scaling DCs. The same action will always have the same DC, regardless of level. It's just your ability that changes.

[Warwick]

5e is better balanced that 3.5e, especially in combat, but it also offers a lot less customization and your character concept is pretty much locked in by level 4. The archetypes are fine, but they are not a replacement for prestige classes.

The skill system is not great. They've condensed a few skills, but it's not a 'broad' skill system by any stretch of the imagination and many have just been renamed, cut, or moved to tool proficiency. And what the skills actually do is mostly reduced to 'argue with your GM'. This is unfortunate, because while combat is better balanced, martial characters' utility at mid-to-high levels is pretty miserable unless you allow for extraordinary/superhuman uses of skills. Results are also far swingier, but that's an artifact of cutting the zillion bonuses while retaining the d20 roll, and at least means difficult checks can be attempted by non-expert characters.


If you somehow managed to train a perfectly disciplined army that did not falter from the fear aura, nor fail as the dragon took out dozens of men with its breath attack on each strafing run, it would deserve its victory.

"Army" scarcely enters into it. It would take ~150 tiny men with longbows an average of 1 round to kill an Adult White Dragon, they outrange its fear aura, and it has to get in close to use its breath weapon. When the militia of a not-particularly large town is a lethal threat to most monsters*, you start to wonder why they're arsing about paying mentally unstable vagabonds to deal with their problems. It also makes most large monsters seem kind of lame, since no half-way intelligent dragon is going to get within a mile of a battlefield. Small monsters, somewhat ironically, become more of a problem, since they're far less visible.

[EvilAnagram]

"Army" scarcely enters into it. It would take ~150 tiny men with longbows an average of 1 round to kill an Adult White Dragon, they outrange its fear aura, and it has to get in close to use its breath weapon. When the militia of a not-particularly large town is a lethal threat to most monsters*, you start to wonder why they're arsing about paying mentally unstable vagabonds to deal with their problems. It also makes most large monsters seem kind of lame, since no half-way intelligent dragon is going to get within a mile of a battlefield. Small monsters, somewhat ironically, become more of a problem, since they're far less visible.

An adult white dragon isn't even an epic encounter. How is that even remotely a meaningful assessment? A town militia can hold off the moderately powerful version of the weakest dragon. Clearly, the game is terrible.

On the other hand, an actual epic encounter like an Ancient Red Dragon can kill all 150 villagers in a single breath attack. In fact, it could kill hundreds of much stronger creatures at once without any sort of tactics. Fighting intelligently, it's a threat to an army.

[obryn]

5e is not for you if you want:


Support: no digital products, a bare bones SRD, 2-3 adventure paths per year are all telling signs that WotC does not really care about DnD. I think the DnD is down to 8 (or 6) employees, and I know they outsource most of their products to other studios. And they killed their own forums.

A skill system and ability system that does not produce random outputs or is dependent on DM fiat: a lot has been said about this from the inception of 5e, I think there are two or three threads going on right now that go more in depth.

Tactical combat: Tactics in 5e are more of a resource management affair then a positioning or terrain/cover use. Its just a race between party DPS and team monster DPS, with the deciding factor being how many spells do the casters want to blow per encounter.

Balanced classes: Its still full caster or go home. The way casters dominate the game is different, but they still dominate.

A scale of peasant farmer with sword to multiuniverse hero: While it says in PHB/DMG that your adventures can take you from heroic to epic, the epic part really doesn't happen. 5e plays like levels 1-6 of 2nd ed/3.5, or 4th heroic tier throughout its level range. The answer to the question "How many guys with bows is required to kill a monster" is not many, usually less then 50 for most monsters, including the biggest dragons. Only the Tarrasque and some avatars are immune to ordinary guys with bows.


With the exception of the last point, this is all generally in line with what I hear from folks who play a lot of 5e, too.

The 'support' part is undeniable, when you compare WotC's output with its own output during 3e or 4e, and even other companies' output now. Yes, they are outsourcing all of their major products. Yes, WotC's D&D team primarily exists to champion the brand. No, their business model is no longer 'selling books.' I disagree with EvilAnagram's position that the stuff they're releasing is better-researched or better-balanced; I haven't seen anything to indicate this is the case.

Yes, the Skill System is dominated by the RNG. With 5e's Schroedinger's Rules, we get all kinds of arguments about whether or not a DM can set different DCs for different characters, etc. This has literally been discussed to death, and the core of the argument doesn't seem to be whether or not the RNG outstrips the size of the modifiers, but what's considered a 'rule' as opposed to a 'workaround.'

No, tactical combat is not an emphasis of this edition. See: claimed increased support for TotM combat.

Yes, at higher levels, casters consistently get more flexible ways to make declarative statements about what happens in the game world. Yes, they eventually get more options than non-casters. For lots of 5e fans, this is a perk, since they didn't like how spellcasting worked in 4e. I find it puzzling that someone could argue that this is false when 5e supporters are at the same time arguing how it's an improvement. But eh.

I won't really touch on the last point, though. Yes, it's true that there's more 'strength in numbers' than ever before in 5e, but this all inevitably gets into the minutiae of white-room vs. actual play, and it won't go anywhere. It looks pretty solidly superhuman to me at higher levels - at least if you can magic stuff.

[JoeJ]

since no half-way intelligent dragon is going to get within a mile of a battlefield.

That's why the king needs to hire adventurers. The army can't predict where the dragon is going to be, can't force it to stand and fight, isn't stealthy enough to sneak up on it, isn't fast enough to chase it, and has nowhere near the numbers required to defend the entire kingdom.

[Ruslan]

Oh no.. Charm. Now he has advantage on Diplomacy checks while the monster rips his face off. Maybe next round he had try convince it to leave him only half dead, instead of completely dead.You may want to read up on what the charmed condition actually does, to avoid making such needlessly snippy and factually incorrect comments in the future.


Charmed
• A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target
the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
• The charmer has advantage on any ability check to
interact socially with the creature.

[OldTrees1]

I genuinely disagree.

Also, I don't see how calling bait out makes me thin-skinned... I'm not upset that it's bait, it simply is.


The label of "bait" came from his obviously hyperbolic claim that it's completely unsupported and WotC clearly doesn't care.



I honestly don't see any problems with the math. In my eyes, it works much better than 4e's scaling DCs. The same action will always have the same DC, regardless of level. It's just your ability that changes.

I genuinely do not see it as bait, and I consider calling it bait to be thinner skin than my own. However I meant that as a friendly joking comment. I apologize for my poor joke.

While they used hyperbole, and had a preference more distant from yours than mine is, I don't think it was bait. Different people have different preferences for how much support they want.


The problems I (3E PoV) see in the math is 2 fold:
1) How many levels does it take for someone to upgrade 1 tier of difficulty(+5DC)? Nearly all 20 unless you have expertise (2 ASIs and 15 levels or 1 ASI and 20 levels). With the name choices for the tiers of difficulty I would expect 5 or 10 levels per graduation. Even ignoring the name choices, the number of difficulty tiers implies expecting more than 1 graduation over the 20 levels (6 tiers -> 2-3 graduations). Now Expertise does fix this, but a level of Rogue(or 3 of Bard) should not be mandatory for every NPC expert in their field.

2) Mechanically non Rogues/Bards don't get to the point of no chance for failing a basic/trivial task if they roll. Only the "don't roll" rules enable that. That is fine, except at the edge cases where someone almost but not quite at the "no need to roll" point suddenly has a relatively huge chance to fail. The math could have be tailored for that edge to be seamless.

Now these are problems I see based upon my personal preferences. They might not bother you at all. Neither side is wrong, and thus it is something people like the OP should think about for themselves.


When I personally consider these 2 "issues to consider" (Support & Skills) I come to the conclusion that, for me, the 1st is not an issue anymore and the 2nd is a house rule puzzle I should be capable of.

[Tehnar]

EvilAnagram if you want to call facts flamebait, be my guest, but I think that says more about you. Anyway obryn and Warwick elaborated quite well on my post, I would just like to add

On the support side: WotC killed off the DnD forums. Those were costing them what, 200$ a year in server costs, max? This is the amount of ****s given by WotC for DnD, less then 200$ worth per year. You can make up excuses for not having PDFs for sale, or even that every product other then core has been liscenced out to third party publishers, but really, killing their own forums?

On the issue of scale, I would amend my point with the exception that full casters get to do epic stuff. The others not at all.

Additionally, Evilanagram, the amount of dudes needed to face off a Ancient Red Dragon:

You said a ancient red dragon
AC 22, 546 hp, Challenge 24

vs scouts (Challenge 1/2)
2 attacks each, +4 to hit, longbow (MM pg 349)

The dragon does not have any attack options that exceed the short range of a longbow.

It takes 228 scouts to kill the Ancient Red Dragon in one round. If they are elf scouts or any other +2 dex race then it only takes 159 scouts. So if the biggest, baddest evil dragon ever gets within range of cca 200 scouts, he is as good as dead. 200 dudes does not a army make, if you are going by medieval western army typical army size between 6k and 10k.

A while back I calculated what kills the Tarrasque, and as I remember it 15 level 5 champion fighters (or NPCs built that way) with 18 dex and the sharpshooter feat, +1 longbows, on a open field, kill the Tarrasque before it gets to them (they move back 30' after firing). So much for the most dreaded monster of the material plane.

[JoeJ]

You said a ancient red dragon
AC 22, 546 hp, Challenge 24

vs scouts (Challenge 1/2)
2 attacks each, +4 to hit, longbow (MM pg 349)

The dragon does not have any attack options that exceed the short range of a longbow.

It takes 228 scouts to kill the Ancient Red Dragon in one round. If they are elf scouts or any other +2 dex race then it only takes 159 scouts. So if the biggest, baddest evil dragon ever gets within range of cca 200 scouts, he is as good as dead. 200 dudes does not a army make, if you are going by medieval western army typical army size between 6k and 10k.

So they do what? Form up into a square, so that everybody can be in range at once, and hope the dragon decides to come down and fight them honorably?

[EvilAnagram]

I think 4e fans need to understand the difference between two different statements. Saying that 5th edition utilizes tactical combat is not the same as saying that 5th edition is a spectacle a game as 4th edition.

It is not. All of 4th edition, for all intents and purposes, was tactical combat. Making the point that 5th edition is not as tactical as 4th edition is entirely redundant. 4th edition is all about the tactical combat aspect of Dungeons and Dragons. It focuses so much on that, that's some people question whether or not it's actually a role playing game. Personally, I'm a fan of 4th edition, but I do not hold every role playing game I play to that standard of tactical combat.

On the other hand, 5th edition allows lots of tactical choices comma though not as many as 4th edition. Maneuvers, grappling, pushing, spells, and other features all allow for tactical play. My players just fought in a warehouse full of vats of acid, and you can bet that tactical considerations were pretty damned important. Now, they weren't making the same kind of complex, multi-layered decisions that tended to bog 4e play and drag combat encounters on for an hour or more, but they were making tactical choices constantly.

On caster supremacy (which is a claim somehow occurring in the same arguments claiming that trading DPR is all that matters), I can only say that I'm in my fifth campaign out of three groups, and I have not seen it. Personally, I value my first-hand experience over what you've heard, obryn.

On scale, 200+ well-trained archers seems about right. Actual medieval archers tended not to be masters on the same levels as a Scout, and finding/organizing that many truly skilled archers would be quite a feat. Note that the dragon can rake them down in a turn without needing to roll.

As for content, I'm pretty happy with the amount we're getting. I'm sorry if you aren't.

And calling bait, "facts," is just obnoxious.

[Tehnar]

So they do what? Form up into a square, so that everybody can be in range at once, and hope the dragon decides to come down and fight them honorably?

The classic trope is that the dragon attacks a town. The scouts in that case can be spread out. Maybe not all will be in short range, but 200 scouts is enough to kill the biggest baddest dragon in 1 round. Imagine how few scouts you actually need to kill a dragon over the corse of 5 to 10 rounds.

Heck even if you had scouts lined up on the town wall, 5' apart, that would be enough to seriously injure the biggest baddest dragon as it flew to try an scortch 18 of them, and probably killing it before it flew away.

[JoeJ]

The classic trope is that the dragon attacks a town. The scouts in that case can be spread out. Maybe not all will be in short range, but 200 scouts is enough to kill the biggest baddest dragon in 1 round. Imagine how few scouts you actually need to kill a dragon over the corse of 5 to 10 rounds.

Heck even if you had scouts lined up on the town wall, 5' apart, that would be enough to seriously injure the biggest baddest dragon as it flew to try an scortch 18 of them, and probably killing it before it flew away.

An ancient red dragon has an Intelligence of 18. Why would it ever get within range? If the fields burn, the town starves. If caravans can't get through on the roads, the town's economy dies. If the dragon just flies above bow range and drops big rocks the town will eventually be leveled.

And let's look at those troops. A force of 200 scouts spaced 5' apart on a perimeter will encompasses a space of 250' square. That's not a very big town. Maintaining them costs 400 gp per day. But that's no good unless they know what time the dragon will attack. If they have to maintain a 24 hr guard, you'll need more like 600 scout, at at cost of 1200 gp per day. That's 36,000 to protect one small town for one month. All the dragon has to do is wait for the town to run out of money and send the scouts home before it attacks. And it's no help to say that they'll fight purely out of patriotism. They still have to eat, and every day that they're standing on the wall is a day they're not doing any productive work.

If you're thinking in combat as sport terms, the dragon is pretty weak. In combat as war, even an army of thousands doesn't stand much of a chance.

[EvilAnagram]

The classic trope is that the dragon attacks a town. The scouts in that case can be spread out. Maybe not all will be in short range, but 200 scouts is enough to kill the biggest baddest dragon in 1 round. Imagine how few scouts you actually need to kill a dragon over the corse of 5 to 10 rounds.

Heck even if you had scouts lined up on the town wall, 5' apart, that would be enough to seriously injure the biggest baddest dragon as it flew to try an scortch 18 of them, and probably killing it before it flew away.

The problem with that whiteboard example is that without a massed volley, they have no chance, and if they are massed for a volley, they're grouped together enough to all die in the initial attack. The biggest, baddest dragon can drop a cone of fire from above on am area of 8,100 sq ft. That's 324 5'x5' squares. That's guardhouses, houses, and scouts all erupting into flame. The conflagration surges through the city, throwing up smoke and ash into the sky, providing cover for the great wyrm. It can tear into buildings, get out another fire breath or two, and fly away leaving the town decimated (literally). Meanwhile, the Scouts would have failed to make a meaningful dent in it through the distance and cover of smoke and flame.

[JoeJ]

The problem with that whiteboard example is that without a massed volley, they have no chance, and if they are massed for a volley, they're grouped together enough to all die in the initial attack. The biggest, baddest dragon can drop a cone of fire from above on am area of 8,100 sq ft. That's 324 5'x5' squares. That's guardhouses, houses, and scouts all erupting into flame. The conflagration surges through the city, throwing up smoke and ash into the sky, providing cover for the great wyrm. It can tear into buildings, get out another fire breath or two, and fly away leaving the town decimated (literally). Meanwhile, the Scouts would have failed to make a meaningful dent in it through the distance and cover of smoke and flame.

Good point. Scouts, if they're elves, can only see the dragon 60' away in darkness. That's already within range of it's breath weapon. Beyond that distance, the dragon only needs to roll an 8 or better to beat their passive perception as it dives out of the night sky.

[EvilAnagram]

Good point. Scouts, if they're elves, can only see the dragon 60' away in darkness. That's already within range of it's breath weapon. Beyond that distance, the dragon only needs to roll an 8 or better to beat their passive perception as it dives out of the night sky.

At night, the way cones work, he can attack from 90' up, hit that entire area, wait beyond their darkvision range to recharge, and repeat. Over and over again.

But apparently being able to destroy a city after barely any tactical considerations is completely underwhelming.

[DanyBallon]

On the support side: WotC killed off the DnD forums. Those were costing them what, 200$ a year in server costs, max? This is the amount of ****s given by WotC for DnD, less then 200$ worth per year. You can make up excuses for not having PDFs for sale, or even that every product other then core has been liscenced out to third party publishers, but really, killing their own forums?



WotC did not kill D&D forums because they didn't care about D&D, they killed all forum, even Magic and I'm pretty sure that Magic is far from neglected by WoTC. They killed the forums because some higher up decided that they could save money. As for PDF, it's a business décision I don't agree with. And finally, only 3 adventures (4 books) have been outsourced to 3PP (ToD, EE, RoD)+ SCAG, Ravenloft is in house, as well as the core. So it's close to 50-50 for the moment.

