D&D 5E How We Beat the HD, HotDQ, Spoilers

[Sacrosanct]

Hey KH! Very funny as always...This is Mike...I played this adventure recently and was the guy who had to go out and take on the half dragon...I have to say that I completely agree with KD that this setup sucked. It reminded me of another game wherin we were assailed by an uber-powerful DMPC with no hope of success. I'm impressed that he and his group were able to overcome this threat, but with our party, I just died...not fun...at all.

I really see all of the different viewpoints presented in this huge thread, however, none of them assuage the feeling that I had playing this part of the game...if I really have no choice (which let's face it, I didn't...I'm a hero) but to walk out to certain death, then well...that just sucks. I would hope to at least have a chance at victory, but really in our case that wasn't possible. So yeah, in this case that part of the adventure (where the Half Dragon killed my character and I could do nothing about it) just sucked ass.

We could blame it on the DM, but I just don't think that is fair as he should be able to play it as written (since it is a module that he paid for). I think the blame lies with the authors of the adventure as they wrote the series of encounters...they have more accountablility than the consumers of their product.

KD, I'm with you man. <bro fist bump>

Thanks,
Mike

A point of accuracy: that battle is not "certain death". Not with 5e's mechanics. That battle is "you might get really unlucky and die, but that's the quite the exception and not the rule."

Death and going to 0 hp are not the same thing in 5e. We shouldn't use them interchangeably.

 

[Xorne]

When I ran Cyanwrath, he was just toying with the PC champion. The less effort he had to put into the fight, the more honor he gained. He just used a regular attack and dropped him. Yes he could have easily instant-deathed the PC, but he demonstrated that even with his basic fighting skill, the PC champion was but a babe...

 

[Kordak]

A point of accuracy: that battle is not "certain death". Not with 5e's mechanics. That battle is "you might get really unlucky and die, but that's the quite the exception and not the rule."

Death and going to 0 hp are not the same thing in 5e. We shouldn't use them interchangeably.

OK, consider that nit picked. But, in actuality, here's how it worked out for us:

• Upon being brought to 0hp, the half dragon stabbed my PC with a spear (count that as 1 death save fail).
• The rest of the party (watching from the battlements as the way the encounter was presented just one PC could approach to save the captives) rushes downstairs, through the gates, and then over 200' away from the keep - I think I had to roll 4 death saves and missed the final one before the party actually got to me.
• The DM did some handwaiving to say that they were able to get to him and save him but, if we had been playing strictly by the rules, he was gone.

All that said, maybe you think I was "really unlucky" - even "exceptionally unlucky" - either way, the Overall Suckage Factor (OSF) was extremely high. OSF is inversely proportional to fun.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have to say that I completely agree with KD that this setup sucked. It reminded me of another game wherin we were assailed by an uber-powerful DMPC with no hope of success. I'm impressed that he and his group were able to overcome this threat, but with our party, I just died...not fun...at all.

I find that the funniest part about how we defeated it is that my plan actually sucked too. The Fog Cloud meant that the Kobolds typically attacked us normally with pack tactics (advantage cancels out disadvantage) while we had disadvantage against them in the fog. It wasn't totally bad because they could not just pick us off with arrows from range, but it was still less effective than normal.

OK, consider that nit picked. But, in actuality, here's how it worked out for us:

...

All that said, maybe you think I was "really unlucky" - even "exceptionally unlucky" - either way, the Overall Suckage Factor (OSF) was extremely high. OSF is inversely proportional to fun.

I think you were really unlucky. You were really unlucky that the adventure designer thought that this would be a fun encounter for everyone.

OSF. Have to remember that one. Thanks.

 

[Steven Winter]

A mistake (from my perspective) that many people seem to be making is assuming that every situation in D&D should be "fun." If my ambition is to have nonstop "fun," I'd be better off playing Lego Star Wars or Whack-a-Mole. D&D can also be thrilling, frightening, inspiring, maddening, depressing, frustrating, immensely gratifying -- name a reaction on the human emotional scale and there's probably a place for it in D&D. The match against Cyanwrath was never meant to be "fun." It was meant to trigger an emotional response -- anger, even hate, and a desire for revenge against the Cult of the Dragon. I haven't seen much to indicate that it isn't doing that.

Steve Winter

 

[KarinsDad]

A mistake (from my perspective) that many people seem to be making is assuming that every situation in D&D should be "fun." If my ambition is to have nonstop "fun," I'd be better off playing Lego Star Wars or Whack-a-Mole. D&D can also be thrilling, frightening, inspiring, maddening, depressing, frustrating, immensely gratifying -- name a reaction on the human emotional scale and there's probably a place for it in D&D. The match against Cyanwrath was never meant to be "fun." It was meant to trigger an emotional response -- anger, even hate, and a desire for revenge against the Cult of the Dragon. I haven't seen much to indicate that it isn't doing that.

Steve Winter

So if a given player wants to have fun and an aspect of the adventure is on the exact opposite scale (i.e. sucky), that player is mistaken in his expectations?

For our group, two of our PCs ended up wiping out the half dragon later on (party got split up because that was the only way to proceed with our plan without tipping off the bad guys). There was little emotional victory there. The entire "half dragon as a reoccurring villain" that we should hate or be angry at or whatever hardly made a blip on our radar. Course, that might be because we kicked his butt at level two and he got carried away by his henchmen, so although extremely tough, he just didn't seem like a villain worth hating. A villain worth finishing the job over later if we encountered him, but our group mostly forgot about him shortly after giving him the dirt nap (we did at one point have one plan that revolved about mentioning him in a note to the cultists, but that plan was eventually dropped).

