Why play 3.5 anymore?

[AMFV]

Medieval countries had standing armies. By the best estimates I can find those armies were around the 10,000 mark, which is overwhelmingly more troops than you need to kill any particular thing in the 5e MM.

Dragons are intelligent, have gold, they can have armies too, fairly easily.

You don't need an army, really. The militia of most small towns is enough to drive off anything but the most powerful of ancient dragons.

Provided that the Dragon is operating alone, which seems like a losing game for a super intelligent being with tons of liquid assets.

You gotta pay the adventurer too. Remember that this way you get the hoard of the dragon. Also, don't chase sunk costs.

I can't eat gold... A ton of gold isn't necessarily that useful to a kingdom, there are resources that are much easier to unload without crushing the economy, gold isn't always one of them.

But hiring an adventurer to kill the dragon already abdicates the government to him. Medieval legitimacy comes, not from the consent of the governed, but from the ability to quash any challenge to your legitimacy. If you hire an adventurer to kill the dragon, he becomes the government. Any claim that you might lose legitimacy because of some other action holds no water, because you absolutely lose legitimacy if you hire an adventurer.

Not true in any case or sense of the word. The government hires contractors all the time, they very rarely have overthrown any government. An adventurer doesn't have political contacts, like a lord does. He doesn't have local support (and can be killed by the militia of a small town), so he's not really in a position to seize power, a nobleman who has just killed a dragon, absolutely is.

[Fable Wright]

Yeah, but all of those effects can also be done with mundane means, and thus don't count. I'm talking about things like permanent walls of fire for steam engines, magic traps as fabricators, magically powered airships, etc.

...Said druid has a railgun and is working towards a space station capable of orbital bombardment, but I didn't think those were relevant. Trust me when I say you really can do crazy stuff like this if you put your mind to it in 5th edition. Come up with a crazy idea that just might work as the magical item 'formula', the DM tells you whether it'd be Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, or Legendary to craft, you pony up the time and cash, and boom. There you go.

The issue with the creation guidelines is that there's no actual rules behind it, which is fine for being a DM where you can just say that this is how the magic item creation works, but requires bothering the DM with everything you want to do. The other issue is that, while 5e technically supports high magic worlds by virtue of the modularity, it's unlikely to come out with more magic items and spells and similar that support such a playstyle because of the intent of the system.

"Hey, DM, could I build a permanent wall of fire?"
"Hm. Sounds like a Rare magic item. Go nuts."

If you want a convoluted magic item with unique effects and weirdness, you're going to have to run that by a 3.5 DM all the same as you would have to a 5e one. Fifth edition streamlines the magic item process a lot: If it's mostly working with effects in line with level 1-3 spells, it's Uncommon. 3-5, Rare. 6-8, Very Rare. 9, Legendary. As for shallowness of magic items... not really. Think of Eberron, the posterchild for magisteampunk. In Keith Baker's books, there are a large number of magic items never mentioned in any rules just for basic day to day living. They do not and would in no world ever get proper stats, because they don't matter on an adventure. Almost all of 3.5's magic item versatility boiled down to "is this poorly worded, or was it designed to be used for combat?" Turns out, 5th edition just tends to be more lenient about it, and the magic items are, frankly, cheaper than equivalent 3.5e items.

But yes. We're less likely to have spells that change the campaign world. Which 3.5 spells, in particular, had the kinds of effects that would permanently change the campaign world that you'd never see in fifth edition?

Also, I don't like bounded accuracy and how you could kill Asmodeus with an army of commoners with bows. It's both nonsensical and unfun.

You can't, Asmodeus has immunity to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

This is the biggest reason I don't like 5e. A lot of the stuff in 5e is on some level forgivable. I'd never play it, but if there hadn't been a 3e, it would be the best edition of D&D. But bounded accuracy just takes a crap all over the core conceit of D&D: the adventurer. If the army can kill the dragon, or the giant, or the demon, why do you hire a guy with a sword to go out and do it?

As opposed to the, say, level 3 AD&D PC fighting a Vampire and winning with clever tactics rather than being completely unable to hit due to the ridiculous scaling of armor class and dying in one hit due to rocket tag as would happen in 3.5? Unbounded growth sounds fun on paper, but it restricts the kind of adventure you run, much as bounded accuracy, well, means that the impossible stays possible for more than just spellcasters.