[obryn]

On caster supremacy (which is a claim somehow occurring in the same arguments claiming that trading DPR is all that matters), I can only say that I'm in my fifth campaign out of three groups, and I have not seen it. Personally, I value my first-hand experience over what you've heard, obryn.
Okay. Now it's you vs. others. :) I can quote some posts at you if you'd like, but I don't think it will go anywhere.

I also see the dragon argument has, inevitably, turned to number analysis vs. "but what if the DM does This huh? what then" time, which is always fun.

[Ruslan]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something here.

There seems to be an argument going about archers vs. dragon. So, I was able to grasp that if X archers get within range of a dragon and loose their arrows at the same time, they would kill it. I got that part. Seems about right. What I didn't get is WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? Because people seem to be arguing about the archers ability (or lack of it) to kill the dragon in a volley of arrows, as if this ability (or lack of it) proves something very big and very important, and I think I'm missing out on it.

[OldTrees1]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something here.

There seems to be an argument going about archers vs. dragon. So, I was able to grasp that if X archers get within range of a dragon and loose their arrows at the same time, they would kill it. I got that part. Seems about right. What I didn't get is WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? Because people seem to be arguing about the archers ability (or lack of it) to kill the dragon in a volley of arrows, as if this ability (or lack of it) proves something very big and very important, and I think I'm missing out on it.

I in no way condone the argument going on.

However here is some context: I assume you know about the dragons in Skyrim and Smaug from The Hobbit. The former can be brought down by a small army. The latter required a legendary archer(Bard of Dale) for it to be brought down. They are arguing about whether Smaug-like (or even greater) dragons are possible in using the MM Dragons under 5E combat rules.

[Ruslan]

They are arguing about whether Smaug-like dragons are possible in using the MM Dragons under 5E combat rules.I see. So the inability of a dragon to withstand a barrage of arrows from Regular Joes makes it un-Smaug-like. Well, in that case, we can easily make Smaug-like dragons, all we need to do is to shift the goal posts slightly for what exactly constitutes a "regular Joe". I mean, if we're DMing and worldbuilding this hypothetical situation, we can do this.

First, note that the default MM Scout has 2 attacks per round (same as 5th level Fighter!), has Dex 15 (same as top 10% of a randomly-generated population), and is proficient with a Longbow (which is a martial weapon, and by default regular Joes aren't proficient in it, except for Elves). Heck, a regular Joe is unlikely even to own a longbow, given its cost.

There is, based on those facts, a strong case to saying that the Scout statblock is in fact not a regular Joe at all. The Commoner statblock is a regular Joe. The Scout it ... I don't know, a seasoned warrior, an officer, a company commander. Something like that. For every 30 commoners conscripted into the King's Army, there's going to be *one* Scout to command them. And for every ten Scouts, there's going to be one Veteran or Knight. 3,000 commoners (who can barely hit the dragon at all, since they use low-range slings or javelins, and only hit on a nat 20), 100 scouts, 10 veterans or Knights. Something like that. And there you have it, an army of a few thousands souls, which is barely a match for a Dragon.

Once again, we are the worldbuilder of this hypothetical, we are allowed to do this. If we want a dragon defeating an army, we can make it so. D&D does give you the tools to create this situation. So I don't see what the big deal is.

[OldTrees1]

I see. So the inability of a dragon to withstand a barrage of arrows from Regular Joes makes it un-Smaug-like. Well, in that case, we can easily make Smaug-like dragons, all we need to do is to shift the goal posts slightly for what exactly constitutes a "regular Joe". I mean, if we're DMing and worldbuilding this hypothetical situation, we can do this.

There is, based on those facts, a strong case to saying that the Scout statblock is in fact not a regular Joe at all. The Commoner statblock is a regular Joe. The Scout it ... I don't know, a seasoned warrior, an officer, a company commander. Something like that. For every 30 commoners conscripted into the King's Army, there's going to be *one* Scout to command them. And for every ten Scouts, there's going to be one Veteran or Knight. 3,000 commoners (who can barely hit the dragon at all, since they use low-range slings or javelins, and only hit on a nat 20), 100 scouts, 10 veterans or Knights. Something like that. And there you have it, an army of a few thousands souls, which is barely a match for a Dragon.

Not quite.
1,000,000 commoners slaying a dragon? Un-Smaug-like. It was a qualitative difference not a quantitative difference I was trying to explain. Skyrim dragons can fall to numbers or to skill. Smaug-like dragons won't fall to numbers, only to skill.

[Ruslan]

I see your point. Not so easy to implement in D&D. Unless you give the big guy immunity to nonmagical damage, I guess. Which is bending the rules more than you may like.

[obryn]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something here.

There seems to be an argument going about archers vs. dragon. So, I was able to grasp that if X archers get within range of a dragon and loose their arrows at the same time, they would kill it. I got that part. Seems about right. What I didn't get is WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? Because people seem to be arguing about the archers ability (or lack of it) to kill the dragon in a volley of arrows, as if this ability (or lack of it) proves something very big and very important, and I think I'm missing out on it.
There's a debate between people who think that a game's math and whiteboarding ideal situations matter, and those who don't.

So instead of being about the game's rules, the argument turns into a series of hypotheticals using the theory that the DM can fix any problems. So, for example, huge skeletal armies aren't a problem because the DM can nitpick the specifics. Or archers vs dragon isn't a problem because of... Well, what you just saw.

(Something similar happens with Schroedinger's skill rules.)

[INDYSTAR188]

OP's post.

While I can't choose which edition of the game you play, I would certainly recommend at least checking out the basic rules (which are free). My own experience is with 3.5, 4E and now 5E. I've played and DMed all (mostly DM). I liked a lot of things about each edition.

In 3rd I was just getting into the game and it was really inspiring, it felt like getting access to a whole new world... just awesome! But the rules are super codified and there's a lot of options. It was tough to learn and required a lot of cross referencing and rules lawyering (in a good way).

For me, 4E was amazing to DM. I enjoyed the system as a whole and we transitioned with no real issues. We played a bunch in 4E and even took a campaign from 1-30. I loved the 'tiers' with paragon paths (Iron Vanguard ftw!) and epic destinies (Chosen is super awesome). I think the martial class abilities were really awesome and everyone on the team definitely felt pretty powerful. Eventually though the combat got really slow and would frequently take an hour. So I was excited to see what 5E had to offer. *Edit to mention: I've heard some people say that 4E didn't support all 3 tiers of play, which I disagree with. There was plenty of opportunity to roleplay, explore and interact with the world.

I've found that 5E is pretty good for me. The classes are all distinct in flavor and mechanics. You will definitely find martials who can stun (monk) and explode enemies (eldritch knight). Despite that, they have achieved good balance. To be fair though, I have only DMed up to level 6.

I think the spell system is similar to 3.5 but distinct enough to feel updated and new (to me at least). Some of my players can recognize 3.5 feats that have been essentially combined into the system now. I saw others explaining it in better detail so I won't rehash it here. I will say that I appreciate the concentration system and how magic feels flexible again. I don't know why but there's something about the way a 5E wizard's spellbook is presented that feels 'cooler' than the 4E wizard's, even if they both essentially are full of AW, Utility and Daily powers/spells.

[JoeJ]

There's a debate between people who think that a game's math and whiteboarding ideal situations matter, and those who don't.

So instead of being about the game's rules, the argument turns into a series of hypotheticals using the theory that the DM can fix any problems. So, for example, huge skeletal armies aren't a problem because the DM can nitpick the specifics. Or archers vs dragon isn't a problem because of... Well, what you just saw.

(Something similar happens with Schroedinger's skill rules.)

In this case complicated by the belief on the part of some that having it possible for an army to beat a dragon is actually a problem and not just a different idea of what dragons are.

[Ruslan]

In this case complicated by the belief on the part of some that having it possible for an army to beat a dragon is actually a problem and not just a different idea of what dragons are.Yeah, I agree it's not a problem, we're just ... in a different medium from both LotR and Skyrim. So, there are various tools in D&D 5E to emulate this kind of stuff, but even if the emulation falls short, it's not a black mark on D&D.

[Knaight]

On 5e's feel over all: It seems like another attempt at 3rd edition in many ways, directly succeeding 2nd edition while using lessons learned from 3rd and 4th. So, if that's what you want, go for it.


5e is not for you if you want:

Support: no digital products, a bare bones SRD, 2-3 adventure paths per year are all telling signs that WotC does not really care about DnD. I think the DnD is down to 8 (or 6) employees, and I know they outsource most of their products to other studios. And they killed their own forums.
...
A scale of peasant farmer with sword to multiuniverse hero: While it says in PHB/DMG that your adventures can take you from heroic to epic, the epic part really doesn't happen. 5e plays like levels 1-6 of 2nd ed/3.5, or 4th heroic tier throughout its level range. The answer to the question "How many guys with bows is required to kill a monster" is not many, usually less then 50 for most monsters, including the biggest dragons. Only the Tarrasque and some avatars are immune to ordinary guys with bows.



Actually while WotC is putting out materials, they are clearly labeled as not usable in most games. 2-3 well tested books every year is nice, but its still a far cry from what I'd call 'support'.

I'm guessing both of you are only familiar with D&D? Because when you look at the rest of the industry, this is outlandish at best. Lets take the two cases:
Support: WotC put out 3 books to start with, releases digital articles every so often, and is planning to release rules books multiple times per year for the next few years, on top of modules and such. There's also an estimate of a 6-8 person team provided, which doesn't count freelancers (I'd be surprised if the art alone didn't exceed 8 people). Yes, some of the support is game specific, but this is to be expected.

Meanwhile, GURPS, which has a reputation as extremely extensive, extremely supported, and having a ton of books? GURPS has 24 actual books so far, in the past 12 years, and for any given campaign only a tiny fraction are likely to be usable (unless you're doing something really unusual). The White Wolf lines rarely get that much, Shadowrun editions get less than a dozen, and these are big games with long legacies. The non-D&D industry standard (inasmuch as there is one) is that you get one book, it's probably under 600 pages, and that's your support, total. Saying that you should avoid 5e if you want support for a game system is ridiculous. It's not at 3e levels, but that was a clear outlier.

The Power Curve: It's been reduced, to be sure. However, the whole idea that that scale, and that the zero to hero concept in general is some sort of default is off. Mechanical advancement in some form is ubiquitous throughout the industry, though there absolutely are exceptions. The D&D scale in general is a big one though; albeit weirdly limited in what gets big in 5e. Far more games focus on characters from some portion or other of that power curve, who stay near it. White Wolf has a very long series of games which are pretty much all about extremely superhuman characters who are supposed to get in character drama despite the system not doing anything to support that. A lot more games focus on people who never stop feeling like normal people.

The 5e curve is odd, in that there's only a few things that really inflate dramatically from low to high levels, almost all of which are either combat or spell related. It's still very obvious zero to hero design though, and arguments to the effect of "this group of four people can be replaced in sheer combat efficiency by several dozen of the correct kind of troops in optimal conditions" at the high power end does little to dissuade anyone of that who's used to the non 3e-4e curve. The zero to hero design still shines through.

[R.Shackleford]

Yes.

Why should a warrior not have powers stunning enemies? Last time a checked, a solid blow to the head can stun you pretty good. Nope on the explode part. Could have been cool though.

If I hit a watermelon with a hammer it explodes, why can't my fighter do the same thing to a goblin, mind flayer, or Dragon? Magic can make things go boom, why can't my hammer?

I never understood the restriction on fantasy that some D&D players have.

(not you specifically but in general)

[JoeJ]

If I hit a watermelon with a hammer it explodes, why can't my fighter do the same thing to a goblin, mind flayer, or Dragon? Magic can make things go boom, why can't my hammer?

I never understood the restriction on fantasy that some D&D players have.

(not you specifically but in general)

Exploding enemies with a hammer doesn't require a rule. It's just a special effect that happens when you kill them.

[R.Shackleford]

Exploding enemies with a hammer doesn't require a rule. It's just a special effect that happens when you kill them.

Reducing a creature by 1 HP shouldn't be represented the same as reducing them by a lot of HP.

Under your thought, if I reduce a dragon by 100 HP in one round... They don't explode. But if they dragon has 1 HP and I deal 2 HP worth of damage... The dragon explodes? That doesn't add up, my weaker attack makes things explode?

It doesn't have to be anything, a rule or not a rule.

But it works better when martial get awesome things outside of "I swing my sword, what happens?". Asking the DM what happens instead of telling the DM what happens is a huge difference. Casters get to tell the DM what their abilities do, martials have to rely on the DM to tell them.

That isn't fair to the players.

[JoeJ]

Reducing a creature by 1 HP shouldn't be represented the same as reducing them by a lot of HP.

Under your thought, if I reduce a dragon by 100 HP in one round... They don't explode. But if they dragon has 1 HP and I deal 2 HP worth of damage... The dragon explodes? That doesn't add up, my weaker attack makes things explode?

Actually, my thought is that when you kill them by doing massively more damage than they have hit points their head might explode if that would be cool in that situation.

[NewDM]

I genuinely disagree.

I honestly don't see any problems with the math. In my eyes, it works much better than 4e's scaling DCs. The same action will always have the same DC, regardless of level. It's just your ability that changes.

4E's DCs only scaled if the DM wanted to present a challenge to the players and it gave guidelines for what a challenge was at any given level. I actually like that, and am beginning to dislike the entire bounded accuracy concept. It solves some problems, but creates others.


With the exception of the last point, this is all generally in line with what I hear from folks who play a lot of 5e, too.

The 'support' part is undeniable, when you compare WotC's output with its own output during 3e or 4e, and even other companies' output now. Yes, they are outsourcing all of their major products. Yes, WotC's D&D team primarily exists to champion the brand. No, their business model is no longer 'selling books.' I disagree with EvilAnagram's position that the stuff they're releasing is better-researched or better-balanced; I haven't seen anything to indicate this is the case.

Yes, the Skill System is dominated by the RNG. With 5e's Schroedinger's Rules, we get all kinds of arguments about whether or not a DM can set different DCs for different characters, etc. This has literally been discussed to death, and the core of the argument doesn't seem to be whether or not the RNG outstrips the size of the modifiers, but what's considered a 'rule' as opposed to a 'workaround.'

No, tactical combat is not an emphasis of this edition. See: claimed increased support for TotM combat.

Yes, at higher levels, casters consistently get more flexible ways to make declarative statements about what happens in the game world. Yes, they eventually get more options than non-casters. For lots of 5e fans, this is a perk, since they didn't like how spellcasting worked in 4e. I find it puzzling that someone could argue that this is false when 5e supporters are at the same time arguing how it's an improvement. But eh.

I won't really touch on the last point, though. Yes, it's true that there's more 'strength in numbers' than ever before in 5e, but this all inevitably gets into the minutiae of white-room vs. actual play, and it won't go anywhere. It looks pretty solidly superhuman to me at higher levels - at least if you can magic stuff.

Sliding DCs are a house rule in 5E.

Sage Advice's Jeremy Crawford

Differences in ability between characters is represented by their stats and things like advantage/disadvantage.

In response to:

@JeremyECrawford When a skill check is easier for one character instead of another do you adjust the DC? Different DCs for different chars?


That's why the king needs to hire adventurers. The army can't predict where the dragon is going to be, can't force it to stand and fight, isn't stealthy enough to sneak up on it, isn't fast enough to chase it, and has nowhere near the numbers required to defend the entire kingdom.

Yeah, if you don't want a 'white room' exercise then just imagine the king sends out scouts and they find the things lair, then they set up camp around the entrance out of the range of the dragons breath weapon and ready actions in shifts to shoot it once it emerges. Problem solved.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Yeah, if you don't want a 'white room' exercise then just imagine the king sends out scouts and they find the things lair, then they set up camp around the entrance out of the range of the dragons breath weapon and ready actions in shifts to shoot it once it emerges. Problem solved.

Creating a siege line around something that can fly doesn't seem like an effective strategy to me.

