D&D 5E Why is Hoard of the Dragon Queen such a bad adventure?

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, it's an easily overlooked rule, but has a huge impact. I feel like they should have drawn more attention to it, though I admit I don't see a good way to have done so off the top of my head.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Yeah, it's an easily overlooked rule, but has a huge impact. I feel like they should have drawn more attention to it, though I admit I don't see a good way to have done so off the top of my head.

Just Curious.

Which one of you would win?

 

[sithramir]

Not to nitpick, but you can't do that by the RAW. PHB, page 202. When you cast a spell as a bonus action, you cannot also cast a spell as your main action unless your main action spell is a cantrip.

Yes we are aware. We thought it was a pretty stupid rule. If a spell is a bonus action and another one a standard action and you get both types of action in a round it seems foolish to not be able to cast them. Especially since it's such a rare occurrence.

 

[KarinsDad]

This right here is the problem. In neither of these scenarios is the party expected to fight the Dragon. One they're supposed to talk away, the other they're supposed to either avoid our join in a grand, desperate assault against (which is entirely their choice, at that point, at which point yes, the Dragon leaving is a tad convoluted).

That's not the point.

What the low level PCs are expected to do is not what a module should wrap a CR 8 encounter around.

We have two examples here of where two groups defeated the green dragon in a fight. At least one of these encounters was not with the stock 5 PCs supplied by the module and the only PC options at the time the module came out. One had 6 PCs and the other 8. Both fought the dragon and won, but in one case, the DM was giving out info on exactly where the dragon was and did not play the dragon that intelligently (attacking from the air is almost always better for a dragon so that melee PCs cannot engage) so that the PCs could prepare and attack with their best attacks.

But what about groups with 3 PCs? Or 4?

Those groups might still have a PC with the background of "I need to go drive off that dragon". But because the game designers put that encounter in there, they are setting up a lot of groups to be TPKed. Sure, some groups will drive off the dragon because of the module's "the dragon flees at half hit points". And some groups will have every PC caught in the breath weapon fail their save (because that's how the dice sometimes roll).

The problem isn't that these creatures are put in the adventures. The problem is the assumption, by either the DM or the players, that creatures only exist in modules to be fought.

You have this 100% backwards. The problem is the assumption, by either the DM or the game designers, that some creatures only exist in modules to NOT be fought.

Each DM will run an encounter differently. Each player will react differently. Each group will be a different size. Each PC will have different motivations. By making assumptions that a super powerful creature can be in a module and that PCs should not attack it, they set up PCs to get killed.

If a fight does break out (which will happen at many tables), this then puts a DM in the poor position of either playing the creature to its fullest capacities and likely killing off one or more PCs, or playing the creature in a subpar way that the DM normally would not play it in order to fudge and save some PCs.

Game designers shouldn't put DMs in this position. Not every encounter should result in a fight, but having vastly more powerful foes will result in PC death at times. Not because the players are playing poorly, but because the encounter was designed in opposition to the goals and desires of their PCs.


Adventure designer: "Too bad, you were having badwrongfun by attacking the dragon and not playing the way I designed the encounter, so you get to roll up a new PC."

The heck with that. Subpar design by definition.

 

[Halivar]

Game designers shouldn't put DMs in this position. Not every encounter should result in a fight, but having vastly more powerful foes will result in PC death at times. Not because the players are playing poorly, but because the encounter was designed in opposition to the goals and desires of their PCs.

Counterpoint: not every fight should be a face-roll devoid of actual danger save character stupidity. Some things have to be out of the players' control and left to chance. If a casualty of this philosophy is the notion that PC's no longer believe they are invincible or equal to any challenge simply because the DM threw it at them, then I believe the game is better for it.

Adventure designer: "Too bad, you were having badwrongfun by attacking the dragon and not playing the way I designed the encounter, so you get to roll up a new PC."

Character deaths aren't a punishment. It's a natural part of the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Counterpoint: not every fight should be a face-roll devoid of actual danger save character stupidity. Some things have to be out of the players' control and left to chance. If a casualty of this philosophy is the notion that PC's no longer believe they are invincible or equal to any challenge simply because the DM threw it at them, then I believe the game is better for it.