[Cosi]

Provided that the Dragon is operating alone, which seems like a losing game for a super intelligent being with tons of liquid assets.

If the game does not support Smaug bathing Lake-town in fire without any risk of retaliation (baring Bard's plot device arrow), it is a bad fantasy game. Smaug should get to pillage, not be forced to use pawns to get what he wants.

I can't eat gold... A ton of gold isn't necessarily that useful to a kingdom, there are resources that are much easier to unload without crushing the economy, gold isn't always one of them.

Apparently, it hires armies, which is what you're trying to do with it in this case, so it should all work out fine.

Not true in any case or sense of the word. The government hires contractors all the time, they very rarely have overthrown any government.

Yes. The government hires civilians, who do not have any particular personal power. You really think if those contractors were Superman or Thor the idea that the government got to do anything except by their implicit consent would make any sense?

An adventurer doesn't have political contacts, like a lord does. He doesn't have local support (and can be killed by the militia of a small town), so he's not really in a position to seize power, a nobleman who has just killed a dragon, absolutely is.

You vastly overestimate the effect of political contacts, and massively underestimate the effects of killing a dragon. Remember, the noble didn't do that personally, he did it with the help of the army, which was mustered by the king's political apparatus. The king still defended the kingdom. If the adventurer does it, that looks a lot shakier, particularly if he wasn't hired by the king.

[Fable Wright]

If the game does not support Smaug bathing Lake-town in fire without any risk of retaliation (baring Bard's plot device arrow), it is a bad fantasy game. Smaug should get to pillage, not be forced to use pawns to get what he wants.

Well, let's take a look at how 5e handles the burning of Laketown, shall we?

*Opens Hoard of the Dragon Queen*

Turns out, it just tells the DM to ignore whatever effects the NPCs have on the dragon. Seems like a reasonable guideline for handling this.

[Cosi]

...Said druid has a railgun and is working towards a space station capable of orbital bombardment, but I didn't think those were relevant. Trust me when I say you really can do crazy stuff like this if you put your mind to it in 5th edition. Come up with a crazy idea that just might work as the magical item 'formula', the DM tells you whether it'd be Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, or Legendary to craft, you pony up the time and cash, and boom. There you go.

While "the DM makes something up" does in fact allow you to do whatever you want in any game, it works in any game and requires no design time. Presenting it as a strength of 5e is insulting.

As opposed to the, say, level 3 AD&D PC fighting a Vampire and winning with clever tactics rather than being completely unable to hit due to the ridiculous scaling of armor class and dying in one hit due to rocket tag as would happen in 3.5? Unbounded growth sounds fun on paper, but it restricts the kind of adventure you run, much as bounded accuracy, well, means that the impossible stays possible for more than just spellcasters.

You know what allows things to stay possible for non-casters? Having them scale properly. All bounded accuracy does is stop you from ever being able to beat a random dude consistently at anything, which is insulting if you are nominally supposed to kill dragons or demon lords with ease.

You're justifying bad design in 5e (bounded accuracy) by point to bad design in 3e (non-casters sucking). That's not a good argument, particularly when you realize that 5e came out a decade and a half after 3e, and should probably be a better product.

Well, let's take a look at how 5e handles the burning of Laketown, shall we?

*Opens Hoard of the Dragon Queen*

Turns out, it just tells the DM to ignore whatever effects the NPCs have on the dragon. Seems like a reasonable guideline for handling this.

So the game handles an iconic fantasy moment by telling you to ignore the rules. And you paid money for this. In other news, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Just PM me your credit card information and I'll be good to go.

[AMFV]

If the game does not support Smaug bathing Lake-town in fire without any risk of retaliation (baring Bard's plot device arrow), it is a bad fantasy game. Smaug should get to pillage, not be forced to use pawns to get what he wants.

Smaug was killed in that attack, I think that's therefore a predictable and expected result.

Apparently, it hires armies, which is what you're trying to do with it in this case, so it should all work out fine.

Why wouldn't it?!? Seriously, why the flip, wouldn't the Dragon hire allies? He knows his own power and vulnerability.

Yes. The government hires civilians, who do not have any particular personal power. You really think if those contractors were Superman or Thor the idea that the government got to do anything except by their implicit consent would make any sense?

Lots of folks do, which is why not all Superman or Thor stories have them tyrannically running the government, in fact that's the vast minority of such stories.