I think that it could trigger these types of emotions in many players, especially if a PC dies or almost dies. But, our group just thought he was an evil bully, probably because of how we reacted to his threat.

 

[Boarstorm]

It was meant to trigger an emotional response -- anger, even hate, and a desire for revenge against the Cult of the Dragon. I haven't seen much to indicate that it isn't doing that.

Hi Steve, thanks for dropping in.

On the whole, I think this is a mountain/molehill situation. But I do want to address this line I quoted, because I don't think it succeeded at that particular design intention. It did trigger those feelings... just not against the Cult of the Dragon. Cyanwrath made it personal, and so those feelings of anger et al, were also personal -- personally directed at Cyanwrath, and NOT at the Cult as a whole. The Cult as a whole was a bunch of mooks who got repeatedly beaten into the dirt. There's not a lot of lingering animosity when you're winning.

The personal animosity would even be great, in my books, if the target of their animosity wasn't in turn crushed almost immediately (well, a mere 2 episodes later). Did you want this rivalry to be ended so swiftly? I ask because I feel like it never really had time to mature into the kind of hatred that people tell stories about years down the line. And it could easily have done so.

 

[Kordak]

A mistake (from my perspective) that many people seem to be making is assuming that every situation in D&D should be "fun." If my ambition is to have nonstop "fun," I'd be better off playing Lego Star Wars or Whack-a-Mole. D&D can also be thrilling, frightening, inspiring, maddening, depressing, frustrating, immensely gratifying -- name a reaction on the human emotional scale and there's probably a place for it in D&D. The match against Cyanwrath was never meant to be "fun." It was meant to trigger an emotional response -- anger, even hate, and a desire for revenge against the Cult of the Dragon. I haven't seen much to indicate that it isn't doing that.

Steve Winter

Given the right circumstances, all of those emotional responses you mentioned above could fall under the general overarching umbrella of "fun". This was not one of those circumstances for me. I wasn't angry with the half dragon, but frustrated with the situation.

No worries, we've moved on to other things.

 

[pedro2112]

Interesting thread. I am running a an AL group through HotDQ at our FLGS. The players are having a blast! We have a nice mixture of experienced players, newbies, PFers changing over, Old Skoolers coming back to mainstream D&D, etc. Every session is full of excitement, laughter, tension and smiles. Everyone has agreed to continue the adventure under the "Expeditions" moniker when we finish up the Dragon Hatchery.

Having said that, personally I don't think it's that great. I'm glad everyone is having a good time, but to me, I would not have created some of the encounters and scenarios as presented in the module. My concerns are reflected by some of the posters in this thread. (Yes, I know, I agree with Derren, for the most part... go figure!). The Half-Dragon beatdown in episode one reminds me of the dragonlance module cheese from the late 80s. I play everything straight up ... all rolls in the open, all damage rolled for, etc. The fact that the DM is forced to change the basic rules of the game (if Cyanwrath hits a PC who is at 0hp, it does not trigger 2 failed death saves pursuant to the rule) in order not to kill a PC, who should be killed, is bad adventure design, period. My players in my home game would be furious if I fudged or changed something just to make them survive an encounter they normally wouldn't.

I don't have as much a problem with the Dragon encounter as far as him being disinterested and leaving after a certain amount of damage. I DO have a problem with the NPCs being unable to effect him. That, again, is changing the rules for cinematic effect, which is cheesy in my opinion.

The worst part about it are those encounters that are practically unavoidable that are TPKs waiting to happen. The meet up with Cyranwrath is an example. A party of six level 3 PCs (and it might be level 2 PCs even!) facing the Half Dragon and 4 beserkers (the module has 2 beserkers, but states to add one extra for each PC in excess of 4 in the party) is considered a "LUDICROUS" encounter.. wayyy above deadly. Going through that room is the only way to get to the dragon eggs.

Again, I love 5th edition, and the PCs love the adventure so far, but I think it the authors could have done a much better job, especially considering their excellent past work.

 

[Iosue]

The fact that the DM is forced to change the basic rules of the game (if Cyanwrath hits a PC who is at 0hp, it does not trigger 2 failed death saves pursuant to the rule) in order not to kill a PC, who should be killed, is bad adventure design, period.

There's no change. Only a crit triggers 2 failed death saves. A regular hit only triggers one.

I don't have as much a problem with the Dragon encounter as far as him being disinterested and leaving after a certain amount of damage. I DO have a problem with the NPCs being unable to effect him. That, again, is changing the rules for cinematic effect, which is cheesy in my opinion.

I can understand this, but to me it's an ontological problem which I perhaps approach differently than the mainstream. To me the game is resolved in the interaction between the DM and players, and rules simply provide a handy framework to facilitate that interaction. Other folks want the game to be resolved through interactions with an absolutely consistent rule set. The latter approach is the one WotC has taken all during its stewardship of the game, while the former tended to show up in earlier TSR products. Personally, I like that HotDQ uses the rules in an innovative way to create different kinds of encounters. IMO, this promotes more thinking "within the fiction" (as permerton would say), rather than approaching every encounter through the mechanical abilities given to the PCs by the rules. That's a purely personal preference, though.