[2D8HP]

As a long time 0e and 1e player who has glanced at 2e and 4e, and studied 3e and 5e I'll give the nod to 5e, because from a DM's perspective 3e grew to be just too complex, and 4e is just too unfamiliar.
As you might have guessed from the title, this post is about Next's pros and cons in respect to Previous editions.
Compared to 1e in both 3e and 5e (and probably 4e) more classes are viable at 1st level, but the game still feels like D&D (especially at lower levels). At higher levels it still feels like the PC's get too powerful, too fast but in that regard 5e looks to be not quite so bad as 3e. Compared to 1e it feels like most classes start at the equivalent of a 1e 3rd level and advance.at twice the rate.
In many ways 5e seems like a "greatest hits" version of D&D, and if you stick with the starter set and the free online rules it looks like a great game. However when you add in material from the PHB you get weird classes like the "Warlock" and races like "Tieflings" that came in with latter editions, but those would be easy to edit out, and I still think getting the PHB is worth it. I definitely prefer 5e to 3e but is it worth relearning D&D? That depends on how much time you have and how plastic your mind still is, so if your older maybe not.

5e is better balanced that 3.5e, especially in combat, but it also offers a loess customization and your character concept is pretty much locked in by level 4. The archetypes are fine, but they are not a replacement for prestige classes.
It would take ~150 tiny men with longbows an average of 1 round to kill an Adult White Dragon, they outrange its fear aura, and it has to get in close to use its breath weapon. When the militia of a not-particularly large town is a lethal threat to most monsters*, you start to wonder why they're arsing about paying mentally unstable vagabonds to deal with their problems. It also makes most large monsters seem kind of lame, since no half-way intelligent dragon is going to get within a mile of a battlefield. Small monsters, somewhat ironically, become more of a problem, since they're far less visible. All of that sounds pretty good to me, while it started out OK the eventual bloat of all those "Prestige Classes" is one of the reasons to pass on 3e, and as far as 150 archers being able to take on a Dragon, good! Otherwise in a world of monsters how could human villages exist at all!

[EvilAnagram]

Okay. Now it's you vs. others. :) I can quote some posts at you if you'd like, but I don't think it will go anywhere.
It's me and quite a lot of other people vs. others. We can both find plenty of posts supporting our claims, the only difference is that I have personal experience and you do not.


I also see the dragon argument has, inevitably, turned to number analysis vs. "but what if the DM does This huh? what then" time, which is always fun.
The white board example is also an example of, "what if the DM does this?" The only difference is that the whiteboard example assumes extreme competence on the side of the archers and extreme stupidity on the side of the dragon. Somehow, that strikes me as disingenuous.

[R.Shackleford]

Actually, my thought is that when you kill them by doing massively more damage than they have hit points their head might explode if that would be cool in that situation.

It would be cool. But then it isn't the player doing it but the DM doing it.

The only time a martial can explode someone is if the DM decides they explode someone.

Whereas casters get to decide if someone explodes or not.

Now the caster still has to land the spell just like the martial would have to land the attack (mostly, save versus attacks are the same thing just mostly backwards) but the determination of awesome exploding is put in different hands.

What if the martial doesn't want to explode the target but the DM says it happens anyways? The DM shouldn't get to decide what a player does or doesn't do.

Yeah there are consequences to actions, perhaps sometimes a creature will explode, but it should be only up to the DM for a player to be awesome.

*replace explode with *does awesome thing that others can't replicate easily or at all*.

[JoeJ]

Yeah, if you don't want a 'white room' exercise then just imagine the king sends out scouts and they find the things lair, then they set up camp around the entrance out of the range of the dragons breath weapon and ready actions in shifts to shoot it once it emerges. Problem solved.

You're assuming that:

1. The lair of a flying creature is accessible to ground troops in the first place.

2. There's a space outside the lair large enough for them to set up camp that has a line of sight to the entrance and is conveniently within bow range but outside breath weapon and lair action range.

3. There are no other exits.

4. It's possible to keep readying an action every round for more than a few minutes without getting fatigued.

5. The troops are willing to get that close to a dragon to begin with.

6. When the dragon does come out, it will be in the day time so the troops will be able to see it before it gets within breath weapon range.

7. It's not a spell casting dragon.

You're still playing combat as sport against an idiot dragon. Treat the dragon as if it were a player character, and your scenario fails.

[obryn]

Sliding DCs are a house rule in 5E.
Cool; an official answer.


It's me and quite a lot of other people vs. others. We can both find plenty of posts supporting our claims, the only difference is that I have personal experience and you do not.
Okay? I'm not trying to say that dissatisfied folks should change your mind.


The white board example is also an example of, "what if the DM does this?" The only difference is that the whiteboard example assumes extreme competence on the side of the archers and extreme stupidity on the side of the dragon. Somehow, that strikes me as disingenuous.
No, it's a straight-up math exercise. It doesn't even approach a hypothetical play scenario - unless that scenario is "everything is a flat room and there is no DM"

It's acknowledged that actual play scenarios create imperfect conditions. The "white room" specifically and intentionally ignores these. Bringing in the question of how a DM could change the scenario in play misses the point of the exercise.

[NewDM]

You're assuming that:

1. The lair of a flying creature is accessible to ground troops in the first place.

Or they find a good ambush spot somewhere near the lair and wait for the dragon to fly overhead (longbow range is 320 ft.)


2. There's a space outside the lair large enough for them to set up camp that has a line of sight to the entrance and is conveniently within bow range but outside breath weapon and lair action range.

See above.


3. There are no other exits.

Doesn't matter they wait for it to come out of another exit and try to enter this one, or just wait for it to come out of this exit.


4. It's possible to keep readying an action every round for more than a few minutes without getting fatigued.

In D&D fatigue only gets added in very specific situations and they are taking shifts.


5. The troops are willing to get that close to a dragon to begin with.

320 feet is not close.


6. When the dragon does come out, it will be in the day time so the troops will be able to see it before it gets within breath weapon range.

Torches, low level NPC casters with dark vision. 1 hour Light spell cantrips. This is a non-issue.


7. It's not a spell casting dragon.

Doesn't matter it'll be dead in a single round.


You're still playing combat as sport against an idiot dragon. Treat the dragon as if it were a player character, and your scenario fails.

Sorry no. I'm setting up a realistic scenario where the king sends out archers to take out the dragon that is terrorizing the countryside. The dragon probably doesn't know what's going on because the King is intelligent (or at least the military general, or advisor is) and they wait for the dragon to begin returning to its lair from feeding to set up the ambush.

Dragons are intelligent, but not omniscient. Humans 10% of the time have extremely high intelligence. An Ancient Red Dragon's intelligence is 18, the same that a lucky high elf can have 10% or more of the time. So one smart advisor + an army of archers and a dragon that's stupid enough to raze towns to the ground instead of making a deal for a toll or tax and you end up with one dead dragon. If its lucky, you might end up some dead archers in the process.

[Jakinbandw]

You may want to read up on what the charmed condition actually does, to avoid making such needlessly snippy and factually incorrect comments in the future.

Charm person also ends if any hostile action is taken against the creature, or any of it's companions. So even on a failed saving throw, in a party, it's not going to join your side. It can stop one creature from attacking the casting wizard, but not the wizards companions, and if the wizards companions attack the monster back, the charmed condition ends. It's a completely useless spell in any type of combat.

Out of combat, you could get advantage by literally anyone in the party using the help action when you use persuasion, and save yourself a spell slot.

But yes, I was wrong. The monster will rip the rest of the parties faces off instead of continuing to attack the wizard.

[Knaight]

No, it's a straight-up math exercise. It doesn't even approach a hypothetical play scenario - unless that scenario is "everything is a flat room and there is no DM"

It's a straight up math exercise that involves calculating based on a set of assumptions, and then using the information from that model as if it actually meant something, despite being a textbook case of garbage in garbage out. It's like defending a physics question as a math excercise where you're using Newtonian physics, end up calculating that there is a velocity of 0.3 c at some point, and then keep using Newtonian physics even though it's obviously outside the bounds of the model.

[JoeJ]

Or they find a good ambush spot somewhere near the lair and wait for the dragon to fly overhead (longbow range is 320 ft.)

It's actually 600 feet, but beyond 150 feet is with disadvantage, which means a whole lot fewer hits. Even 600 feet is pretty low for some random place the dragon is just flying over; 150 feet is just ridiculous. And given that this is a flying creature that likes to live on mountains, the ambush spot is likely to be several miles from the lair. They don't choose lairs for their ease of access, after all.


Doesn't matter they wait for it to come out of another exit and try to enter this one, or just wait for it to come out of this exit.

Or to go out another exit and attack from behind with surprise. Or bypass the archers entirely and destroy their supply train so they starve.


In D&D fatigue only gets added in very specific situations and they are taking shifts.

So we're rules lawyering rather than considering what would actually happen in the world?


320 feet is not close.

Right. It's not close enough to threaten a dragon.


Torches, low level NPC casters with dark vision. 1 hour Light spell cantrips. This is a non-issue.

Torch: light out to 40 feet. Dark Vision: vision out to 60 feet, and only works on one individual. Light spell: light out to 40 feet. Breath weapon: 90 feet. Frightful presence: 120 feet. Getting killed or driven into a panic by something you didn't even know was there is an issue.


Sorry no. I'm setting up a realistic scenario where the king sends out archers to take out the dragon that is terrorizing the countryside. The dragon probably doesn't know what's going on because the King is intelligent (or at least the military general, or advisor is) and they wait for the dragon to begin returning to its lair from feeding to set up the ambush.

Hundreds of archers, with their supply train, marching across the countryside to set up camp on your doorstep is not exactly inconspicuous. Scouts have a Stealth bonus of +6. Whatever is carrying their food probably has a much lower bonus. The dragon's passive perception is 26. It would most likely ambush them on the march, long before they got anywhere near the lair: it's stealth bonus is +7 against their passive perception of 15.


Dragons are intelligent, but not omniscient. Humans 10% of the time have extremely high intelligence. An Ancient Red Dragon's intelligence is 18, the same that a lucky high elf can have 10% or more of the time. So one smart advisor + an army of archers and a dragon that's stupid enough to raze towns to the ground instead of making a deal for a toll or tax and you end up with one dead dragon. If its lucky, you might end up some dead archers in the process.

Enough troops could defend a city against a direct, low-level attack, which is how it should be IMO, although if the defenders can't fly, a determined dragon can just drop rocks until they're all dead. Small towns are defended by not having anything worth the dragon's time to take. Attacking a dragon's lair with low level troops just wastes an army.

But I'm curious as to what the point of this exercise is? We agree that if you throw enough troops at a dragon you can bring it down, so why does it matter how many "enough" is?

[Ruslan]

But yes, I was wrong. The monster will rip the rest of the parties faces off instead of continuing to attack the wizard.And you are still being wrong and needlessly snippy, since in the example I responded to, there is no other party members, it's a solo example. Is it tiresome being so wrong all the time?

[R.Shackleford]

And you are still being wrong and needlessly snippy, since in the example I responded to, there is no other party members, it's a solo example. Is it tiresome being so wrong all the time?

The internet, where everyone has oposing words but no one is ever wrong.

[obryn]

It's a straight up math exercise that involves calculating based on a set of assumptions, and then using the information from that model as if it actually meant something, despite being a textbook case of garbage in garbage out. It's like defending a physics question as a math excercise where you're using Newtonian physics, end up calculating that there is a velocity of 0.3 c at some point, and then keep using Newtonian physics even though it's obviously outside the bounds of the model.
I don't think that's quite a fair comparison, especially when - for example - you're comparing two different games (which is usually what's implied in these discussions) or doing a mathematical balance pass.

At any rate, it's certainly no more useless than a series of "...but what if the DM does this" counter-examples. :smallsmile:

[Tehnar]

On 5e's feel over all: It seems like another attempt at 3rd edition in many ways, directly succeeding 2nd edition while using lessons learned from 3rd and 4th. So, if that's what you want, go for it.

I'm guessing both of you are only familiar with D&D? Because when you look at the rest of the industry, this is outlandish at best. Lets take the two cases:
Support: WotC put out 3 books to start with, releases digital articles every so often, and is planning to release rules books multiple times per year for the next few years, on top of modules and such. There's also an estimate of a 6-8 person team provided, which doesn't count freelancers (I'd be surprised if the art alone didn't exceed 8 people). Yes, some of the support is game specific, but this is to be expected.

Meanwhile, GURPS, which has a reputation as extremely extensive, extremely supported, and having a ton of books? GURPS has 24 actual books so far, in the past 12 years, and for any given campaign only a tiny fraction are likely to be usable (unless you're doing something really unusual). The White Wolf lines rarely get that much, Shadowrun editions get less than a dozen, and these are big games with long legacies. The non-D&D industry standard (inasmuch as there is one) is that you get one book, it's probably under 600 pages, and that's your support, total. Saying that you should avoid 5e if you want support for a game system is ridiculous. It's not at 3e levels, but that was a clear outlier.


Actually I have quite a lot of experience with games outside of DnD. Lets take a gander at some other publishers:

Paizo, as the biggest competitor has s full SRD (with every splat, not just core), digital products (pdfs), releases multiple adventure paths per year along with splat books. More support then 3.5, so clearly 3.5 was not a outlier. Recent interview with Lisa Perkins says they employ 60+ people full time...You gotta sell lots of stuff to keep that many people employed.

Fantasy flight games, responsible for Dark Heresy and many others has its own forum, digital products along with multiple adventures per year and splat books.

Catalyst game labs, which publishes Shadowrun, forums, pdfs, multiple adventures, missions

For 5e, after the core trio, all you have is adventures. The rate of which they are coming out is fine, if your group is into playing published adventures. If not, you really don't get anything. Unearthed arcana articles are the quality of your average homebrewer with all the balance issues that entails (example Favored soul).

[2D8HP]

Sorry no. I'm setting up a realistic scenario where the king sends out archers to take out the dragon that is terrorizing the countryside. The dragon probably doesn't know what's going on because the King is intelligent (or at least the military general, or advisor is) and they wait for the dragon to begin returning to its lair from feeding to set up the ambush.

Dragons are intelligent, but not omniscient. Humans 10% of the time have extremely high intelligence. An Ancient Red Dragon's intelligence is 18, the same that a lucky high elf can have 10% or more of the time. So one smart advisor + an army of archers and a dragon that's stupid enough to raze towns to the ground instead of making a deal for a toll or tax and you end up with one dead dragon. If its lucky, you might end up some dead archers in the process.
The above quote actually seems like a great campaign setup, an all out war between dragons and humanoids! A medieval "Reign of Fire"!
I think it was in my old 1e Monster Manual (I don't have it handy so I am quoting by memory) "One of the few things an old Dragon fears is a human army"
I want to play this!

Is it tiresome being so wrong all the time?

This is hilarious! If I knew how to signature it I would!

[Vogonjeltz]

I in no way condone the argument going on.

However here is some context: I assume you know about the dragons in Skyrim and Smaug from The Hobbit. The former can be brought down by a small army. The latter required a legendary archer(Bard of Dale) for it to be brought down. They are arguing about whether Smaug-like (or even greater) dragons are possible in using the MM Dragons under 5E combat rules.

Yes, in that most NPCs aren't going to stick around for the breath weapon which would plausibly kill them outright, which is exactly what happens to the archers at Laketown. Bard is just lucky being the sole survivor who gets inside information on a vulnerability, not legendary (until after the fact, that is).

[Zman]

Or they find a good ambush spot somewhere near the lair and wait for the dragon to fly overhead (longbow range is 320 ft.)



See above.



Doesn't matter they wait for it to come out of another exit and try to enter this one, or just wait for it to come out of this exit.



In D&D fatigue only gets added in very specific situations and they are taking shifts.



320 feet is not close.



Torches, low level NPC casters with dark vision. 1 hour Light spell cantrips. This is a non-issue.



Doesn't matter it'll be dead in a single round.



Sorry no. I'm setting up a realistic scenario where the king sends out archers to take out the dragon that is terrorizing the countryside. The dragon probably doesn't know what's going on because the King is intelligent (or at least the military general, or advisor is) and they wait for the dragon to begin returning to its lair from feeding to set up the ambush.

Dragons are intelligent, but not omniscient. Humans 10% of the time have extremely high intelligence. An Ancient Red Dragon's intelligence is 18, the same that a lucky high elf can have 10% or more of the time. So one smart advisor + an army of archers and a dragon that's stupid enough to raze towns to the ground instead of making a deal for a toll or tax and you end up with one dead dragon. If its lucky, you might end up some dead archers in the process.