You vastly overestimate the effect of political contacts, and massively underestimate the effects of killing a dragon. Remember, the noble didn't do that personally, he did it with the help of the army, which was mustered by the king's political apparatus. The king still defended the kingdom. If the adventurer does it, that looks a lot shakier, particularly if he wasn't hired by the king.

No I don't. Period. I have a lot of study of history. Simply being able to take over a country, doesn't really do much for you, just look at any failed coups. An adventurer killing a dragon won't make the king look weaker in a way that the adventurer will be able to exploit, but rather in a way that other nobles will. The same as we can see demonstrated historically.

[Cosi]

Smaug was killed in that attack, I think that's therefore a predictable and expected result.

By one guy, with a plot device arrow. Not by the militia.

Why wouldn't it?!? Seriously, why the flip, wouldn't the Dragon hire allies? He knows his own power and vulnerability.

Because he's a dragon fighting peasants and why should he need to?

Lots of folks do, which is why not all Superman or Thor stories have them tyrannically running the government, in fact that's the vast minority of such stories.

Yes, and Batman spends lots of Batman stories not killing the Joker, despite the fact that doing so is logically and ethically the correct choice.

No I don't. Period. I have a lot of study of history. Simply being able to take over a country, doesn't really do much for you, just look at any failed coups. An adventurer killing a dragon won't make the king look weaker in a way that the adventurer will be able to exploit, but rather in a way that other nobles will. The same as we can see demonstrated historically.

Yes, when you try to oust the current king without enough force to do it, you fail. Because the king has more force and is therefore more legitimate. Not a hard problem.

[johnbragg]

If the game does not support Smaug bathing Lake-town in fire without any risk of retaliation (baring Bard's plot device arrow), it is a bad fantasy game. Smaug should get to pillage, not be forced to use pawns to get what he wants.

Now I *REALLY* want to go work out Incantation-type rules, where the people of LAketown spend one hour every MArs-DAy and from sundown to sunup on the day of every new moon building up psychic energy to blanket the town in a Resist Fire effect.

Still doesn't let NPC militia mooks do anything to the dragon, but it's better than nothing, and more useful to LAketown than the Plant Growth spell effect most towns access, or longstridering the boats when they dock.

[AMFV]

By one guy, with a plot device arrow. Not by the militia.

A regular non-magical arrow, with no special properties, no elvish enchantments. It's just as easy to surmise that the one guy was only able to defeat him because of all the other ones. Just because somebody gets a killing blow doesn't mean that they alone were the victors in a conflict.

Because he's a dragon fighting peasants and why should he need to?

I don't know, why do people need support fighting bees? Or ants? Enough of a small number of things can kill you? Also why is the Dragon fighting peasants? That doesn't seem to have much value. I mean historically dragons such as Smaug have died against peasants, so that seems like a losing game, particularly without any real gain from it.

Yes, and Batman spends lots of Batman stories not killing the Joker, despite the fact that doing so is logically and ethically the correct choice.

That's certainly a debatable point. Probably why most people have reacted strongly and negatively to stories where he has. Because they don't agree with you.

Yes, when you try to oust the current king without enough force to do it, you fail. Because the king has more force and is therefore more legitimate. Not a hard problem.

The thing is, the King rules because the people don't rise up in rebellion, and the nobles don't. The king doesn't have enough force to stop everybody, there's never been an Empire where that's been the case. He just needs enough to keep enough people happy that they'll back him. That's where the support and politics come in.

[VoxRationis]

I myself like bounded accuracy. I'm really not a fan of ridiculous hyper-scaling, and like it to be possible (if difficult and prone to casualties) for a mob of low-level characters to defeat a single upper-level one.

[Fable Wright]

While "the DM makes something up" does in fact allow you to do whatever you want in any game, it works in any game and requires no design time. Presenting it as a strength of 5e is insulting.

And the design of 3.5's "look, here are the rules for it so I can build it and there's not a thing you can do about it" is so much better?

Look, I get it. Fifth edition takes options away from the player, and you don't like that. But think about it from the DM's side of the screen. "Oh, this is a neat magic item I want to see in play. Let's drop it in with the loot." Players look at it, shrug, throw it on the pile of items they can sell at the store, makes the usual combination of +1 Flaming Frost weapon with GMW thrown on for the rest of the bonus. Player goes "Hey, how about that industrial revolution, can we do that?" when the DM wants to make a campaign about killing the dragon that's terrorizing a small town. Can't stop them, because it's in the rules.