This is group dependent. Not all groups want to play in a gritty game world, hence, module designers should either not design for that, or they should minimally have optional encounters for DMs who do not want that.

Character deaths aren't a punishment. It's a natural part of the game.

At some point, a CR too high is a punishment. Death should be a part of the game, but death should occur either due to character stupidity, or random bad luck.

It should not occur because an encounter within a module is designed to kill PCs if just average events occur within the encounter.


It's still just a game. Meant to be fun. Sorry, but rolling up a new PC because the module designer thought a CR 8 encounter against level 3 PCs would be fun for the DM, does not make it fun for me as a player. This level of "campaign world realism" where a too powerful foe (or foes) is in the adventure because "it could happen" in a campaign world is not the reason to write these uber monsters into a module. It just means to me that the module designer made a design mistake.

 

[Pickles JG]

This right here is the problem. In neither of these scenarios is the party expected to fight the Dragon. One they're supposed to talk away, the other they're supposed to either avoid our join in a grand, desperate assault against (which is entirely their choice, at that point, at which point yes, the Dragon leaving is a tad convoluted).

The problem isn't that these creatures are put in the adventures. The problem is the assumption, by either the DM or the players, that creatures only exist in modules to be fought. This doesn't really make a ton of sense; are PCs only supposed to run into perfectly balanced encounters, always and forever? Or should they be expected to run into situations where their non combat abilities (stealth, subterfuge, discretion, our just sheer cleverness) are not just helpful but required?

The Greenest dragon is there to be fought & the if they fight it then the players can only survive because they have plot protection. It's truly awful.

The other one is less obviously bad but I think that the players being told to attack it via some of their backgrounds, without having any sort of idea of it's danger level is risky.

(I played the dragon poorly (not deliberately but still I wish I had played it slightly better) & it did a lot of damage but was splattered in 3-4 rounds by 5 level 4s, though they made 3/4 breath weapon saves - the last was irrelevant & it would have been very different if either or both of the opening ones had been failed. They had also bluffed it earlier with a huge roll - that would have been deadly if they had failed as it could probably have breathed on all of them without any buffs up.)

 

[Gradine]

This is group dependent. Not all groups want to play in a gritty game world, hence, module designers should either not design for that, or they should minimally have optional encounters for DMs who do not want that.



At some point, a CR too high is a punishment. Death should be a part of the game, but death should occur either due to character stupidity, or random bad luck.

It should not occur because an encounter within a module is designed to kill PCs if just average events occur within the encounter.


It's still just a game. Meant to be fun. Sorry, but rolling up a new PC because the module designer thought a CR 8 encounter against level 3 PCs would be fun for the DM, does not make it fun for me as a player. This level of "campaign world realism" where a too powerful foe (or foes) is in the adventure because "it could happen" in a campaign world is not the reason to write these uber monsters into a module. It just means to me that the module designer made a design mistake.

I cannot stand this modern insistence that all encounters in every published module has to be balanced exactly to the PC party. It's led to this crush-kill-death meat grinder philosophy that states that any obstacle too powerful for the party to kill in a straight fight is some kind of abomination set by idiot designers. Which is insane.

Look, there is nothing wrong with a CR 8 monster in a level 3 adventure. It is just obviously not there to be fought. It is there to be circumvented in some other way. If the players try to kill it, it should become immediately obvious that they can't (if not before they even try), and they need to try a different solution. If they keep trying anyway and get themselves killed, instead of, you know, running away, I'd say that's a pretty stupid death on their part, no?

Again, there's nothing wrong with a good crush-kill-death meat grinder, with perfectly balanced and exciting encounters and not much in the way of puzzling or critical problem solving. But to hold every published module to that standard is ludicrous. If you'd rather not force your party to find non-violent solutions to encounters just remove or replace them at let the rest of us enjoy watching our players sweat them out.

 

[Derren]

It is just obviously not there to be fought.

Then why does the background of one of the premade characters specifically tell you to kill it?

 

[Halivar]

Then why does the background of one of the premade characters specifically tell you to kill it?

Because backgrounds aren't a turn-off switch for a PC's brains, unless you took "suicidal maniac" as a flaw. Now, some people do, but that's their choice.