Ummm.... You can't ready an action outside of initiative combat. Given the numbers the a Dragon is aware of the Scouts,mother Scous may not necessarily be aware the dragon is readying to leave. The dragon rolls st Ali, the archers roll Perception to determine who is surprised.m roll initiative then proceed. And likely the Dragon surprises many, and only those aware and before in initiate get to ready actions, then the dragon Frightens most of them, killed a handful with acid and wings, and likely can flee if needed, but more likely the elite Scout army is broken. That all assumes the Scouts had the myriad of advantages you assume.

That is how the rules play out, unless you are inventing new ones.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, in that most NPCs aren't going to stick around for the breath weapon which would plausibly kill them outright, which is exactly what happens to the archers at Laketown. Bard is just lucky being the sole survivor who gets inside information on a vulnerability, not legendary (until after the fact, that is).

1) Bard is of Dale, not merely a resident of Laketown. The significance is more explicit in the books. Bard with his never failing Black Arrow & equipped with inside information brings down the dragon that an army did not.
2) When I said Smaug defeated a kingdom, I was not referring to Laketown but rather to when Smaug first came to the lonely mountain and destroyed the dwarven kingdom and the town of Dale.

So replacing Smaug with dragons as weak as those in Skyrim (IF that is what happened) is something some (some=/=all) may not like(preference =/= claims of fact).

[NewDM]

It's actually 600 feet, but beyond 150 feet is with disadvantage, which means a whole lot fewer hits. Even 600 feet is pretty low for some random place the dragon is just flying over; 150 feet is just ridiculous. And given that this is a flying creature that likes to live on mountains, the ambush spot is likely to be several miles from the lair. They don't choose lairs for their ease of access, after all.

Wow, that is some insane range. That's 150 feet without disadvantage. 600 feet with. So you just increase the number needed say 400 archers instead of 200. that's still less than a full 1k army. 600 feet is an 11th of a mile. With surprise they can easily take out the dragon. All they have to do is find a blind to hide behind.


Or to go out another exit and attack from behind with surprise. Or bypass the archers entirely and destroy their supply train so they starve.

Sure, it could happen. So lets say there are 4 entrances/exits to the lair. That's 25% for each entrance each time. Oh sorry the swingyness of the dice dictate that the dragon doesn't spot them going in and instead goes around the blind they hid behind and is entirely surprised and killed in a single round. (in reality its about 1 in 8 chance of entering the entrance where they set up their ambush, still pretty good odds).


So we're rules lawyering rather than considering what would actually happen in the world?

Nope. We are following the rules instead of assuming the dragon is all powerful and omniscient, and that the army of archers have experience in the field and an intelligence higher than 3.


Right. It's not close enough to threaten a dragon.

As you pointed out, its actually 600 feet which is plenty enough to threaten a dragon.


Torch: light out to 40 feet. Dark Vision: vision out to 60 feet, and only works on one individual. Light spell: light out to 40 feet. Breath weapon: 90 feet. Frightful presence: 120 feet. Getting killed or driven into a panic by something you didn't even know was there is an issue.

They know what is there. They know a dragon is there and multiple torches and/or light spells set out at the proper distance work fine for mitigating the problem. If you want to have some fun they can cast light on their arrows and shoot them in the general direction of the dragon.


Hundreds of archers, with their supply train, marching across the countryside to set up camp on your doorstep is not exactly inconspicuous. Scouts have a Stealth bonus of +6. Whatever is carrying their food probably has a much lower bonus. The dragon's passive perception is 26. It would most likely ambush them on the march, long before they got anywhere near the lair: it's stealth bonus is +7 against their passive perception of 15.

Nope. You'll notice I specifically said they don't set out until the dragon returns from feeding. So they know the dragon is in its lair for the next several hours or even days. The distance the dragon can sense them is limited to around 120 feet and even less in caves. Even a natural 20 by an actively searching dragon isn't going to reach 600 feet outside their lair.


Enough troops could defend a city against a direct, low-level attack, which is how it should be IMO, although if the defenders can't fly, a determined dragon can just drop rocks until they're all dead. Small towns are defended by not having anything worth the dragon's time to take. Attacking a dragon's lair with low level troops just wastes an army.

But I'm curious as to what the point of this exercise is? We agree that if you throw enough troops at a dragon you can bring it down, so why does it matter how many "enough" is?

If its in a town or city, they probably have siege equipment which are more effective than longbows.

Ballista: 3d10 damage 480 feet max range.
Mangonel: 5d10 damage 800 feet max range.
Trebuchet: 8d10 damage 1,200 feet max range.

5 NPCs can fire each, one once per round. The dragon wouldn't even make it close to the city.


Ummm.... You can't ready an action outside of initiative combat. Given the numbers the a Dragon is aware of the Scouts,mother Scous may not necessarily be aware the dragon is readying to leave. The dragon rolls st Ali, the archers roll Perception to determine who is surprised.m roll initiative then proceed. And likely the Dragon surprises many, and only those aware and before in initiate get to ready actions, then the dragon Frightens most of them, killed a handful with acid and wings, and likely can flee if needed, but more likely the elite Scout army is broken. That all assumes the Scouts had the myriad of advantages you assume.

That is how the rules play out, unless you are inventing new ones.

You can be 'ready' and cause the Dragon to be surprised. Worst case scenario the dragon hits a group of the archers but since they are spread out specifically to avoid getting hit by the dragons breath attack, they only lose a few at a time. By the time the dragon is fleeing or ready to use it again, they have already killed it.

[JoeJ]

I'm still wondering what the point of all this is. That a dragon can be beaten by an army so big it costs more than just paying off the dragon would? And this, somehow, means that PCs aren't wanted?


Wow, that is some insane range. That's 150 feet without disadvantage. 600 feet with. So you just increase the number needed say 400 archers instead of 200. that's still less than a full 1k army. 600 feet is an 11th of a mile. With surprise they can easily take out the dragon. All they have to do is find a blind to hide behind.

A blind big enough for 400 archers, or rather, 1200 archers to allow for three shifts. Plus all the wagons, animals, and teamsters in their supply train. Which the dragon conveniently built for them right outside it's cave, no doubt?


Sure, it could happen. So lets say there are 4 entrances/exits to the lair. That's 25% for each entrance each time. Oh sorry the swingyness of the dice dictate that the dragon doesn't spot them going in and instead goes around the blind they hid behind and is entirely surprised and killed in a single round. (in reality its about 1 in 8 chance of entering the entrance where they set up their ambush, still pretty good odds).

Everybody in the army rolled a natural 20 on their Stealth check? Those are some dice.


They know what is there. They know a dragon is there and multiple torches and/or light spells set out at the proper distance work fine for mitigating the problem. If you want to have some fun they can cast light on their arrows and shoot them in the general direction of the dragon.

I guess you must have a different edition of the MM. In mine, scouts don't have cantrips. Are we to assume they have some way to illuminate that same distance directly overhead as well, so they can see the dragon diving down on them?


Nope. You'll notice I specifically said they don't set out until the dragon returns from feeding. So they know the dragon is in its lair for the next several hours or even days. The distance the dragon can sense them is limited to around 120 feet and even less in caves. Even a natural 20 by an actively searching dragon isn't going to reach 600 feet outside their lair.

"Red dragons prefer mountainous terrain, badlands, and any other locale where they can perch high and survey their domain." (MM p. 99). This one, however, is conveniently blind?


If its in a town or city, they probably have siege equipment which are more effective than longbows.

Ballista: 3d10 damage 480 feet max range.
Mangonel: 5d10 damage 800 feet max range.
Trebuchet: 8d10 damage 1,200 feet max range.

5 NPCs can fire each, one once per round. The dragon wouldn't even make it close to the city.

An ancient red dragon has a Strength of 30. What's the maximum range of a rock dropped from overhead? And at night, the city is still where it was in the daytime, so it's pretty easy to find. What's the range of the defender's darkvision again?


You can be 'ready' and cause the Dragon to be surprised. Worst case scenario the dragon hits a group of the archers but since they are spread out specifically to avoid getting hit by the dragons breath attack, they only lose a few at a time. By the time the dragon is fleeing or ready to use it again, they have already killed it.

The troops have effectively zero chance of surprising the dragon. It has a 65% chance of surprising them.

So scenario B: The army has camped for the night, still several days march from the dragon's cave. The dragon knows exactly where they are, however, because it's been watching them from far overhead. After everyone but the sentries has gone to sleep, the dragon swoops down silently, rolling a 10 on its Stealth check, which easily beats the passive perception of the troops below. It pulls out of its dive 90 feet above the sleeping camp and lets loose with it's breath weapon. The army is completely surprised and unable to act at all. The next round the dragon uses it's frightful presence to cause further panic, then turns and flies off. A few arrows are fired from the perimeter, but in the darkness the archers have disadvantage against AC 22. But since we've given the archers magic, I'm sure you won't mind if this is a spellcasting dragon, so it's actually AC 27 with the Shield spell. The few archers who made their save attack with disadvantage and need a natural 20. None of them even comes close. Suffering massive casualties and driven into a panic, the army is completely routed. The dragon spends the rest of an enjoyable night hunting down the fleeing survivors.

But again, so what?

[NewDM]

I'm still wondering what the point of all this is. That a dragon can be beaten by an army so big it costs more than just paying off the dragon would? And this, somehow, means that PCs aren't wanted?



A blind big enough for 400 archers, or rather, 1200 archers to allow for three shifts. Plus all the wagons, animals, and teamsters in their supply train. Which the dragon conveniently built for them right outside it's cave, no doubt?



Everybody in the army rolled a natural 20 on their Stealth check? Those are some dice.



I guess you must have a different edition of the MM. In mine, scouts don't have cantrips. Are we to assume they have some way to illuminate that same distance directly overhead as well, so they can see the dragon diving down on them?



"Red dragons prefer mountainous terrain, badlands, and any other locale where they can perch high and survey their domain." (MM p. 99). This one, however, is conveniently blind?



An ancient red dragon has a Strength of 30. What's the maximum range of a rock dropped from overhead? And at night, the city is still where it was in the daytime, so it's pretty easy to find. What's the range of the defender's darkvision again?



The troops have effectively zero chance of surprising the dragon. It has a 65% chance of surprising them.

So scenario B: The army has camped for the night, still several days march from the dragon's cave. The dragon knows exactly where they are, however, because it's been watching them from far overhead. After everyone but the sentries has gone to sleep, the dragon swoops down silently, rolling a 10 on its Stealth check, which easily beats the passive perception of the troops below. It pulls out of its dive 90 feet above the sleeping camp and lets loose with it's breath weapon. The army is completely surprised and unable to act at all. The next round the dragon uses it's frightful presence to cause further panic, then turns and flies off. A few arrows are fired from the perimeter, but in the darkness the archers have disadvantage against AC 22. But since we've given the archers magic, I'm sure you won't mind if this is a spellcasting dragon, so it's actually AC 27 with the Shield spell. The few archers who made their save attack with disadvantage and need a natural 20. None of them even comes close. Suffering massive casualties and driven into a panic, the army is completely routed. The dragon spends the rest of an enjoyable night hunting down the fleeing survivors.

But again, so what?

You are ignoring most of the rules as well as the precautions taken by the archers and the king.

"A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight."

Oh look disadvantage on the check.

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)."

Oh look its probably blinded too. What does blinded do?

"BLINDED
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage. and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage,"

Nope sorry, the dragon fails perception checks or at the very least has disadvantage on them. The archers also have advantage on their attacks which counteracts the long range disadvantage.

Dark Vision 120 feet, does:

"DARK VISION
A monster with dark vision can see in the dark within a specific radius. The monster can see in dim light within the radius as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. The monster can't discern color in darkness , only shades of gray. Many creatures that live underground have this special sense."

So without lighting the dragon is seeing dim light with people hidden in dense foliage while blinded.

"Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a
boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light."

No mechanical impact for dim light except "lightly obscured".

All in all, I'd say the dragon is about as screwed at night as the archers, especially if its flying out of range of torches.

So it would take place during the day, otherwise the archers just hide and the dragon passes over without seeing them unless its flying within 120 feet of the ground, which is impossible with standard sized trees in a forest, or a craggy mountain.

For the most part you are ignoring that the dragon is entering its lair before the archers reach it, the fact that the dragon is blind when trying to find archers in dense foliage, and many other simple game mechanics and painting the dragon as an omniscient being with infinite power. If you actually play to the dragons ability scores and the rules you end up with a dead dragon.

[JoeJ]

For the most part you are ignoring that the dragon is entering its lair before the archers reach it,

No. It isn't.


the fact that the dragon is blind when trying to find archers in dense foliage,

It's not dense foliage, it's a camp site with hundreds of tents. That the dragon located before the sun went down.


and many other simple game mechanics and painting the dragon as an omniscient being with infinite power. If you actually play to the dragons ability scores and the rules you end up with a dead dragon.

Neither omniscient nor of infinite power, but also neither stupid nor blind.

And for the third time WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE?

[NewDM]

No. It isn't.

As long as its not omniscient, yes it is.


It's not dense foliage, it's a camp site with hundreds of tents. That the dragon located before the sun went down.

Its a camp site in dense foliage without tents or campfires because they are using blankets and eating dry rations, and don't expect to be there more than a few days. The dragon had no clue because they timed their departure to align with the dragons feeding habits.


Neither omniscient nor of infinite power, but also neither stupid nor blind. And for the third time WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE?

It is blind if they hide in dense foliage or darkness 121 feet away from the dragon. Sadly due to 5e mechanics if both parties are blind, it favors the archers as they get advantage against the dragon counteracting disadvantage from blindness and long range. The dragon's disadvantage doesn't affect its saving throw, but it'll be dead before it gets within range to use its breath weapon.

The point of this exercise is to show how most posters don't realize how the rules interact and how easy it would be to take out a dragon. A decent noble with a castle could probably field enough archers to take out the dragon, let alone a full kingdom. The rules favor the archers about 200 to 1 pun intended.

Its also to show that bounded accuracy in this edition causes as many or more problems than it solves.

[JoeJ]

As long as its not omniscient, yes it is.

As long as it's not blind, no it isn't. Armies don't sneak.


Its a camp site in dense foliage without tents or campfires because they are using blankets and eating dry rations, and don't expect to be there more than a few days. The dragon had no clue because they timed their departure to align with the dragons feeding habits.

Timed their departure? Now you're just making things up. And I was talking about the camp site on the road, before they even got near the dragon.


It is blind if they hide in dense foliage or darkness 121 feet away from the dragon. Sadly due to 5e mechanics if both parties are blind, it favors the archers as they get advantage against the dragon counteracting disadvantage from blindness and long range. The dragon's disadvantage doesn't affect its saving throw, but it'll be dead before it gets within range to use its breath weapon.

121 feet away from a dragon. A dragon that has a movement of 80 feet, a breath weapon range of 90 feet, and a fearsome presence range of 120 feet. And, oh, that's flying at whatever altitude it wants.


The point of this exercise is to show how most posters don't realize how the rules interact and how easy it would be to take out a dragon. A decent noble with a castle could probably field enough archers to take out the dragon, let alone a full kingdom. The rules favor the archers about 200 to 1 pun intended.

So a wealthy noble could defeat a dragon with an army that probably costs more than just paying off the dragon. So what?


Its also to show that bounded accuracy in this edition causes as many or more problems than it solves.

Nothing you've brought up constitutes a problem.

[Xetheral]

The Dragon can still *hear* the archers, even if they're out of range of it's Darkvision. They are unlikely to succeed on their stealth check. The darkness lets the dragon try to hide too, and it *is* likely to succeed on it's stealth check. At that point the unheard dragon can either simply leave, or get close enough to see the archers (without itself being seen) and decide if it wants to engage. If there is also dense foliage the dragon can choose to attack from a direction where it will have total cover from some portion of the archers... meaning those that don't die to the breath weapon will not necessarily be able to return fire. If the archers who *can* shoot don't drop it in one round, it can fly away from the fire and rehide, repeating the process. And remember... if it doesn't like the odds or takes too much damage, it simply leaves.

[NewDM]

The Dragon can still *hear* the archers, even if they're out of range of it's Darkvision. They are unlikely to succeed on their stealth check. The darkness lets the dragon try to hide too, and it *is* likely to succeed on it's stealth check. At that point the unheard dragon can either simply leave, or get close enough to see the archers (without itself being seen) and decide if it wants to engage. If there is also dense foliage the dragon can choose to attack from a direction where it will have total cover from some portion of the archers... meaning those that don't die to the breath weapon will not necessarily be able to return fire. If the archers who *can* shoot don't drop it in one round, it can fly away from the fire and rehide, repeating the process. And remember... if it doesn't like the odds or takes too much damage, it simply leaves.