Fifth edition has that rare balance of magic items having definitive stats separate from a character's individual power along with enough freeform rules to eyeball cool effects together without it breaking game balance. This is not the case in 3.5 or 4th edition. In fifth edition, I can make a cool, unique magic item and a custom monster to throw at the party in, what, five minutes. In 3.5, I can spend at least an hour making the monster, looking at magic item creation guidelines to eyeball the wealth by level of my cool custom effect, fret about how to add a bunch of other loot to keep other players at parity, then sigh with resignation when the players just chuck the magic item on the loot pile and sell it. Expressly putting "the DM makes something up" in a crunch heavy system is a strength of fifth edition, because it clearly shows where the rights of the player end and the powers of the DM begin. And frankly, they did it in such a way that makes the whole system easier for everyone involved.

You know what allows things to stay possible for non-casters? Having them scale properly. All bounded accuracy does is stop you from ever being able to beat a random dude consistently at anything, which is insulting if you are nominally supposed to kill dragons or demon lords with ease.

And unbounded accuracy also stops your plucky PC from ever winning an arm-wrestling competition with the legendary dragonslayer, and keeps those plucky commoners or low level PCs with an iron arrow from ever having a chance to pierce the dragon's hide. Because really, since when should an underdog hero ever actually have a chance to win against a dragon? It takes a band of 4 heroes each only slightly weaker than the dragon banding together to kill it, obviously. Anything less might as well just slit their throats now.

So the game handles an iconic fantasy moment by telling you to ignore the rules. And you paid money for this. In other news, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Just PM me your credit card information and I'll be good to go.

Sure, right after you tell me how your level 1 characters would meaningfully impact a battle with a Huge, airborne dragon at level 1 in this exact same scenario. Go on, I'll wait. I've got this epic fantasy moment I can meaningfully contribute to without being a demigod to pass the time.

[Felyndiira]

I play 3.5e (actually, mostly Pathfinder) because I'm more familiar with the rules system, and because quadratic wizards are a feature, not a bug.

[Morcleon]

And the design of 3.5's "look, here are the rules for it so I can build it and there's not a thing you can do about it" is so much better?

But the DM can simply say "don't do that b/c it'll break the game" and let the PCs do the work behind the things, only needing to ask when they're doing something outside of the specific rules and even then, it's usually something like "is this okay, if not what should I change". In 5e, the DM would have to create rules for everything not specified.

Look, I get it. Fifth edition takes options away from the player, and you don't like that. But think about it from the DM's side of the screen. "Oh, this is a neat magic item I want to see in play. Let's drop it in with the loot." Players look at it, shrug, throw it on the pile of items they can sell at the store, makes the usual combination of +1 Flaming Frost weapon with GMW thrown on for the rest of the bonus. Player goes "Hey, how about that industrial revolution, can we do that?" when the DM wants to make a campaign about killing the dragon that's terrorizing a small town. Can't stop them, because it's in the rules.

If the PCs don't wanna use a certain magic item, the DM shouldn't force it on them. Just have an NPC use it. And that last part is an issue of the players and DM having different views of how the game should go, which can be a problem regardless of system.

Also, who using Flaming and Frost?

Fifth edition has that rare balance of magic items having definitive stats separate from a character's individual power along with enough freeform rules to eyeball cool effects together without it breaking game balance. This is not the case in 3.5 or 4th edition. In fifth edition, I can make a cool, unique magic item and a custom monster to throw at the party in, what, five minutes. In 3.5, I can spend at least an hour making the monster, looking at magic item creation guidelines to eyeball the wealth by level of my cool custom effect, fret about how to add a bunch of other loot to keep other players at parity, then sigh with resignation when the players just chuck the magic item on the loot pile and sell it. Expressly putting "the DM makes something up" in a crunch heavy system is a strength of fifth edition, because it clearly shows where the rights of the player end and the powers of the DM begin. And frankly, they did it in such a way that makes the whole system easier for everyone involved.

You can't do the "just sell the item" thing in 5e not because the items are better, but because you can't sell magic items because they're so rare (which is another thing I dislike about 5e).

