D&D 5E First Session of HotDQ - WOW, what a meatgrinder

[Desalus]

The /point/ of the Cyanwrath encounter is for him to drop a PC. He shows he's a bad-ass, and the PC shows courage. It's the kind of thing you see in fiction all the time. The first confrontation with the bad-guy the hero will defeat in a later grudge-match.

I understand the point of the encounter, I just think it's just really uninteresting since Cyanwrath, besides defeating a character, is such a forgettable character. I've read that he plays an incredibly minor role in future chapters (and the book even says he can easily be replaced), so the point of making him into a memorable pivotal enemy is not even utilized.

Also in regard to the encounter, all but one of the characters gets to participate and the character that does participate will likely be knocked unconscious or killed in a single turn. It would be a lot more fun if the whole party was involved and the sides were a lot more even with a small possibility that the characters triumph (perhaps a pitched battle instead of a duel).

 

[Thank Dog]

Sadly it just goes to show how this encounter with Cyanwrath is just poor design on Kobold Press' part. The whole Greenest in Flames chapter was pretty poor IMHO (it definitely is a meat-grinder).

Character death is part of the D&D gaming experience. This notion that PC's should survive everything thrown at them is a recent addition to gaming culture, born of the trend towards "balanced" mechanics and a rule for everything which, I believe, began with 2e Powers & Options and the various splatbooks and was codified with 3e and then solidified into the gaming paradigm by Pathfinder.

5e is clearly going in a different direction, a direction which I personally favour.

When I ran the encounter, I tried to make it fairly obvious that the PC wasn't meant to win and yet before I'd even managed to issue the challenge or roleplay the sergeant's reaction, a player up and said he'd do it. Afterwards when discussing the encounter I mentioned that it was intended to be unwinnable and he said that he had figured that all along. This, to me, made it a cool and memorable encounter.

The difference is, I interpreted what was happening in the city different than the reports I'm seeing from other tables. HoTDQ specifically says that the Kobolds could mistake the adventurers for mercenaries. Which meant that until the raiders understood there were adventurers to deal with, they were mistaken for mercenaries.

A lot of criticisms about HotDQ (not to mention 5e in general) seem to be of this nature where people have glossed over something, not realised something, or misinterpreted something. The funny thing was that when I ran it, I had the cultists not immediately attack the PC's on sight. In one encounter I even had a cultist ask the PC in the lead, "What do you want?" They charged anyway but I think the point remains that the possibility was there for a non-combat situation. When other DM's have run it, it's been initiative immediately with no chance of bluffing or ignoring the cultists.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Cyanwraith was simply annoying. We'd already had the dragon. What was it meant to prove? That the module writers can write big numbers down? Of course it didn't help that it was such a meatgrinder that it was my Warlock who accepted the duel (did surprisingly well - 19hp off him).

Character death is part of the D&D gaming experience. This notion that PC's should survive everything thrown at them is a recent addition to gaming culture, born of the trend towards "balanced" mechanics and a rule for everything which, I believe, began with 2e Powers & Options and the various splatbooks and was codified with 3e and then solidified into the gaming paradigm by Pathfinder.

That's the first time I've heard DL1 with the Obscure Death Rule described as recent.

A lot of criticisms about HotDQ (not to mention 5e in general) seem to be of this nature where people have glossed over something, not realised something, or misinterpreted something. The funny thing was that when I ran it, I had the cultists not immediately attack the PC's on sight. In one encounter I even had a cultist ask the PC in the lead, "What do you want?" They charged anyway but I think the point remains that the possibility was there for a non-combat situation. When other DM's have run it, it's been initiative immediately with no chance of bluffing or ignoring the cultists.

I'm the party social-fu. Able to speak Draconic, grew up in the Dragon Cult, and was wearing Cultist Robes (and beaten up by the party once). But no one else was set up for play like that - so it became butchery.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I understand the point of the encounter, I just think it's just really uninteresting since Cyanwrath, besides defeating a character, is such a forgettable character. I've read that he plays an incredibly minor role in future chapters (and the book even says he can easily be replaced), so the point of making him into a memorable pivotal enemy is not even utilized.

I like it the way it is right now.

My game turned Cyanwrath into a rival and notable villain that the Paladin, who has dueled him twice now is looking forward to the tiebreaker. It's DM's job to expand on stuff like Cyanwrath. He could be unimportant or he could be a character the PC's consider very memorable.

 

[Thank Dog]

Cyanwraith was simply annoying.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. However it is not, from what I've seen, a popular one.

That's the first time I've heard DL1 with the Obscure Death Rule described as recent.

I was talking about a trend throughout gaming culture, not about one rule in one book that few people know about let alone implemented.

I'm the party social-fu. Able to speak Draconic, grew up in the Dragon Cult, and was wearing Cultist Robes (and beaten up by the party once). But no one else was set up for play like that - so it became butchery.

So you concede that it was entirely possible that it didn't have to be a combat-fest but rather that was the choice of the group?

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. However it is not, from what I've seen, a popular one.

YMMV. I have not met one person IRL (multiple groups) who didn't think it . It was compared by another group playing it to a video game cutscene, and Kai Leng in specific.