The dragon gets no perception check to see them in the dense foliage because RAW it is blind. They auto-succeed on their stealth at that point. So the dragon is also stealthy which just ensures that the encounter takes place in daylight where the archers again kill it in one round easy.

Dense foliage doesn't mean mile high foliage. It means the foliage is so dense hardly anything can be seen through it. Doesn't matter though. The archers already have disadvantage and can simply fire blind for no additional penalty. Since the dragon is effectively blind to the archers, they gain advantage on their attacks. Anytime the dragon comes within range they simply fire blind and destroy the dragon in a single round. Since the dragon doesn't get a check.

Here is what I can find about sound:

"SOUNDS
A dungeon's enclosed geography helps channel sound. The groaning creak of an opening door can echo down hundreds of feet of passageway. Louder noises such a the clanging hammers of a forge or the din of battle can reverberate through an entire dungeon. Many creatures that live underground use such sounds as a way of locating prey, or go on alert at any sound of an adventuring party's intrusion."

So from this description we can tell that sounds don't normally travel 100's of feet. So the dragon isn't going to even get a check for sound if its at 120 feet or more. Remember the archers have 600 feet of range without disadvantage due to the dragon being blinded.

That's literally the only place I can find a description of how far sound travels.

When you actually follow the rules, the dragon has no chance.

[JoeJ]

If an army is hiding in a dense forest, a red dragon doesn't need to see them or get within 600 feet of them to kill them. Trees burn.

[NewDM]

If an army is hiding in a dense forest, a red dragon doesn't need to see them or get within 600 feet of them to kill them. Trees burn.

It has to know they are there. It doesn't.

[JoeJ]

It has to know they are there. It doesn't.

"Red dragons prefer mountainous terrain, badlands, and any other locale where they can perch high and survey their domain."

"However, they yearn to know about events in the wider world, and they make use of lesser creatures as informants, messengers, and spies."

"For a red dragon, the great heights of the world are the throne from which it can look out to survey all it controls—and the wider world it seeks to control."

It knows you're coming.

[Xetheral]

The dragon gets no perception check to see them in the dense foliage because RAW it is blind. They auto-succeed on their stealth at that point. So the dragon is also stealthy which just ensures that the encounter takes place in daylight where the archers again kill it in one round easy.

Dense foliage doesn't mean mile high foliage. It means the foliage is so dense hardly anything can be seen through it. Doesn't matter though. The archers already have disadvantage and can simply fire blind for no additional penalty. Since the dragon is effectively blind to the archers, they gain advantage on their attacks. Anytime the dragon comes within range they simply fire blind and destroy the dragon in a single round. Since the dragon doesn't get a check.

Here is what I can find about sound:

"SOUNDS
A dungeon's enclosed geography helps channel sound. The groaning creak of an opening door can echo down hundreds of feet of passageway. Louder noises such a the clanging hammers of a forge or the din of battle can reverberate through an entire dungeon. Many creatures that live underground use such sounds as a way of locating prey, or go on alert at any sound of an adventuring party's intrusion."

So from this description we can tell that sounds don't normally travel 100's of feet. So the dragon isn't going to even get a check for sound if its at 120 feet or more. Remember the archers have 600 feet of range without disadvantage due to the dragon being blinded.

That's literally the only place I can find a description of how far sound travels.

When you actually follow the rules, the dragon has no chance.

First, blindness due to darkness was errataed, although not in a way that's immediately relevant here. Second, go and read any of the numerous threads on 5e stealth rules. While many aspects of the RAW are highly contested, it is well-settled that heavy obscurement, such as that from darkness, merely permits someone to make a stealth check to hide--it does not give an autosuccess. For an example, consider that one of the benefits of invisibility is the ability to make stealth checks to hide without needing heavy obscurement. Invisible characters are not automatically hidden, so characters in darkness or behind dense foliage wouldn't be automatically hidden either.

As you note, there are no precise rules for how far sound travels in 5e. But the example that a creaking door can be heard hundreds of feet away in a dungeon only implies that a creaking door cannot be heard hundreds of feat away in normal circumstances. It does not in any way suggest that an army, even one trying to be stealthy, is as hard to hear as a creaking door. On top of that, large groups of people can be heard through their quieting effect on the local wildlife--it's not enough to pinpoint an intruder, but the drop off in animal noises will tip off an alert human that something is wrong, let alone a creature with nearly-supernaturally high passive perception.

Even if you were to put a hard limit on the distance sound travels at 120 feet (which I would consider utterly ridiculous), it hurts the archers FAR more than Dragon. Now they can't hear the dragon emerge from its cave at all, even if it isn't trying to be stealthy. Due to the heavy foliage and/or darkness, they can't see the Dragon either (heavy obscurement works both ways). If they can't see it and they can't hear it, they have no way of knowing it's even there in order to shoot at it.

The bottom line is that whatever environmental circumstances you describe will always work both ways. The Dragon's passive perception advantage means that the Dragon will notice the archers at a farther distance than they will notice it, using any sense and in any environment: if the archers can see or hear the Dragon, the Dragon can see or hear the archers.

Also, the foliage doesn't need to be a mile high in order to provide total cover. Trees and branches deflect arrows, meaning that any opponent far enough away will have enough trees and branches in the way that there won't be a clear shot. If you're hiding behind a tree, for example, half your field of fire is immediately obstructed by the tree you're hiding behind. Other trees will drastically limit your maximum range in other directions.

Finally, and most importantly, you claim that "When you actually follow the rules, the dragon has no chance." This relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how D&D works. There is enough ambiguity in the rules that your conditional "When you actually follow the rules" cannot define a given set of rulings and interpretations precisely enough to accurately adjudicate the Dragon's chances.

[NewDM]

First, blindness due to darkness was errataed, although not in a way that's immediately relevant here. Second, go and read any of the numerous threads on 5e stealth rules. While many aspects of the RAW are highly contested, it is well-settled that heavy obscurement, such as that from darkness, merely permits someone to make a stealth check to hide--it does not give an autosuccess. For an example, consider that one of the benefits of invisibility is the ability to make stealth checks to hide without needing heavy obscurement. Invisible characters are not automatically hidden, so characters in darkness or behind dense foliage wouldn't be automatically hidden either.

If it was erratted, then only the dragon is blind because of dense foliage causing blindness to anyone attempting to see in.


As you note, there are no precise rules for how far sound travels in 5e. But the example that a creaking door can be heard hundreds of feet away in a dungeon only implies that a creaking door cannot be heard hundreds of feat away in normal circumstances. It does not in any way suggest that an army, even one trying to be stealthy, is as hard to hear as a creaking door. On top of that, large groups of people can be heard through their quieting effect on the local wildlife--it's not enough to pinpoint an intruder, but the drop off in animal noises will tip off an alert human that something is wrong, let alone a creature with nearly-supernaturally high passive perception.

I'm pretty sure a bunch of archers that are actually attempting to stay quiet are at least as quiet as a creaking door. Even so, they start firing at 600 feet which is well over 120 feet that the sound of the creaking door travels normally.

At best the dragon knows from the silence of animal life that something is there. It could be an army of archers, but it could also just be a displacer beast on the prowl.


Even if you were to put a hard limit on the distance sound travels at 120 feet (which I would consider utterly ridiculous), it hurts the archers FAR more than Dragon. Now they can't hear the dragon emerge from its cave at all, even if it isn't trying to be stealthy. Due to the heavy foliage and/or darkness, they can't see the Dragon either (heavy obscurement works both ways). If they can't see it and they can't hear it, they have no way of knowing it's even there in order to shoot at it.

They are in dense foliage, the dragon is not. They can spot it normally and since you need some place to hide to use stealth. The dragon cannot and has no reason to be stealthed.


The bottom line is that whatever environmental circumstances you describe will always work both ways. The Dragon's passive perception advantage means that the Dragon will notice the archers at a farther distance than they will notice it, using any sense and in any environment: if the archers can see or hear the Dragon, the Dragon can see or hear the archers.

The rules are pretty clear that only the creatures in the dense foliage cause enemies to be blinded to them. Not the other way around. Now if the DM is playing with a bunch of house rules, then sure. The Dragon probably wins.

By the rules the dragon is too far away to hear them and it gets no chance to see them due to dense foliage. The archers have advantage and disadvantage so they make normal attack rolls and they can spot the dragon from more than 600 feet.


Also, the foliage doesn't need to be a mile high in order to provide total cover. Trees and branches deflect arrows, meaning that any opponent far enough away will have enough trees and branches in the way that there won't be a clear shot. If you're hiding behind a tree, for example, half your field of fire is immediately obstructed by the tree you're hiding behind. Other trees will drastically limit your maximum range in other directions.

Its not total cover so at worst the archers have another source of disadvantage, meaning no further penalty because they already have advantage due to the dragon being effectively blind from the dense foliage.


Finally, and most importantly, you claim that "When you actually follow the rules, the dragon has no chance." This relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how D&D works. There is enough ambiguity in the rules that your conditional "When you actually follow the rules" cannot define a given set of rulings and interpretations precisely enough to accurately adjudicate the Dragon's chances.

If you follow the rules as written there is very little ambiguity except in things like skill checks and their DCs set by the DM. There is a lot of swingyness in the dice that give the impression of ambiguity, but any plain reading of the rules should come to the conclusion that archers in dense foliage that are attempting to stay silent and hide are nearly impossible to find from a distance of around 600 feet.

As to the other post about the Dragon having agents and spies everywhere. That is a legitimate concern. So there would be some rolls to see if the spies find out about the archers and whether they get the information to the dragon in enough time for it to react.

Of course the rules don't say "The dragon perches on the top of its mountain lair surveying its land 24-7 and never enters its lair except to ferret away its spoils."

It would be obvious to anyone looking at the mountain when the dragon is perched up there looking over its territory. I'd assume the king, general, or advisor would know this and send a scout out to watch for when the dragon enters its lair. Remember the king, general, and advisor have at least one 18 intelligence or wisdom between them.

[R.Shackleford]

Want to know why the dragon knows the party is coming?

It makes for a better narrative. You can sneak up and kill mook characters just fine, but something/someone special? Nope.

So explain it however you want but the BBED (big bad evil dragon) knows you are coming.

How if the dragon thinks you died... May not know you are coming but will still be defensive against general threats.

[NewDM]

Want to know why the dragon knows the party is coming?

It makes for a better narrative. You can sneak up and kill mook characters just fine, but something/someone special? Nope.

So explain it however you want but the BBED (big bad evil dragon) knows you are coming.

How if the dragon thinks you died... May not know you are coming but will still be defensive against general threats.

That's against players. We are talking NPCs against NPCs. The better narrative in my view is the king taking out the dragon to defend his kingdom.

[R.Shackleford]

That's against players. We are talking NPCs against NPCs. The better narrative in my view is the king taking out the dragon to defend his kingdom.

Even with NPCs it makes for a better story.

First off, this means that the NPCs need the help of PCs because they can't sneak up on the dragon.

Secondly, if NPCs could sneak up and kill dragons (or steal from them) there would be no reason to be worried about dragons.

Third, if this ever did happen (NPCs killing a dragon) I'm sure a dragon would come by and murder these nameless people out of spite, self preservation, or to take the other dragons horde. V had to deal with a very pissed off mother dragon and V is a PC.

[Ruslan]

That's against players. We are talking NPCs against NPCs. The better narrative in my view is the king taking out the dragon to defend his kingdom.Speaking about NPCs vs. NPCs... I only apply rule-based, dice-based, warfare when PCs are directly involved. If NPCs square off against each other (eg. Orcs attack PCs hometown when PCs are away), the result will not be rule-based or dice-based, it will always be narrative-based. In other words, I own both sides, I decide what happens. If the PCs are present and can actively change the flow of the battle, that's another matter, of course.

PS: If a player ever owned two Player Characters, and for any reason they would fight against each other, I would also allow the player to just tell me what happens instead of following combat rules. Just saying.

[NewDM]

Speaking about NPCs vs. NPCs... I only apply rule-based, dice-based, warfare when PCs are directly involved. If NPCs square off against each other (eg. Orcs attack PCs hometown when PCs are away), the result will not be rule-based or dice-based, it will always be narrative-based. In other words, I own both sides, I decide what happens. If the PCs are present and can actively change the flow of the battle, that's another matter, of course.

PS: If a player ever owned two Player Characters, and for any reason they would fight against each other, I would also allow the player to just tell me what happens instead of following combat rules. Just saying.

That's a play style choice. I personally don't tend to house rule and use the rules. Sometimes I might roll the battle out while I'm writing the adventure, but its still strictly by the rules.

[mgshamster]

That's a play style choice. I personally don't tend to house rule and use the rules. Sometimes I might roll the battle out while I'm writing the adventure, but its still strictly by the rules.

So you're a "Rules first, story second" kind of guy?

[R.Shackleford]

That's a play style choice. I personally don't tend to house rule and use the rules. Sometimes I might roll the battle out while I'm writing the adventure, but its still strictly by the rules.

Thsts not house ruling it.

There are no rules for NPC versus NPCs combat. Combat, from what I recall, always references player versus DM controlled creatures.

Are you really saying that you would roll out an entire backstory of your campaign? That seems obsessive and obtuse.

[NewDM]

So you're a "Rules first, story second" kind of guy?


Thsts not house ruling it.

There are no rules for NPC versus NPCs combat. Combat, from what I recall, always references player versus DM controlled creatures.

Are you really saying that you would roll out an entire backstory of your campaign? That seems obsessive and obtuse.

I'm an impartial sand box type DM. The world doesn't bend to the characters. The characters adapt to the world. The best way to do this is to use the rules and then when you are forced to make a call, you try to be as impartial as you can.

If the players decide to attack that troll at level 1, welp, they might want to roll up some new characters. They aren't going to wake up in its lair waiting to be eaten for 'plot' reasons.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm an impartial sand box type DM. The world doesn't bend to the characters. The characters adapt to the world. The best way to do this is to use the rules and then when you are forced to make a call, you try to be as impartial as you can.

If the players decide to attack that troll at level 1, welp, they might want to roll up some new characters. They aren't going to wake up in its lair waiting to be eaten for 'plot' reasons.

No one said the world bent for the players. You are making up an argument.

I'm saying, narratively, there is no reason to roll and play out your back story and though that happen in your game. If an NPC goes after a dragon it is better for narrative that the NPC looses and the PCs need to deal with it OR the NPC wins but causes a bigger problem. But you don't need to roll out the NPC versus dragon.

Just because you are narratively driven doesn't mean the players bend the world to their will. It just means you are focused on making a good story. You can do this with sandbox games as well.

[JoeJ]

Want to know why the dragon knows the party is coming?

It makes for a better narrative. You can sneak up and kill mook characters just fine, but something/someone special? Nope.

So explain it however you want but the BBED (big bad evil dragon) knows you are coming.

How if the dragon thinks you died... May not know you are coming but will still be defensive against general threats.

Also there's the little problem that if the dragon doesn't know that the archers are hiding in the forest, how do they lure it within bow range?

[Vogonjeltz]

1) Bard is of Dale, not merely a resident of Laketown. The significance is more explicit in the books. Bard with his never failing Black Arrow & equipped with inside information brings down the dragon that an army did not.
2) When I said Smaug defeated a kingdom, I was not referring to Laketown but rather to when Smaug first came to the lonely mountain and destroyed the dwarven kingdom and the town of Dale.

So replacing Smaug with dragons as weak as those in Skyrim (IF that is what happened) is something some (some=/=all) may not like(preference =/= claims of fact).

Huh, I guess my memory fails me. I just remember the arrow as being of particular importance to Bard (i.e. sentimental value) and the reason he was able to kill Smaug is purely because he now knew there was a missing scale in a particular location. '

If I recall correctly, within the story there wasn't anything in particular about the situation that any other skilled archer couldn't have taken advantage of, it was just happenstance that it was Bard as opposed to someone else.


Also to be fair to the Dragon's of Skyrim, you can easily kite them, hitting an opponent is not a matter of AC (and dragon's have a massive profile making it easy to hit them even at some distance) and most magic allows the character to stun the dragon interrupting their breath weapon and their movement. So the character is more like a Monk with constant stunning fist.