And unbounded accuracy also stops your plucky PC from ever winning an arm-wrestling competition with the legendary dragonslayer, and keeps those plucky commoners or low level PCs with an iron arrow from ever having a chance to pierce the dragon's hide. Because really, since when should an underdog hero ever actually have a chance to win against a dragon? It takes a band of 4 heroes each only slightly weaker than the dragon banding together to kill it, obviously. Anything less might as well just slit their throats now.

Why should someone just starting adventuring be able to defeat a legend without having earned that power already?

Sure, right after you tell me how your level 1 characters would meaningfully impact a battle with a Huge, airborne dragon at level 1 in this exact same scenario. Go on, I'll wait. I've got this epic fantasy moment I can meaningfully contribute to without being a demigod to pass the time.

Why should they? It's like putting a couple of police officers against a battle tank, except the tank can fly.

[AMFV]

Why should they? It's like putting a couple of police officers against a battle tank, except the tank can fly.

Somalians armed with only puddy beat an M1 Abrams, that doesn't seem like a horribly unlikely scenario.

[Morcleon]

Somalians armed with only puddy beat an M1 Abrams, that doesn't seem like a horribly unlikely scenario.

I have no idea what puddy is, but I doubt they could have done the same if the tank could fly.

[Segev]

Is "bounded accuracy" ever actually given a hard mechanical guideline, or is it just an aspiration to which, so far, the designers have mostly adhered? Because nothing I have seen in the PHB suggests that it's impossible for monsters to go up to 30+ AC, nor for bonuses not to be found to stack similarly high to attack. They just don't, currently.

Yes, it'd be power creep, but it would not be, unless I am missing something, actually breaking the rules of the game.

[Morcleon]

Is "bounded accuracy" ever actually given a hard mechanical guideline, or is it just an aspiration to which, so far, the designers have mostly adhered? Because nothing I have seen in the PHB suggests that it's impossible for monsters to go up to 30+ AC, nor for bonuses not to be found to stack similarly high to attack. They just don't, currently.

Yes, it'd be power creep, but it would not be, unless I am missing something, actually breaking the rules of the game.

It's not explicitly stated, but is made that way by capping PC stats at 20, making AC incredibly hard to increase, as well as removing basically all permanent bonuses to things outside of the normal formula.

[Segev]

It's not explicitly stated, but is made that way by capping PC stats at 20, making AC incredibly hard to increase, as well as removing basically all permanent bonuses to things outside of the normal formula.

So putting a dragon's AC at the extreme limit of "hittable" for PCs would, in fact, make it out of reach for peasants, I think, then.

If the peasants have attack bonuses of +2 or +3, an AC of 22 or 23 is enough to be out of their reach barring the nat 20 that always hits (even in 3.5).

[Morcleon]

[QUOTE=Segev;20426101If the peasants have attack bonuses of +2 or +3, an AC of 22 or 23 is enough to be out of their reach barring the nat 20 that always hits (even in 3.5).[/QUOTE]

But a natural 20 is only a 5% chance, so an army of peasants can kill a dragon.

[JoeJ]

But a natural 20 is only a 5% chance, so an army of peasants can kill a dragon.

A natural 20 is a hit in 3.5 too. As far as armies of peasants killing dragons go, the only difference is the DR, which is a difference in stat block, not a difference in the game rules. Some monsters in 5e do have resistance or even outright immunity to nonmagical weapons.

[Aliquid]

There are people still playing with B/X and BECM and the Rules Cyclopedia.

I would totally run a game with the Rules Cyclopedia if I could find players that were interested. Maybe it is just nostalgia though.

[Anonymouswizard]

Is "bounded accuracy" ever actually given a hard mechanical guideline, or is it just an aspiration to which, so far, the designers have mostly adhered? Because nothing I have seen in the PHB suggests that it's impossible for monsters to go up to 30+ AC, nor for bonuses not to be found to stack similarly high to attack. They just don't, currently.

Yes, it'd be power creep, but it would not be, unless I am missing something, actually breaking the rules of the game.

It's a design goal. Specifically, that enough orcs should be a legitimate threat that you can throw a load at a party of 5 level 20 PCs and they still have a chance of dying.

On the 'why hire adventurers when an army can kill it', here's my view:

King Geoff is having a little dragon trouble near the Here Be Dragons Mountains. He could send the army after it, but it escapes with several sheep before taking more than a couple of arrows, and the militias near the mountains have suffered heavy losses. Also, King Bob is eyeing his iron mines suspiciously. King Geoff decides to hire a few mercenaries better equipped to negate the dragon's advantage, and sends a message to King Bob.