I was talking about a trend throughout gaming culture, not about one rule in one book that few people know about let alone implemented.

So Dragonlance was small. Riiiiiight. I'm talking about trends throughout gaming culture too.

So you concede that it was entirely possible that it didn't have to be a combat-fest but rather that was the choice of the group?

Oh, it didn't have to be a combat fest. Everyone could have sat round in a drum circle singing kumbaya with the right DM. Nevertheless it is set up as a meatgrinder.

 

[Tony Vargas]

.
Also in regard to the encounter, all but one of the characters gets to participate and the character that does participate will likely be knocked unconscious or killed in a single turn. It would be a lot more fun if the whole party was involved and the sides were a lot more even with a small possibility that the characters triumph (perhaps a pitched battle instead of a duel).

Well, it is a duel, and it fits the spotlight balance philosophy well enough - a rare chance for the party grunt to monopolize play.

 

[Desalus]

Character death is part of the D&D gaming experience. This notion that PC's should survive everything thrown at them is a recent addition to gaming culture, born of the trend towards "balanced" mechanics and a rule for everything which, I believe, began with 2e Powers & Options and the various splatbooks and was codified with 3e and then solidified into the gaming paradigm by Pathfinder.

I agree that death is and should be part of the D&D gaming experience. However, 'Greenest in Flames' is an awful introduction for new players to the game (likely in an Encounters setting). The entire episode is a meat-grinder (numerous unbalanced encounters with no resting), it has an encounter with a blue dragon that must be played in an illogical way in order to not kill the entire party, and an encounter with a half-dragon that cannot be won and might possibly result in a characters death. If it was my first time playing a RPG game I would not be impressed.

I like it the way it is right now.

My game turned Cyanwrath into a rival and notable villain that the Paladin, who has dueled him twice now is looking forward to the tiebreaker. It's DM's job to expand on stuff like Cyanwrath. He could be unimportant or he could be a character the PC's consider very memorable.

Ok…well that’s great that your DM did that for you. However, I’m criticizing the adventure and the way it was written, not the way that your DM found a way to make an NPC a lot more interesting. A DM could take the crappiest adventure and turn it into something great, but that doesn’t mean the adventure was well designed.

Well, it is a duel, and it fits the spotlight balance philosophy well enough - a rare chance for the party grunt to monopolize play.

So you don’t have any criticisms of that encounter? It’s perfectly designed?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Ok…well that’s great that your DM did that for you. However, I’m criticizing the adventure and the way it was written, not the way that your DM found a way to make an NPC a lot more interesting. A DM could take the crappiest adventure and turn it into something great, but that doesn’t mean the adventure was well designed.

I am the DM and I just played Cyanwrath as honorable and proud. I did not change anything about him. He defeated the Pally who was saved before he died. (Though I had Cyanwrath toy with him at first by using his spear instead of his greatsword making it much easier for the Pally to survive. ) I don't think a PC being defeated in a fitht is bad design.

This adventure is not flawless, but I don't have any issue with Cyanwrath.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you don’t have any criticisms of that encounter? It’s perfectly designed?

No, and no. I hardly expected perfection. But, for what it's clearly intended to be - a challenge where 'success' is having the courage to go out and get beaten down in spite of being pretty sure you have no chance - it's not that bad, nor do I see how, given the format & the system, it could be vastly better.

One aspect that I'll agree is lame is the note that Cyanwrath will be replaced by another half-dragon with identical stats on the off chance he is killed. Either his absence should have been notable later, or his 'replacement' should have been decidedly different, or both.

I agree that death is and should be part of the D&D gaming experience. However, 'Greenest in Flames' is an awful introduction for new players to the game (likely in an Encounters setting). The entire episode is a meat-grinder (numerous unbalanced encounters with no resting), it has an encounter with a blue dragon that must be played in an illogical way in order to not kill the entire party

I'm more with you on these points. While the structure of Greenest in Flames does a pretty good job of pacing a 'day' (actually night) the way it's apparently supposed to be in 5e (the encounter guidelines suggest a 6-8 encounter day, and at least imply 2 short rests, and, for first level, give a target of 300 exp per player, enough to level up). Each of the hours of the night available to them, the party can either accept a mission or take a short rest, declining a mission has consequences, so there's both the opportunity to rest when you really need it (and you will) and an impetus to take on challenges, instead. The major problem is that many of the encounters (and some missions, particularly Seek the Keep can include several) are hard-deadly, even random encounters tend to be hard. For a 2nd or even 3rd level party, it'd've been fine. For a first, TPKs or just giving up and declining all further missions at some point and not making 2nd, are pretty likely results. And, no, that's not a great introduction.

And, yes, the blue dragon isn't handled well. If it's not really committed to the fight and just using it's fear aura, then have the Dragon swoop in the midst of another mission (one that's going 'too easily,' if one ever does) and let them make their WIS saves. The idea that the archers on the wall can't harm it is at odds with Bounded Accuracy, and the idea that it'll keep blasting said guards instead of the PCs who, presumably, do put a little damage on it is absurd - and if it doesn't do that, dead PCs. It really feels like it was designed for a different edition. Bounded Accuracy means that massed fire from the defenders - guards as well as PCs - should have been able to hurt the dragon.