I don't see all those systemic differences as faults of the dragon, per se. I highly doubt a D&D dragon could survive if I could interrupt their movement and breath weapon every single round without fail while damaging them and hitting with certitude because I the player have great hand-eye coordination.

[OldTrees1]

Huh, I guess my memory fails me. I just remember the arrow as being of particular importance to Bard (i.e. sentimental value) and the reason he was able to kill Smaug is purely because he now knew there was a missing scale in a particular location. '

If I recall correctly, within the story there wasn't anything in particular about the situation that any other skilled archer couldn't have taken advantage of, it was just happenstance that it was Bard as opposed to someone else.


Also to be fair to the Dragon's of Skyrim, you can easily kite them, hitting an opponent is not a matter of AC (and dragon's have a massive profile making it easy to hit them even at some distance) and most magic allows the character to stun the dragon interrupting their breath weapon and their movement. So the character is more like a Monk with constant stunning fist.

I don't see all those systemic differences as faults of the dragon, per se. I highly doubt a D&D dragon could survive if I could interrupt their movement and breath weapon every single round without fail while damaging them and hitting with certitude because I the player have great hand-eye coordination.

I was not assigning fault, merely describing the difference in scale(Skyrim dragons can be taken down by groups of low level NPCs or by the PC while Smaug dragons require a PC) as context for the, frankly ridiculous, argument going on.

[KorvinStarmast]

The best way to take out a dragon like Smaug is with the inverse of plot armor: authorial degradation of armor. (Not to mention a one in a million shot ... you have to roll that crit at just the (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0059.html)right time, or have a goat turn when red strikes true (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0060.html)..

[2D8HP]

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

[Talakeal]

You know, the advantage / disadvantage system is really weird. Is it actually correct that if you are more than 150 feet from someone you will actually have a better chance of hitting them with a longbow if you are both blinded by complete darkness?



Torch: light out to 40 feet. Dark Vision: vision out to 60 feet. Light spell: light out to 40 feet. Breath weapon: 90 feet. Frightful presence: 120 feet. Getting killed or driven into a panic by something you didn't even know was there: priceless.


Fixed that for you :biggrin:

[Ruslan]

IIRC, the fear aura specifically requires the victims to be aware of the dragon's presence. So there's no issue with "being frightened by something you didn't even know was there".

[R.Shackleford]

IIRC, the fear aura specifically requires the victims to be aware of the dragon's presence. So there's no issue with "being frightened by something you didn't even know was there".

That's just how scary the dragon is.

#justdragonthings

[JoeJ]

IIRC, the fear aura specifically requires the victims to be aware of the dragon's presence. So there's no issue with "being frightened by something you didn't even know was there".

That's true. It should have said, "being frightened by something you didn't even know was there until the instant it roared." (Communicating doesn't require an action per the PHB.)

[NewDM]

You know, the advantage / disadvantage system is really weird. Is it actually correct that if you are more than 150 feet from someone you will actually have a better chance of hitting them with a longbow if you are both blinded by complete darkness?



Fixed that for you :biggrin:

If you have a source for advantage and disadvantage they cancel out. Any number of both still cancel out to make it a regular attack roll.

The archers are in dense foliage which makes anyone trying to see or target them blind to them. Blind means you get advantage on attacks against the blinded creature, and the blinded creature gets disadvantage against you. It also means the blinded creature fails any skill checks that require sight.

Firing at long range is disadvantage.

If the encounter takes place at night, both are effectively blinded and unless the dragon is skimming the tree tops has no chance at all of finding the archers due to dense foliage, and distance of sound traveling. The archers are in a similar position, at night they cannot hear or see the dragon.

So here's how it plays out:

Archers have disadvantage from long range.
Archers have advantage from blinded dragon due to dense foliage.
Archers make regular attack rolls because advantage and disadvantage cancel out.


Yeah, the rules of advantage/disadvantage can get wonky. Especially if you have about 5 sources of disadvantage, then an ally "Helps" and you just make a normal attack roll because no amount of stacking occurs and advantage cancels out disadvantage.

[Knaight]

You know, the advantage / disadvantage system is really weird. Is it actually correct that if you are more than 150 feet from someone you will actually have a better chance of hitting them with a longbow if you are both blinded by complete darkness?

No, it isn't. It just doesn't make it worse, assuming that you still know where they are well enough to target them (which is far from guaranteed).

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

"The target is at the edge of your maximum range, it'll be a very difficult shot"
"I hide behind a rock!"
"Oh okay, a normal shot then"

[Ruslan]

No, it isn't. It just doesn't make it worse, assuming that you still know where they are well enough to target them (which is far from guaranteed).
Actually, it does.

150' away = Disadvantage
You can both see normally = no additional Disadvantages nor Advantages
Net result: Disadvantage

Now add into the mix:
You are blinded = another Disadvantage
They are blinded = Advantage
Net result: normal attack

[Waazraath]

5e is not for you if you want:


Support: no digital products, a bare bones SRD, 2-3 adventure paths per year are all telling signs that WotC does not really care about DnD. I think the DnD is down to 8 (or 6) employees, and I know they outsource most of their products to other studios. And they killed their own forums.

A skill system and ability system that does not produce random outputs or is dependent on DM fiat: a lot has been said about this from the inception of 5e, I think there are two or three threads going on right now that go more in depth.

Tactical combat: Tactics in 5e are more of a resource management affair then a positioning or terrain/cover use. Its just a race between party DPS and team monster DPS, with the deciding factor being how many spells do the casters want to blow per encounter.

Balanced classes: Its still full caster or go home. The way casters dominate the game is different, but they still dominate.

A scale of peasant farmer with sword to multiuniverse hero: While it says in PHB/DMG that your adventures can take you from heroic to epic, the epic part really doesn't happen. 5e plays like levels 1-6 of 2nd ed/3.5, or 4th heroic tier throughout its level range. The answer to the question "How many guys with bows is required to kill a monster" is not many, usually less then 50 for most monsters, including the biggest dragons. Only the Tarrasque and some avatars are immune to ordinary guys with bows.



Though I'm also intrigued by the whole story of the dragon, who is being sneaked up upon by an army (seriously? I mean, come on, really?!?), the post above triggered me most reading through all this. This isn't participating in a conversation, this is flat out spreading misinformation. Plenty of support, online, Sword Coast Adventurers Guide, some very nice adventures that often include new player options, digital playtest materials, etc. etc. "Full caster or go home" only shows somebody hasn't played the game. The rest is opinion, and not the average guy on the internet opinion but the "I'm on the internet and bloody biased and not to mention angry on everbody who likes X", X in this case obviously being 5e.

I don't understand this. If you don't like a game, why go on a forum on this game and spread misinformation? Surely, you must have something better to do? I read the books on 4e, didn't like them, that's fine, plenty of people do, that's fine as well.... but I wonder, why on earth would I go to the 4e forums to give my opinion, with some addes misinformation with it? Given that it's not based on too much, and to people with whom I know they won't appreciate it?

[OldTrees1]

Though I'm also intrigued by the whole story of the dragon, who is being sneaked up upon by an army (seriously? I mean, come on, really?!?), the post above triggered me most reading through all this. This isn't participating in a conversation, this is flat out spreading misinformation. Plenty of support, online, Sword Coast Adventurers Guide, some very nice adventures that often include new player options, digital playtest materials, etc. etc. "Full caster or go home" only shows somebody hasn't played the game. The rest is opinion, and not the average guy on the internet opinion but the "I'm on the internet and bloody biased and not to mention angry on everbody who likes X", X in this case obviously being 5e.

I don't understand this. If you don't like a game, why go on a forum on this game and spread misinformation? Surely, you must have something better to do? I read the books on 4e, didn't like them, that's fine, plenty of people do, that's fine as well.... but I wonder, why on earth would I go to the 4e forums to give my opinion, with some addes misinformation with it? Given that it's not based on too much, and to people with whom I know they won't appreciate it?
As someone that has watched the dragon subthread, I urge you to not get involved. It is not worth your time.

Yes, the post in question has lots of misinformation(though with small grains of truth when 5E is compared to specific other editions). It does present some of the points that someone might not like 5E for(from the distorted perspective of someone that really does not like 5E for those points). As such a more informed version of that post would be highly valuable to the OP(since they would want to hear from those that like, accept, & dislike 5E).

[Bohandas]

I haven't actually played Pathfinder but I've seen the rules and it looks like the truest and most sensible successor to 3.5

You could also go backward to 2e

[Bohandas]

5e is not for you if you want:


Support: no digital products, a bare bones SRD, 2-3 adventure paths per year are all telling signs that WotC does not really care about DnD. I think the DnD is down to 8 (or 6) employees, and I know they outsource most of their products to other studios. And they killed their own forums.

A skill system and ability system that does not produce random outputs or is dependent on DM fiat: a lot has been said about this from the inception of 5e, I think there are two or three threads going on right now that go more in depth.

Tactical combat: Tactics in 5e are more of a resource management affair then a positioning or terrain/cover use. Its just a race between party DPS and team monster DPS, with the deciding factor being how many spells do the casters want to blow per encounter.

Balanced classes: Its still full caster or go home. The way casters dominate the game is different, but they still dominate.

A scale of peasant farmer with sword to multiuniverse hero: While it says in PHB/DMG that your adventures can take you from heroic to epic, the epic part really doesn't happen. 5e plays like levels 1-6 of 2nd ed/3.5, or 4th heroic tier throughout its level range. The answer to the question "How many guys with bows is required to kill a monster" is not many, usually less then 50 for most monsters, including the biggest dragons. Only the Tarrasque and some avatars are immune to ordinary guys with bows.




That's what I've heard to. The be fair though, the last point is not 100% new, IIRC in 2e there were a few deities with less than 100 hit points

[Tehnar]

Though I'm also intrigued by the whole story of the dragon, who is being sneaked up upon by an army (seriously? I mean, come on, really?!?), the post above triggered me most reading through all this. This isn't participating in a conversation, this is flat out spreading misinformation. Plenty of support, online, Sword Coast Adventurers Guide, some very nice adventures that often include new player options, digital playtest materials, etc. etc. "Full caster or go home" only shows somebody hasn't played the game. The rest is opinion, and not the average guy on the internet opinion but the "I'm on the internet and bloody biased and not to mention angry on everbody who likes X", X in this case obviously being 5e.

I don't understand this. If you don't like a game, why go on a forum on this game and spread misinformation? Surely, you must have something better to do? I read the books on 4e, didn't like them, that's fine, plenty of people do, that's fine as well.... but I wonder, why on earth would I go to the 4e forums to give my opinion, with some addes misinformation with it? Given that it's not based on too much, and to people with whom I know they won't appreciate it?

So only people who like the game should post in threads with the OP asking should he switch to said game?

To the meat of your critique, I am not spreading disinformation. If you want to see what a supported system looks like, go see what other companies are doing (Paizo, Fantasy Flight games, etc). DnD is the biggest name in the tabletop rpg industry, we should use a harsh standard to judge them by.


Does 5e have PDFs of their books available for purchase? NO. All other publisher have that option.
Does 5e have a SRD with complete rules? NO. Pathfinder SRD includes rules from every book.
Do third party publisher publish most of stuff that came out after the core? YES. After core, everything but Curse of Stradh was made by third party publishers.



I don't understand your complaint about misinformation, because the above are factual statements.

To answer your other questions, I have been playing 5e for the past year, I see the caster dominance even without them trying too hard

IF you and Oldtrees1, or anyone else for that matter have some other parts of my posts you feel need discussion, feel free to start a new thred, reply in this one or even handle things through private messages.

[Knaight]

So only people who like the game should post in threads with the OP asking should he switch to said game?
Nobody said that. What was said is that if you dislike the system, you should criticize it based on flaws it actually has, or things it actually doesn't do.



Does 5e have PDFs of their books available for purchase? NO. All other publisher have that option.
Does 5e have a SRD with complete rules? NO. Pathfinder SRD includes rules from every book.
Do third party publisher publish most of stuff that came out after the core? YES. After core, everything but Curse of Stradh was made by third party publishers.

Again, misinformation. All other publishers do not have .pdf versions. For instance, Luke Crane (who published Mouseguard, Torchbearer, and Burning Wheel, all decently sized games) has some hatred of digital versions and doesn't make them available. The SRD expectation is ridiculous - Pathfinder has it, but Shadowrun? World of Darkness? Pre 3e D&D*? Anything by Fantasy Flight? There's nothing. GURPS? No, and when it comes to support GURPS is loaded. Most of the Fate games? Also no, there's Fate Core, FAE, and Spirit of the Century, and that's about it.

*Although retroclones make this a bit of a moot point.

[KorvinStarmast]

So only people who like the game should post in threads with the OP asking should he switch to said game?
That's better than yet another salvo fired in the utterly useless thing known as edition wars.


Do third party publisher publish most of stuff that came out after the core? YES. After core, everything but Curse of Stradh was made by third party publishers.

[/LIST] How is this a problem? While I was saddened to learn the other day that about 80% of the team that build 5e has been let go by WoTC/Hasbro, and a small cadre (less than a dozen?) remains, what is the problem with licensed product as a method?

That is a serious question, not a poke in your eye.

Hasbro and WoTC are NOT required to follow someone else's business model.
The business model has BFA to do with how the game works.
Please don't mix and match the two topics.

[Tehnar]

Nobody said that. What was said is that if you dislike the system, you should criticize it based on flaws it actually has, or things it actually doesn't do.


Again, misinformation. All other publishers do not have .pdf versions. For instance, Luke Crane (who published Mouseguard, Torchbearer, and Burning Wheel, all decently sized games) has some hatred of digital versions and doesn't make them available. The SRD expectation is ridiculous - Pathfinder has it, but Shadowrun? World of Darkness? Pre 3e D&D*? Anything by Fantasy Flight? There's nothing. GURPS? No, and when it comes to support GURPS is loaded. Most of the Fate games? Also no, there's Fate Core, FAE, and Spirit of the Century, and that's about it.

*Although retroclones make this a bit of a moot point.

A quick google tells me that Torchbearer indeed has a PDF option available. Shadowrun has a PDF option. Fantasy Flight has pdf options. World of Darkness is a dead in the water system for the last 10 years. 4th edition GURPS was published in 2004, and personally I don't know anyone who is playing it anymore, and its online presence is nil.

Why do digital options matter? Quite frankly carrying books around is a hassle. When Im stuck in trafic or traveling I want to read some material for my next game, and PDFs make that a whole lot easier as I can load them on the phone and Im set to go. Its 2016, tablets and smartphones are a thing.

Also every publisher website I've been to has is official forums, but WotC no longer does.


To answer Korvin, why is it a problem that most of your stuff is published by others. Its a question of economics. Other companies also have to pay their writers and art freelancers, and they want to make a profit on top of that, and then you have to pay some of your guys for quality control. Licensing brings in smaller profits then publishing the stuff by yourself. You license only if you are unable or unwilling to publish stuff by yourself. I doubt that WotC is unwilling to publish, so they must be unable and having a team of 6 to 12 people I can totally believe they are unable to publish. If they are unable to publish on their own, what happens if third party publishers no longer want to license?

Now I can speculate why is WotC not investing in employees to be able to publish, but that would be speculation and possibly misinformation.

[NewDM]

Now I can speculate why is WotC not investing in employees to be able to publish, but that would be speculation and possibly misinformation.

No speculation needed, I read a post by an ex-WotC employee that explained that Hasbro was pulling out their money from the D&D department to let it sink or swim on its own merits. To keep it alive they reduced the size of the department to about 6-10 full time employees. Of course it doesn't help that D&D books, video games, and movies are not counted in the D&D departments profits.

[Xetheral]

Could someone please post a source regarding WOTC laying off 80% of it's D&D employees? I can't find anything.

[NewDM]

Could someone please post a source regarding WOTC laying off 80% of it's D&D employees? I can't find anything.

Here is a link to an article that talks about it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=Ex-WotC-Employees

There are about twelve with job descriptions and several of those are just coordinating events and external stuff. One or two are 'advertising' and five have no descriptions at all.

[Xetheral]

Here is a link to an article that talks about it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=Ex-WotC-Employees

There are about twelve with job descriptions and several of those are just coordinating events and external stuff. One or two are 'advertising' and five have no descriptions at all.