[Segev]

Yeah, for the "why not use an army to kill that dragon?" question to have a different answer in 5e than 3.5, the conditions that make killing that dragon possible for an army have to be different. I am not convinced that is the case, since both are relying on nat 20s and large numbers of actions to try to get them.

[Cosi]

A regular non-magical arrow, with no special properties, no elvish enchantments. It's just as easy to surmise that the one guy was only able to defeat him because of all the other ones. Just because somebody gets a killing blow doesn't mean that they alone were the victors in a conflict.

Said arrow was in fact of dwarven craft, and handed down over generations to Bard, who fired it to kill Smaug because a bird told him the secret of Smaug's vulnerability.

I don't know, why do people need support fighting bees? Or ants? Enough of a small number of things can kill you?

Can you breath fire? Does you skin turn swords? Do you fly? No? Interestingly, dragons do all of those things.

Also why is the Dragon fighting peasants? That doesn't seem to have much value. I mean historically dragons such as Smaug have died against peasants, so that seems like a losing game, particularly without any real gain from it.

Dragons fight peasants because that is an iconic part of fantasy. The dragon ravages the peasants, then is killed by the noble knight. If that story cannot happen in your fantasy game, your fantasy game is a failure.

That's certainly a debatable point. Probably why most people have reacted strongly and negatively to stories where he has. Because they don't agree with you.

Sure. Because the myth of Batman is that he doesn't kill. Not because it would be wrong. If we're judging by what stories people like, dragons getting killed by heroes seems to resonate a whole lot more than dragons being killed by unnamed bystanders.

The thing is, the King rules because the people don't rise up in rebellion, and the nobles don't. The king doesn't have enough force to stop everybody, there's never been an Empire where that's been the case. He just needs enough to keep enough people happy that they'll back him. That's where the support and politics come in.

Yes, because the king has feudal arrangements which allow him to quash rebellion. But that's not true in D&D. The dragon was more badass than the king, and the adventurer killed it. By the transitive property, he is more badass than the king, and therefore the new king.

And the design of 3.5's "look, here are the rules for it so I can build it and there's not a thing you can do about it" is so much better?

Yes!

The entire point of having rules is that they allow you to have a say in what happens. The reason we have hit points is so that when the DM says "rocks fall, everyone dies", we can say "no, how much damage did that do?". The reason we have CR guidelines is so that when the DM has an ancient dragon attack us at level one, we can say "dude, not cool that's an encounter for 20th level PCs". 100% of the reason rules exist is so that player can adjudicate what happens without argument about whether the DM thinks that is cool.

But think about it from the DM's side of the screen. "Oh, this is a neat magic item I want to see in play. Let's drop it in with the loot." Players look at it, shrug, throw it on the pile of items they can sell at the store, makes the usual combination of +1 Flaming Frost weapon with GMW thrown on for the rest of the bonus.

Think about that from the player's side. They have a cool character planned out. He's all about the elements, and they're looking to get him a greatsword that is Flaming Frost Shock and Acid. The DM gives them a +4 Unholy scythe as treasure. Why are they obligated to take it? It's their character, not the DM's.

Player goes "Hey, how about that industrial revolution, can we do that?" when the DM wants to make a campaign about killing the dragon that's terrorizing a small town. Can't stop them, because it's in the rules.

The story is told by the DM and the players. In fact, the DM is a player. If the other four players want to industrialize fantasyland, the DM should either work with them to tell that story, or say that he isn't interested in DMing for that story and ask someone else to do it. Just like if three players and the DM want to go dungeon crawling, and the fourth player wants to do a plane-hopping adventure, he should either bow out or play the game other people want. It's a cooperative storytelling game, the DM doesn't get to unilaterally decide how the story should go.

Also, if you can't work in a dragon fight into a story about industrialization, you just aren't trying. It's immediately obvious that the dragon's innate power is going to be less relevant in a world with industrial technology, so it would presumably try to fight people pushing for that. Or maybe the PCs need the dragon's hoard for some reason (either capital to industrialize, or specific artifacts). Maybe the dragon runs a bank and is in conflict with the players because they're trying to introduce fractional reserve banking.

Expressly putting "the DM makes something up" in a crunch heavy system is a strength of fifth edition, because it clearly shows where the rights of the player end and the powers of the DM begin. And frankly, they did it in such a way that makes the whole system easier for everyone involved.

