Tiamat and Wyvern Poison

[kbob]

I can’t seem to find if this has been asked before so her it goes. I’ve noticed that Tiamat in 5e does not have poison in the stat block for her wyvern tail. In all other editions she had it. I am aware of 2 official, 5e printings now so it can’t be an oversight. In tyranny of dragons, I believe it mentions her wyvern tail and that it does piercing damage. However, in Fizban’s it makes no mention of this and the tail does bludgeoning (the artwork shows her without a wyvern tail as well). So my curiosity is now up. Does anyone know why they got rid of her poison damage? Also, after fizbans, does anyone know if they are officially removing her wyvern tail altogether?

[quindraco]

I can’t seem to find if this has been asked before so her it goes. I’ve noticed that Tiamat in 5e does not have poison in the stat block for her wyvern tail. In all other editions she had it. I am aware of 2 official, 5e printings now so it can’t be an oversight. In tyranny of dragons, I believe it mentions her wyvern tail and that it does piercing damage. However, in Fizban’s it makes no mention of this and the tail does bludgeoning (the artwork shows her without a wyvern tail as well). So my curiosity is now up. Does anyone know why they got rid of her poison damage? Also, after fizbans, does anyone know if they are officially removing her wyvern tail altogether?

The Fizban's entry is for her Avatar in Dragon form - the Rise of Tiamat entry (which has a piercing tail) is for her in Fiend form. I'm sure the real answer is still writer laziness, but it's also reasonable to expect differences in form as she subtly changes shape. As another example difference, only her dragon form can burrow.

I don't know the answer to either of your questions, but if called upon to place a wager, I would bet the real answer is, as I said, laziness, rather than genuine intent (either to change her lore or change her in-game DPR) - same reason her Fizban's (Dragon) form deals the same damage type no matter which head bites you. Why do more work when people will pay you regardless?

[SharkForce]

The Fizban's entry is for her Avatar in Dragon form - the Rise of Tiamat entry (which has a piercing tail) is for her in Fiend form. I'm sure the real answer is still writer laziness, but it's also reasonable to expect differences in form as she subtly changes shape. As another example difference, only her dragon form can burrow.

I don't know the answer to either of your questions, but if called upon to place a wager, I would bet the real answer is, as I said, laziness, rather than genuine intent (either to change her lore or change her in-game DPR) - same reason her Fizban's (Dragon) form deals the same damage type no matter which head bites you. Why do more work when people will pay you regardless?

some part of it is also probably deliberately designed laziness. monsters are being designed to be more simple and require less effort on the part of GMs.

you may agree or disagree with that stance, but more complicated monsters aren't just more work for the designers, they are more work for the person at the table who is supposed to run them. if you only need to remember one attack (or spell, or special ability) it is easier than having to remember 5 different ones and which order is optimal to use them in and what her preferences are for each one, etc. likewise, while it may arguably be more realistic if you fight 4 different kuo-toa priests that each have different spells prepared and can change them up as needed, it is much simpler if they all have the exact same abilities.

personally, I agree with that stance to a large extent for 'mooks', so to speak... if you're running a campaign against drow, it is simpler if most of the average ones have essentially the same stat block and that the stat block in question is fairly straightforward. I disagree with that being a good thing for what I would call named NPCs though... having a more complex statblock for a single memorable creature is something I see as a positive thing to have; Tiamat should stand out as an enemy that is more complicated to deal with than some random bandit. with those 4 kuo-toa priests, I would treat it differently depending on how significant they're supposed to be... if they're supposed to be the lieutenants of a more powerful leader, maybe it's important to give them a distinct stat block of their own, but if they're just some random priest leading a patrol around the temple you're trying to get into they should be designed more for simplicity.

but that's just me.

[Chronos]

Just my feeling, here, but it seems to me that anyone with five distinct heads should be complicated.

[SharkForce]

Just my feeling, here, but it seems to me that anyone with five distinct heads should be complicated.

most things "should" be complicated, if we're talking about verisimilitude.

but for the purposes of running a game, many things are simplified. I agree that tiamat in particular should be complicated because that should always be a highly significant encounter, but it has nothing to do with the number of heads. if there was some setting where, say, a wizard created a lesser hydra by capturing a half a dozen CR 1/2 snakes and combining them into one creature, which then somehow reproduced and now there are dozens of them and they're a standard encounter that a GM created for their setting at CR 2, they should probably be simple. the same idea for a monster but intended for use as the pet of that same wizard helping its master in the climactic battle could be much more complex.

(or to look at it another way... there's a reason an octopus has a "tentacles" attack rather than several "tentacle" attacks).

[Chronos]

All of a hydra's heads (however many it has) are the same. Tiamat's are all different.

And yeah, maybe a fight against Tiamat takes a while because she's so complicated. If my group fought a hydra and it took our entire six-hour session to resolve, that'd be really annoying. But if we spent the entire session on one fight vs. Tiamat, well...