Oh, so it's not like 80% were fired recently. That page, if it's accurate, merely supports the claim that over the last 15 years, they've laid off 4 times more people than currently work on the game itself. That doesn't even mean that the current team is smaller than it was 15 years ago (although it may be, the available evidence simply doesn't say).

[Knaight]

Oh, so it's not like 80% were fired recently. That page, if it's accurate, merely supports the claim that over the last 15 years, they've laid off 4 times more people than currently work on the game itself. That doesn't even mean that the current team is smaller than it was 15 years ago (although it may be, the available evidence simply doesn't say).

Depending on how you count freelancers, and based on book publishing credits it's definitely much smaller than the 3.5 heyday. Other than that, I don't know.

I've also seen better games made with fewer people, so I can't say I'm worried about team size.

[JoeJ]

Wait. Personnel decisions made by Hasbro/WotC is what you guys came up with as more interesting than an army fighting a dragon?

[NewDM]

Wait. Personnel decisions made by Hasbro/WotC is what you guys came up with as more interesting than an army fighting a dragon?

Someone asked a question. It got answered. What do you expect, this is the internet. We all live in a black box with a flashing red light on top.


https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg

[NewDM]

Oh, so it's not like 80% were fired recently. That page, if it's accurate, merely supports the claim that over the last 15 years, they've laid off 4 times more people than currently work on the game itself. That doesn't even mean that the current team is smaller than it was 15 years ago (although it may be, the available evidence simply doesn't say).

You can also extrapolate a minimum of how many employees worked on each edition if you know when those editions started and ended.

[Knaight]

You can also extrapolate a minimum of how many employees worked on each edition if you know when those editions started and ended.

We can try, but we'd also need the length of the pre-release design cycle. It's also more like interpolation anyways, but that's a different point entirely.

[OldTrees1]

Wait. Personnel decisions made by Hasbro/WotC is what you guys came up with as more interesting than an army fighting a dragon?

Given the nature of the army vs dragon bickering, yes.

[2D8HP]

Wait. Personnel decisions made by Hasbro/WotC is what you guys came up with as more interesting than an army fighting a dragon?

Not for me by a long shot! (well OK the Wotc rumours may have some bearing on the future of the game I love, still...)
THE DRAGON WARS! (Just so METAL!).
Shall the campaign start with the first salvos of the rise of the Dragons, or after their rule ala "Reign of Fire!"?

[JoeJ]

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

That's the game I first played. Blue Box D&D.

[Envyus]

On the Stupid Dragon Argument. How could it be claimed that the Dragon was blinded. It has both Darkvision and Blindsense. And any camp they set up would be easily noted.

[OldTrees1]

On the Stupid Dragon Argument. How could it be claimed that the Dragon was blinded. It has both Darkvision and Blindsense. And any camp they set up would be easily noted.

I believe the assumption was the 600ft range put the army outside of the Darkvision and Blindsense range. Although nobody used any trig so nobody has done the math on whether the front would be visible when the rear was in range.

[JoeJ]

I believe the assumption was the 600ft range put the army outside of the Darkvision and Blindsense range. Although nobody used any trig so nobody has done the math on whether the front would be visible when the rear was in range.

Rather than continue this off-topic discussion, I've started a new thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484357-Dragonslaying).

[OldTrees1]

Rather than continue this off-topic discussion, I've started a new thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484357-Dragonslaying).

Thank you! :smallsmile:

So back on topic:
What are some other areas where 5E is or is not ideal depending on the person's gaming preferences?

[Tehnar]

Thank you! :smallsmile:

So back on topic:
What are some other areas where 5E is or is not ideal depending on the person's gaming preferences?


5e is not for you if you want:


Support: no digital products, a bare bones SRD, 2-3 adventure paths per year are all telling signs that WotC does not really care about DnD. I think the DnD is down to 8 (or 6) employees, and I know they outsource most of their products to other studios. And they killed their own forums.

A skill system and ability system that does not produce random outputs or is dependent on DM fiat: a lot has been said about this from the inception of 5e, I think there are two or three threads going on right now that go more in depth.

Tactical combat: Tactics in 5e are more of a resource management affair then a positioning or terrain/cover use. Its just a race between party DPS and team monster DPS, with the deciding factor being how many spells do the casters want to blow per encounter.

Balanced classes: Its still full caster or go home. The way casters dominate the game is different, but they still dominate.

A scale of peasant farmer with sword to multiuniverse hero: While it says in PHB/DMG that your adventures can take you from heroic to epic, the epic part really doesn't happen. 5e plays like levels 1-6 of 2nd ed/3.5, or 4th heroic tier throughout its level range. The answer to the question "How many guys with bows is required to kill a monster" is not many, usually less then 50 for most monsters, including the biggest dragons. Only the Tarrasque and some avatars are immune to ordinary guys with bows.



So i think we didn't do Tactical combat and Class balance? Or did you have something other then that?

[JoeJ]

So i think we didn't do Tactical combat and Class balance? Or did you have something other then that?

There was an entire thread about tactics a while back, and it turned out that people were using different definitions of "tactical".

In the ordinary, non-gamer, meaning of the term, tactical combat is every bit as much a part of 5e as it was any previous edition of D&D. Ambush, use of cover or concealment, use of terrain, morale, mobility, and all the other basics of tactical combat are fully available if the players think to use them.

In the gamer-specific sense of defined options listed on the character sheet, 5e has less tactical combat than 3.x did.

[Talakeal]

There was an entire thread about tactics a while back, and it turned out that people were using different definitions of "tactical".

In the ordinary, non-gamer, meaning of the term, tactical combat is every bit as much a part of 5e as it was any previous edition of D&D. Ambush, use of cover or concealment, use of terrain, morale, mobility, and all the other basics of tactical combat are fully available if the players think to use them.

In the gamer-specific sense of defined options listed on the character sheet, 5e has less tactical combat than 3.x did.

I have had similar problems with the word strategy. I use it to mean "high level planning primarily involving allocation of resources", but most people use the video gamer definition which is mostly synonymous with tactics.

When I say that over time D&D has gotten more tactical and less strategic over time a lot of people object to that statement and we get into arguments simply because we arent using the same definitions.

[NewDM]

Thank you! :smallsmile:

So back on topic:
What are some other areas where 5E is or is not ideal depending on the person's gaming preferences?

As stated above it has as much strategy (planning and resource allocation) as any edition, but fails to have as many tactics (round to round choices that affect the outcome of combat) due to removal of the 3.x and 4E five foot step and associated opportunity attack and the reduction of flanking to a variant rule.

[2D8HP]

Thank you! :smallsmile:

So back on topic:
What are some other areas where 5E is or is not ideal depending on the person's gaming preferences?

Well...
The 1977 Basic rules and a lot of 1e AD&D, I have pretty much memorized so 5e (and other editions) I simply can't remember as well -1 point 5e.
5e has more types of classes then the D&D I'm more familiar with, 40 classes/sub-classes in the PHB! That's 36 more then Holmes! +1 point 5e.
The class I most wanted to play in 1e (Ranger) was awesome! The Ranger in 5e is only so so, compared to other classes. -1 point 5e.
I could never actually role high enough ability scores to play the 1e Ranger! With point buy in 5e I can create just about any character I want! +1 point 5e.
In 3e I could create an even bigger variety of characters then 5e, -1 point 5e.
Most of those extra classes were in the supplements, not the PHB, plus using all those supplements made 3.x a giant bloated mess. +1 point 5e.
In oD&D, and 1e I never felt that classes other then "Fighting man/Fighters" were very effective at 1st level. In 5e all classes seem effective. +1 point 5e.
In '77 Basic I knew very well what a "Cleric", "Fighter", "Magic User", and "Thief" were. Forty freakin' sub-classes in 5e? Nice to have them, but ouch my head! 0 points.
Magic Users in 1e were amazing at high levels, other classes not so much. In 5e the classes seem more balanced at most levels. +1 point 5e.

Speaking of which - these kids these days, and their instant gratification! Getting all this cheap experience, and leveling about 100x faster than we used to. Levels used to mean something!

Damn straight! 1st level 5e characters are cool. 20th level are gods! Too ridiculously overpowered at high levels, and they just get high level too fast! -1 point 5e.
5e is still a pretty good game that's in the stores (with recent reprints 1e is as well at my FLGS, but 5e is at Barnes and Noble which are everywhere!), and I can pick all the core books plus "Princes of the Apocalypse" at the nearest library branch for free, plus most of the rules are free online! +1 point 5e.
So 6 points 5e, 4 points not 5e. 5e is the winner!

[Socratov]

As a former 3.5 aficionado and recent 5e convert, personally I'd tally them like so:

5e:

Pro


quick speed of play
easy to play
less of a martial-caster gap
Bounded accuracy keeps things together and relevant
subclasses are the new prestigeclasses and a lot of fun
character creation can be an effort of 10 minutes pre backstory and not suck


con


compared to 3.5 a lot less malleable in terms of customisation
you never reach the epic level where the numbers pil eup to epic proportions
magic items don't feel as magic as they used to in 3.5
bards are really different
levels 1 - 3 are really hard to get through and can get deadly really quick
Wish sucks anatomical defined to be spherical, but ultimately unspherical reproductive organs, as do some other 3.5 gems

[JoeJ]

As stated above it has as much strategy (planning and resource allocation) as any edition, but fails to have as many tactics (round to round choices that affect the outcome of combat) due to removal of the 3.x and 4E five foot step and associated opportunity attack and the reduction of flanking to a variant rule.

That's a definition of tactics that is pretty much limited to gamers.

Using the more generic sense of the term, an example of tactics might be something like this: the party is traveling single file down a narrow trail. Up ahead, just where the path turns, a lightning bolt shoots out of the bushes without warning, right down the entire line. A moment later, attackers emerge from the brush alongside the trail, engaging every party member in melee. (And, of course, the PCs could just as easily have set the same kind of ambush against NPCs. All it requires is one spell, picking the proper location, and successfully hiding.)

[Malbrack]

I've been playing D&D since around 1992 with 2nd Edition. I've played and DMed lots of 2e, 3.5, and 4, and I've recently started DMing 5e.

2nd Edition has a special place in my heart because that's what I started with. I loved the well-developed settings and all the attention put into how creatures fit into the world. I liked how easy it was to make a character and start playing: you didn't have to plan your character's build 20 levels ahead like you had to in 3.5 or 4. But combat was terribly imbalanced, especially at low and high levels. Levels 5-10 weren't too bad, so we'd try to make most of the play land on those levels. We also had pages and pages worth of house rules to attempt balance fixes.

When I first saw 3rd Edition, I was happy to see that they had done so much to help fix the balance. Sure it still had some balance issues (e.g., by the mid-teens casters were still gods), but I didn't need near as many house rules to make sure everyone at the table felt like their character was important and contributing. The early levels in particular were much less painful to play. By about level 12 or so though the system started to show cracks. The disparity between an optimized and not-optimized level 12 character was night and day. Like an optimized level 12 character could do what 3 not-optimized level 12 characters could. To get around this I would focus our games on levels 3-12, and I would help players optimize their characters if they didn't have a knack for it.

As for 4th Edition, I loved some of the features, such as encounter powers and the Tank and Leader mechanics. But combat took too long. We'd play D&D for 6 hours in a session. 5 and a half of those hours would be spent on 3 combats. Players would get bored and go outside and smoke during the combats, which would make them last even longer. Again, there was a lot I enjoyed about 4e, and I loved the people I played with, but I'll never go back to it and I'm glad it is no longer the current edition.

5th Edition on the other hand, feels like a hybrid between 2nd and 3rd Edition. Combats are much shorter than 4e for a few reasons. First, we don't have to carefully monitor movement on a grid. Our group plays a middle ground between Theater of the Mind and grid. We still bring out miniatures, but we only guesstimate positions. The minis are there mostly just to give a rough visualization of how the characters and monsters are positioned. Second, the kind of players who can't keep track of a lot of abilities (and who would slow down a 4e game to a crawl) can just play a Fighter or Barbarian and hit stuff.

At the moment, 5e is my favorite edition, and I would recommend it to people who loved 2e but wished it was better balanced. I'm hoping HP bloat isn't too bad at higher levels in 5e, because I've been enjoying the quick combats in these first few levels. It allows enough time to have 4 or 5 combats in a play session while still having plenty of time to roleplay out-of-combat situations.

I really only have two complaints about 5e. First, it is too hard to die. I mean it is easy to get knocked out (and probably too easy to be KOed at levels 1 or 2), but I am having a hard time thinking about a way to design an encounter for my group that could potentially kill an individual character without killing the entire group. I suppose this was just as true for 4e. Now that I think about it, over the 14 levels of our 4e campaign, the only character death was a TPK.

Second, skill checks aren't as well defined as they were in 3.5 or 4e. As a DM I'm not always sure what I should set as the Difficulty Check for a particular skill attempt because the PHB and DMG are so vague in their descriptions/guidance. This vagueness causes other issues too. For example, the rules on Hide are kind of a mess, and I'm still unsure about when to apply Investigation or Perception for a search. I had to make an executive decision as DM on how they work. In my interpretation, Perception covers broad searches, such as when you're not sure exactly what you're looking for, and Investigation covers specific searches, when you can state what you're actually looking for, like the lever to a secret door or blood stains in a murder case. This works okay, but it makes games a lot more dependent on DM fiat, which raises the importance of having a good DM.

Despite these minor complaints, overall 5e has been a lot of fun so far.

[Tehnar]

Regarding 5e tactics. Its not such a big deal that you have very few options available for your character other then spells, its the options you have available are eyebrow raising. Ill go over a couple of particulary strange ones:


Advantage disadvantage stacking mechanic: Once you have advantage or have imposed disadvantage on a enemy there is no point in gaining extra instances of A/D. A raging barbarian doesn't really care if he is attacking a prone restrained frightened target, as he already has advantage. Or if a archer is attacking into darkness, he doesnt care if he moves into long range, or gets frightened or drops prone and shoots, he still has disadvantage. It comes up quite often in real games, and you can do really stupid things and gain a discrete combat advantage.

The scoot and shoot. Since you can move before and after a action this leads abuseish things like being behind a wall for total cover, moving out, using a action (ranged attack or spell) and going back behind cover. And unless the other side uses readied actions there is nothing they can really do about it. Really help spellcasters keep that concentration spell going and still contribute to the combat by using cantrips or other spells as needed.

The very low chance of character death, and ease of recovery from 0hp. So in 5e when you reach 0hp you drop unconscious, and any damage after that makes you fail death saves. Any healing resets death saves and works from 0. So a character can be dropped one round, is up next round due to bonus action healing word for example, and at the cost of half movement and manipulate object free action (to pick up a weapon if he was using one) is back in the fight like it never happened. It is actually better in many cases to heal people after they have been knocked out rather then healing before.

[NewDM]

I'd like to add that the amount of rulings the DM has to make is ridiculous in this edition. For instance there are no solid rules on sound other than a groaning creaking door sound travels up to 199 feet unless in a dungeon where it can travel up to 999 feet.

If you enjoy that, great. If you don't this will wear on you as you play.

[JoeJ]

I'd like to add that the amount of rulings the DM has to make is ridiculous in this edition. For instance there are no solid rules on sound other than a groaning creaking door sound travels up to 199 feet unless in a dungeon where it can travel up to 999 feet.

If you enjoy that, great. If you don't this will wear on you as you play.

How far does sound travel in the real world? Not special cases, I want a general rule.

[JumboWheat01]

How far does sound travel in the real world? Not special cases, I want a general rule.

The general rule is "depends on the area, depends on the source of the noise, and depends on the sensitivity of the receiver."

In the vein of this conversation... it depends on the DM ruling on the situation.

[smcmike]

How far does sound travel in the real world? Not special cases, I want a general rule.

Furthermore, there are, in fact, other specific suggestions regarding the traveling distance of sound..

[NewDM]

Furthermore, there are, in fact, other specific suggestions regarding the traveling distance of sound..

Care to quote some?

[smcmike]

Knock. Thunder wave.

[Knaight]

How far does sound travel in the real world? Not special cases, I want a general rule.

It depends entirely on the extent of the noise. With that said, a reasonable approximation is that the magnitude of the sound decays based on the square of the distance, which then needs to be converted into a log scale to get back to decibels. You also need the initial distance as some sort of basis, so there's that.

[NewDM]

Knock. Thunder wave.