If the best thing you can say about your system is what rules it doesn't have, your system sucks.

And unbounded accuracy also stops your plucky PC from ever winning an arm-wrestling competition with the legendary dragonslayer, and keeps those plucky commoners or low level PCs with an iron arrow from ever having a chance to pierce the dragon's hide. Because really, since when should an underdog hero ever actually have a chance to win against a dragon? It takes a band of 4 heroes each only slightly weaker than the dragon banding together to kill it, obviously. Anything less might as well just slit their throats now.

Yes. The reason underdogs win in fiction isn't because they are lucky, it is because they are protagonists. Their actions succeed or fail not by the uncaring whims of the dice, but because the author chooses for them to succeed or fail. That character doesn't translate into a medium where decisions are the result of a process that is actually random.

Sure, right after you tell me how your level 1 characters would meaningfully impact a battle with a Huge, airborne dragon at level 1 in this exact same scenario. Go on, I'll wait. I've got this epic fantasy moment I can meaningfully contribute to without being a demigod to pass the time.

They don't. Because that is the point of levels. There are stories you can tell at low level you can't tell at high level and vice versa. If you want starting characters to battle dragons, start at level 10.

Is "bounded accuracy" ever actually given a hard mechanical guideline, or is it just an aspiration to which, so far, the designers have mostly adhered?

Who knows? A few points:

1. Technically, 5e doesn't have bounded accuracy at all. You accumulate bonuses at some rate and therefore would eventually push random peasants off the RNG for anything those bonuses applied to. It's just the point that happens is level 30 not level 8.

2. Mike Mearls is designing it, and while he has stated (at various points) that bounded accuracy is supposed to be how the system "works", I have no real faith in his ability to keep to any particular design goals he nominally has.

3. Because of the way PC bonuses progress, bounded accuracy is largely here to stay for PCs even if someone prints a monster that has large AC, save, or attack numbers.

4. I don't think they're producing enough content for power creep to happen. There have been five rulebooks (as opposed to adventures) out thus far, and three of those are core books. FFS, they haven't released a campaign setting (unless Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is a setting book, but I have no idea if that's for FR, Eberron, or just generic pirates).

So putting a dragon's AC at the extreme limit of "hittable" for PCs would, in fact, make it out of reach for peasants, I think, then.

If the peasants have attack bonuses of +2 or +3, an AC of 22 or 23 is enough to be out of their reach barring the nat 20 that always hits (even in 3.5).

First, let's note that this is a dragon that is a challenge for max level PCs fighting peasants. Not an adult dragon fighting trained militia, an ancient dragon fighting peasants. And they still are just barely off the RNG.

Second, while 3e had the 20 hits rule, it also had DR which made damage from peasants all but meaningless to adult dragons.

[Segev]

The dragon was more badass than the king, and the adventurer killed it. By the transitive property, he is more badass than the king, and therefore the new king.

This is often the theory behind why part of the "prize" for killing the dragon was the King's daughter's hand in marriage. Sure, he might still off you for the throne, but at least he doesn't HAVE to, and can enjoy a life of "living like a King" without the responsibility if he's willing to be patient.

First, let's note that this is a dragon that is a challenge for max level PCs fighting peasants. Not an adult dragon fighting trained militia, an ancient dragon fighting peasants. And they still are just barely off the RNG.

Like I said, I don't have the MM to pull the numbers from, so I'll take your word for this.

What's the AC of a "mere" Adult Red Dragon? What's its CR?

Second, while 3e had the 20 hits rule, it also had DR which made damage from peasants all but meaningless to adult dragons.

Do dragons not have resistance or immunity to physical non-magic weapons in 5e?

[mephnick]

I mean, if I was a government, I'd probably try and hire some professional dragonslayers to kill a dragon than slaughter half my army doing it. It still makes no sense to throw an army against a dragon in 5e. Sure, a 5e peasant army has a better chance of killing one as a 3.5 peasant army, but it would still cripple the kingdom.

[Cosi]

This is often the theory behind why part of the "prize" for killing the dragon was the King's daughter's hand in marriage. Sure, he might still off you for the throne, but at least he doesn't HAVE to, and can enjoy a life of "living like a King" without the responsibility if he's willing to be patient.

Yep. "Half my kingdom and my kid" is a fairly typical prize for doing something the king needs done in fantasy.

Like I said, I don't have the MM to pull the numbers from, so I'll take your word for this.

Actually, that particular thing was working from your math where you posited that as a CR where high level PCs would be on the RNG but peasants would not. I was just assuming that such an AC would belong to ancient dragons (those being the dragons fought by high level PCs)

What's the AC of a "mere" Adult Red Dragon? What's its CR?

Do dragons not have resistance or immunity to physical non-magic weapons in 5e?

The Adult Red Dragon has an AC of 19 (256 HP) and is immune to fire. It's "challenge" (because CR was too much like the most popular edition of D&D to ever exist) 17, so it's actually close to a high level dragon than I thought. The "challenge" 10 red dragon (young, FYI) is AC 18, so it doesn't matter much (also, accuracy is apparently pretty bounded). They have no resistance to weapons that I can see.

Some quick calcs for militia versus dragon:

To hit on a 16+ (25% of the time), you need your militia to have +3 to hit. That's within the range for attribute scores, and proficiency bonus is +1 or +2 depending on how trained your troops are. It seems pretty reasonable to say militia hit 25% of the time.

I don't know 5e weapons stats, but assuming bows are still 1d8 damage, you get an average of just over 1 damage per militia per round (4.5 damage * .25 to hit).

It takes less than 300 dudes to kill an adult red dragon. A Roman Cohort (500 soldiers) could kill one with ease. I think that puts paid to the idea that an adventurer is a better tool for killing dragons in 5e than an army.

[JoeJ]

The most awesome game concept or mechanic you've ever seen is, for somebody else, absolutely bad design and a reason why they utterly hate that system. And for a different person, it's just okay; neither fantastically great nor completely terrible.

For me, the level advancement in 3.5 is a negative. When I play a superhero game, I want the characters to start that way. The part where Billy Batson meets an old wizard and gets transformed into the world's mightiest mortal should be covered in the very first issue, or possibly even a flashback. Conversely, I like characters who start the game as normal humans to finish as somewhat more skilled normal humans. Advancing from one to another is jarring, and especially so if there's no specific event in which the characters gain their superhuman abilities.

And as a DM, I find the sheer volume of options in 3.5 to be another negative because for the most part, they are player options, not world-building options. For example, it's hard to create a world in which magic requires extended rituals, so spells can't be cast during combat. Or one in which there are no dedicated spellcasters, but nearly everybody knows one or two spells. Or one in which there is only one spellcasting class. Or one where style specializations are enforced by prerequisites, so that you have to learn Burning Hands before you can cast Fireball. Or simply a world in which a person doesn't get better at fighting just because they become a master chef. (The idea of having every possible NPC have to fit into a class/level system really doesn't work for me.)

What I think of as negatives are, of course, positives to somebody else who likes those things.

[Cazero]

The Adult Red Dragon has an AC of 19 (256 HP) and is immune to fire. It's "challenge" (because CR was too much like the most popular edition of D&D to ever exist) 17, so it's actually close to a high level dragon than I thought. The "challenge" 10 red dragon (young, FYI) is AC 18, so it doesn't matter much (also, accuracy is apparently pretty bounded). They have no resistance to weapons that I can see.

Some quick calcs for militia versus dragon:

To hit on a 16+ (25% of the time), you need your militia to have +3 to hit. That's within the range for attribute scores, and proficiency bonus is +1 or +2 depending on how trained your troops are. It seems pretty reasonable to say militia hit 25% of the time.

I don't know 5e weapons stats, but assuming bows are still 1d8 damage, you get an average of just over 1 damage per militia per round (4.5 damage * .25 to hit).

It takes less than 300 dudes to kill an adult red dragon. A Roman Cohort (500 soldiers) could kill one with ease. I think that puts paid to the idea that an adventurer is a better tool for killing dragons in 5e than an army.

You forgot the part where the panicked militia runs around screaming instead of shooting with perfect martial discipline and disregard for their own survival, and the part where the dragon use his breath attack to exterminate half of the peasants in one round.

[JoeJ]

It takes less than 300 dudes to kill an adult red dragon. A Roman Cohort (500 soldiers) could kill one with ease. I think that puts paid to the idea that an adventurer is a better tool for killing dragons in 5e than an army.

Maybe that's why towns exist at all in a world with dragons and giants. If the militia was unable to defend the town against the local monsters, it would have been wiped out long before the adventurers got there.