Those are specific sounds generated by magic. At best you can say an explosion or thunder travels X distance.

[2D8HP]

I'd like to add that the amount of rulings the DM has to make is ridiculous in this edition. For instance there are no solid rules on sound other than a groaning creaking door sound travels up to 199 feet unless in a dungeon where it can travel up to 999 feet.

If you enjoy that, great. If you don't this will wear on you as you play.
As a player I may want a lot more rules so I can plan and argue. But as a DM? Screw that noise, give me instead enough rules that the table can remember and get by with, but no more! I don't want to need to memorize a cyclopedia in case of rules arguements.
DM fiat or go home!:smallwink:

[JoeJ]

It depends entirely on the extent of the noise. With that said, a reasonable approximation is that the magnitude of the sound decays based on the square of the distance, which then needs to be converted into a log scale to get back to decibels. You also need the initial distance as some sort of basis, so there's that.

Wouldn't it also depend on atmospheric conditions, and on the 3-dimensional shape of the area where the sound is propagating? And probably on the frequency of the sound as well?

[NewDM]

As a player I may want a lot more rules so I can plan and argue. But as a DM? Screw that noise, give me instead enough rules that the table can remember and get by with, but no more! I don't want to need to memorize a cyclopedia in case of rules arguements.
DM fiat or go home!:smallwink:

I don't want more rules, I want more comprehensive rules.

[2D8HP]

I don't want more rules, I want more comprehensive rules.Will these do?
http://www.mediafire.com/?5nzhz1ztiyx

[NewDM]

Will these do?
http://www.mediafire.com/?5nzhz1ztiyx

No.
This message is now long enough

[Knaight]

Wouldn't it also depend on atmospheric conditions, and on the 3-dimensional shape of the area where the sound is propagating? And probably on the frequency of the sound as well?

Hence the phrase "reasonable approximation". It absolutely depends on atmospheric conditions (wind, pressure, temperature) and the shape of the area. The frequency is less of a big thing, in that if it's anywhere in the hearing range of the creature in question that isn't particularly close to the edges it's probably covered.

If we want to go into detail, well, there are entire textbooks on acoustics to look into, and they look like the typical science/engineering textbook. So, a thousand or so pages of dense writing punctuated with nasty looking equations.

[JoeJ]

Hence the phrase "reasonable approximation". It absolutely depends on atmospheric conditions (wind, pressure, temperature) and the shape of the area. The frequency is less of a big thing, in that if it's anywhere in the hearing range of the creature in question that isn't particularly close to the edges it's probably covered.

If we want to go into detail, well, there are entire textbooks on acoustics to look into, and they look like the typical science/engineering textbook. So, a thousand or so pages of dense writing punctuated with nasty looking equations.

That's about what I thought. So, from a purely verisimilitude standpoint, the real life experience of a DM who is able to hear is probably a better basis to judge by than any rule that could reasonably be written into the game.

[Knaight]

That's about what I thought. So, from a purely verisimilitude standpoint, the real life experience of a DM who is able to hear is probably a better basis to judge by than any rule that could reasonably be written into the game.

Not necessarily. If you really wanted to, you could probably work out a dedicated rule that is significantly better than what most GMs would do improvisationally. Is it worth doing so? Probably not. Either you already have the knowledge to do so, or you are in a place where you get to research, and I suspect the vast majority of game designers wouldn't even be able to just buy an acoustics textbook and jump into it. For the ones that could, they probably still have better things to do with their time, and then there's the problem of what happens if you set that standard for one skill, and whether you have to start matching it for others.

[NewDM]

Not necessarily. If you really wanted to, you could probably work out a dedicated rule that is significantly better than what most GMs would do improvisationally. Is it worth doing so? Probably not. Either you already have the knowledge to do so, or you are in a place where you get to research, and I suspect the vast majority of game designers wouldn't even be able to just buy an acoustics textbook and jump into it. For the ones that could, they probably still have better things to do with their time, and then there's the problem of what happens if you set that standard for one skill, and whether you have to start matching it for others.

Actually a rule as simple as the DC for a perception check to hear something is increased by 1 point for every 5 feet measured in the shortest path for the sound. Then the DM gets to pick the starting DC like normal 10-20.

Really it wouldn't be very hard. They just decided not to do it and to cram more stuff onto the DMs plate.

[JoeJ]

Actually a rule as simple as the DC for a perception check to hear something is increased by 1 point for every 5 feet measured in the shortest path for the sound. Then the DM gets to pick the starting DC like normal 10-20.

Why 1 for 5 feet, rather than, say 2 for 5 feet or 1 for 20 feet? Making it 1 for 5 feet from a base of 10 means that 100 feet away it would be nearly impossible to hear a sound. Even making the base 0 that would make hearing only possible within 150 feet, which surely isn't correct - I live several miles from the nearest railroad track, yet I frequently hear the trains. I can hear thunder that's miles away, too. OTOH, I might not hear a mouse walking at a distance of 6 inches.

What you're suggesting would force the DM to either use a number they know is absurd, or change it and risk sidetracking the game into an argument with a rules lawyer player. Leaving it undefined is way better.

[NewDM]

Why 1 for 5 feet, rather than, say 2 for 5 feet or 1 for 20 feet? Making it 1 for 5 feet from a base of 10 means that 100 feet away it would be nearly impossible to hear a sound. Even making the base 0 that would make hearing only possible within 150 feet, which surely isn't correct - I live several miles from the nearest railroad track, yet I frequently hear the trains. I can hear thunder that's miles away, too. OTOH, I might not hear a mouse walking at a distance of 6 inches.

What you're suggesting would force the DM to either use a number they know is absurd, or change it and risk sidetracking the game into an argument with a rules lawyer player. Leaving it undefined is way better.

I was demonstrating how simple the rule could be not suggesting an actual rule. You could make it 1 point for every 20 feet and it would work out fine.

[smcmike]

I was demonstrating how simple the rule could be not suggesting an actual rule. You could make it 1 point for every 20 feet and it would work out fine.

No, the point is that a hard rule on this really leads to absurdities, and leads to the DM setting base DCs and then doing math, rather than just setting DCs.

[mgshamster]

When they started designing 5e, research showed that D&D gamers wanted a system that was fast, flexible, and easy to play with. This allowed players who were interest in different things to add on their own details. If wanted a deeper combat system, you could add it on; if you want tables and charts for skills, you could come up with something and add it on. For everyone else who didn't want your particular subsystem of interest, they didn't have to deal with all these extra rules. Here's an interview with Mike Merles discussing it: Link (http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview-with-dd-lead-designer-mike-mearls-gamers-wanted-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html)

So adding in all these extra little rules because a small subset of players can't be bothered to think for themselves wasn't on the plate; and at this point, they're not going to start adding more minutia.

If you don't like it, there are a couple of things you can do:

1) Play a different edition or a different game entirely that is more to your liking
2) Come up with some tables and charts and rules that you can use for your home games, and GM the game yourself.
3) Go online and see if someone already has done so and use or modify what they've come up with
4) Don't do anything, play the game as it is, and bitch about it to others, accomplishing nothing except to annoy other people with the constant bitching.

D&D has always been about imagination, it's always been about thinking, and it's always been a social game. If you don't like the way a game works, but still want to play that game, then use that brain of yours to come up with an alternative that you can enjoy. Then talk about it with your gaming group. Use open and honest conversation and discuss the issues and your solutions; heck, a group of people may even find something better. If you can't convince your GM and/or fellow players to use it, then become the GM yourself and make it a part of your own game. This is how D&D has always been.

[Knaight]

No, the point is that a hard rule on this really leads to absurdities, and leads to the DM setting base DCs and then doing math, rather than just setting DCs.
It doesn't have to lead to absurdities, it's just hard to design a rule that doesn't unless you already have some background.


Actually a rule as simple as the DC for a perception check to hear something is increased by 1 point for every 5 feet measured in the shortest path for the sound. Then the DM gets to pick the starting DC like normal 10-20.

Really it wouldn't be very hard. They just decided not to do it and to cram more stuff onto the DMs plate.
This sounds like something that will frequently take longer than just figuring it out, while also losing accuracy due to being a terrible fit (the linear decrease with distance makes no sense. Given that the decibel scale more or less charts to how easy something is to hear and the decay of sound intensity more or less charts with the square of the distance, the easy first approximation would be more like "for a series of increments of a value k((3.322)^n), the DC works out to a+bn", where a and b are constants picked to get the initial intensity (a) and the sound decay rate to map to the d20 scale (b). Then, instead of showing the background math to the players, you have a table for a and a distance table for bn, picking the range of distances that are broadly applicable for hearing things at least somewhat expected in the game world, while neglecting the part of the table relevant to supervolcanoes erupting continents away, and rounding as necessary to get numbers that aren't completely awful to work with.

That might actually be better than the standard DM judgement for accuracy. On the other hand, it's a cumbersome rule, and speaking as a GM here I wouldn't want to deal with it. It's just preferable to a codified rule which spits out stupid results. Plus, the only reason I was even able to work with this is that I have what is probably a stronger background in acoustics than the typical RPG designer (it's not strong, but I have some knowledge). If the standard is the defined skill, you need someone with some background for every single skill, and that's just not happening. Even then, most GMs are probably going to have enough knowledge to see the holes in the model for at least a skill or two.

[Vogonjeltz]

Regarding 5e tactics. Its not such a big deal that you have very few options available for your character other then spells, its the options you have available are eyebrow raising. Ill go over a couple of particulary strange ones:
•Advantage disadvantage stacking mechanic: Once you have advantage or have imposed disadvantage on a enemy there is no point in gaining extra instances of A/D. A raging barbarian doesn't really care if he is attacking a prone restrained frightened target, as he already has advantage. Or if a archer is attacking into darkness, he doesnt care if he moves into long range, or gets frightened or drops prone and shoots, he still has disadvantage. It comes up quite often in real games, and you can do really stupid things and gain a discrete combat advantage.
•The scoot and shoot. Since you can move before and after a action this leads abuseish things like being behind a wall for total cover, moving out, using a action (ranged attack or spell) and going back behind cover. And unless the other side uses readied actions there is nothing they can really do about it. Really help spellcasters keep that concentration spell going and still contribute to the combat by using cantrips or other spells as needed.
•The very low chance of character death, and ease of recovery from 0hp. So in 5e when you reach 0hp you drop unconscious, and any damage after that makes you fail death saves. Any healing resets death saves and works from 0. So a character can be dropped one round, is up next round due to bonus action healing word for example, and at the cost of half movement and manipulate object free action (to pick up a weapon if he was using one) is back in the fight like it never happened. It is actually better in many cases to heal people after they have been knocked out rather then healing before.

1) Advantage/Disadvantage is a wonderful simplification of all the fiddly modifiers of 3.x it saves the table enough time that it's worth it. And it's worth getting multiple forms of advantage/disadvantage (if you can) because it's in your opponents interest to negate any methods of advantage/disadvantage acquired. Tactically this (should) lead to a dance by the characters where they seek to keep changing position to add/remove those from themselves and the enemy.

2) Shoot and Scoot - How is the proper use of cover a strange thing? I'm not seeing a problem here at all, this reflects reality, which should increase versimilitude.

3) Lowered chance of character death if the monsters are outnumbered and everyone has healing ability, sure. I'm pretty sure if I as a DM wanted to, I could kill the PCs just by using rational targeting and the application of superior numbers of enemies as opposed to qualitative enemies. Once downed enemies have advantage on melee attacks and those attacks are automatically criticals, thus it only requires 2 successful attacks to kill any player. That's not alot.

[JumboWheat01]

1) Advantage/Disadvantage is a wonderful simplification of all the fiddly modifiers of 3.x it saves the table enough time that it's worth it. And it's worth getting multiple forms of advantage/disadvantage (if you can) because it's in your opponents interest to negate any methods of advantage/disadvantage acquired. Tactically this (should) lead to a dance by the characters where they seek to keep changing position to add/remove those from themselves and the enemy.

Actually it doesn't matter if you have Advantage through a dozen different ways. If something puts disadvantage on you for that check, you go back to neutral. It's not a one-to-one thing.

Unless you're saying having several ways to produce a single advantage or disadvantage check as needed. Then yeah, that can be handy.

[Vogonjeltz]

Actually it doesn't matter if you have Advantage through a dozen different ways. If something puts disadvantage on you for that check, you go back to neutral. It's not a one-to-one thing.

Unless you're saying having several ways to produce a single advantage or disadvantage check as needed. Then yeah, that can be handy.

I'm saying that if you want to make it actual advantage/disadvantage you necessarily must remove the thing causing the opposite force, otherwise you'll only ever get to normal.

[JoeJ]

No, the point is that a hard rule on this really leads to absurdities, and leads to the DM setting base DCs and then doing math, rather than just setting DCs.

There's very little need to set DCs for hearing things to begin with. If somebody is trying to hide, that's done as a contest, not by setting a DC. Distance, echoes, and any other circumstance that affects the chance can be handled just fine by giving advantage or disadvantage to the characters involved.

For environmental noise, mostly you should just let the most perceptive character(s) hear it without a roll. If it's audible at all, then somebody is going to roll that 20 sooner or later, so it's easiest to just let them hear it. If none of the PCs can hear it, why put it in the adventure in first place?

[NewDM]

When they started designing 5e, research showed that D&D gamers wanted a system that was fast, flexible, and easy to play with. This allowed players who were interest in different things to add on their own details. If wanted a deeper combat system, you could add it on; if you want tables and charts for skills, you could come up with something and add it on. For everyone else who didn't want your particular subsystem of interest, they didn't have to deal with all these extra rules. Here's an interview with Mike Merles discussing it: Link (http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview-with-dd-lead-designer-mike-mearls-gamers-wanted-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html)

So adding in all these extra little rules because a small subset of players can't be bothered to think for themselves wasn't on the plate; and at this point, they're not going to start adding more minutia.

If you don't like it, there are a couple of things you can do:

1) Play a different edition or a different game entirely that is more to your liking
2) Come up with some tables and charts and rules that you can use for your home games, and GM the game yourself.
3) Go online and see if someone already has done so and use or modify what they've come up with
4) Don't do anything, play the game as it is, and bitch about it to others, accomplishing nothing except to annoy other people with the constant bitching.

D&D has always been about imagination, it's always been about thinking, and it's always been a social game. If you don't like the way a game works, but still want to play that game, then use that brain of yours to come up with an alternative that you can enjoy. Then talk about it with your gaming group. Use open and honest conversation and discuss the issues and your solutions; heck, a group of people may even find something better. If you can't convince your GM and/or fellow players to use it, then become the GM yourself and make it a part of your own game. This is how D&D has always been.

I like how you insult our legitimate concerns by what you called it. That's just classy.

You must have missed the part where Mearls also said that the game would be 'modular' and that those kinds of rules would come out in a supplement. No supplement is on the horizon for that. I just want to make sure they get wind of the fact that a decent number of players actually want that kind of thing. It wouldn't be hard. Just a book that has a list of charts for each skill with DCs for 'common' or 'similar' obstacles. Maybe some variant fixes for spells that are flat out broken.


There's very little need to set DCs for hearing things to begin with. If somebody is trying to hide, that's done as a contest, not by setting a DC. Distance, echoes, and any other circumstance that affects the chance can be handled just fine by giving advantage or disadvantage to the characters involved.

For environmental noise, mostly you should just let the most perceptive character(s) hear it without a roll. If it's audible at all, then somebody is going to roll that 20 sooner or later, so it's easiest to just let them hear it. If none of the PCs can hear it, why put it in the adventure in first place?

Some posters were talking about ridiculous outcomes. If you just throw advantage/disadvantage on it, you get equally ridiculous outcomes. Like dragons hearing archers over 600 feet away while they are being quiet and hidden completely from view.

I liked the idea of using real sound math and then just mapping it to a quick lookup DC table. That's the best idea yet for sound.

[JoeJ]

Some posters were talking about ridiculous outcomes. If you just throw advantage/disadvantage on it, you get equally ridiculous outcomes. Like dragons hearing archers over 600 feet away while they are being quiet and hidden completely from view.

Right. And that's obviously much more absurd than guards hitting a rapidly flying creature that they can't see.


Your definition of "broken" appears to be "gives a result I don't like".


I liked the idea of using real sound math and then just mapping it to a quick lookup DC table. That's the best idea yet for sound.

Fantastic. You should do that in your game.