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

[Mirtek]

If HotDQ was written primarily to work for AL play, then how well does it serve that goal?

I think that's a misconception. While AL was forced to adopt HotDQ it wasn't written to work with AL and they had to jump through hoops to make it (sort of) work.

Tiamat does deserve her CR 30 rating (unlike the Tarrasque), but she is still very killable, and if the 15th level PCs have even a couple of adult dragons on their side to act as meat shields/grapplers while they fill her full of arrows, even her full CR 30 form goes from "deadly threat" to "straightforward fight." To say nothing of what would happen if they have actual high-level NPCs on their side as well (Szass Tam's wizards, Harper agents).

Which just means that CR30 (even fully deserved CR30) is way too low to be a credible end of the world threat (lest alone for a full-fledged deity).

I still hope an eventuell MotP will provide some general deity powers (like in the 1e MotP) to retroactively buff up Tiamat (did wonders for 66hp-Lolth in 1e)

 

[Prism]

But honestly, you can only claim it's good if you were either (a) a player with a veteran DM who knew how to avoid the numerous pitfalls endemic in the story

I am playing it and the DM tells me he is pretty much running as written and I am enjoying it very much. That's why some of us are 'defending' it. If someone wants to play 5e and this is what is running then give it a go.

Maybe it reads worse than it plays.

 

[KarinsDad]

But why would the players ever assume that the dragon WOULD specifically go for them? As a player I'd expect the dragon to just carry on what it's doing, not up and leave the keep to attack 4 random people entering town (assuming you didn't use stealth and the dragon even saw you). As a hero I'd be wanting to go in and help save as many as possible without confronting the dragon, and the way I read the adventure this is what it expects you to do.

That's the goal of some PCs. Not the goal of all PCs.

And it's irrelevant what the adventure expects you to do. The players do not know that. Only the DM knows that. What's relevant is how players respond to the information presented to them about the adventure.

As for the question "why the players ever assume that the dragon would specifically go for the PCs?", that sounds like a really naive question. The more obvious question is, why wouldn't a dragon respond to the PCs? You are a dragon. You have high intelligence. You see everyone except your ally army either flee to the keep, or flee away from the town. Here are 4 creatures moving toward you. Minimally, you might want to know why they are doing this.

As a PC, I would never just assume that a dragon is going to ignore my group. It's a DRAGON!!!! One of the fiercest creatures known.

In real life, do you walk through the tiger's pit at the zoo? Do you just assume that the tigers will just ignore you? Sorry, but assuming that a dragon will ignore the PCs and not attack them sounds like a really really bad assumption. The kind of assumption that in real life, gets people nominated for the Darwin Awards.

 

[KarinsDad]

The real reason this adventure is so bad is because the writers were basically writing in the dark, and so much about the game changed after they had already finalized the manuscript.

I think this is an unsupportable conclusion.

There have been 40 years of D&D and many months of playtests. The basic game doesn't change. Sure, some minor class abilities and spells and a few rules and such have changed, but this sounds like a copout. One can write a brilliant adventure that is game system independent. I've adapted a lot of modules from one game system to the next to know that brilliant modules are that way because of the overall story and cool unique encounters, not because of the rules.

This adventure has a lot of little problems that have nothing to do with game system. Going to a town that a dragon is attacking. Being shamed into fighting a half dragon that is going to clean a PC's clock 99% of the time unless the DM does not play it to its fullest abilities. Errors between maps and text.

Personally, I have played and run a lot of adventures that were considerably better than this one. I seriously doubt that knowing a few more modified rules or creature stats was going to improve upon this adventure. It's not the worst adventure I've ever played in, but it's not a good one either. Average at best.

 

[Joe Liker]

I am playing it and the DM tells me he is pretty much running as written and I am enjoying it very much. That's why some of us are 'defending' it. If someone wants to play 5e and this is what is running then give it a go.

Maybe it reads worse than it plays.

Oh, really? Have you gotten to the encounter "No Room at the Inn?" I'll be interested to see how much you enjoy that one if he plays it as written.

 

[Joe Liker]

For me, I use APs to do the heavy lifting. Im a storyteller, but i dont have time to do all the prep that goes with an original campaign, so I accept that ill be telling other peoples stories in my own way.

I really don't understand this response. It doesn't take tons of time to create an original campaign. In fact, I would argue that it takes at least as much time to read the AP and become familiar enough with it that you don't constantly screw things up or drag the game to a halt because you have to re-read big sections of it at the table.

DMing takes work either way. If you create the story yourself, at least you already have it in your head, so it's far easier to deal with unexpected player actions.

 

[Joe Liker]

This adventure has a lot of little problems that have nothing to do with game system. Going to a town that a dragon is attacking. Being shamed into fighting a half dragon that is going to clean a PC's clock 99% of the time unless the DM does not play it to its fullest abilities. Errors between maps and text.

Don't get me wrong; there's plenty of bad storytelling, and the basic lack of organization in the book is legendary. I did say the writers were only partially excused. I will never forgive them for most of what goes on in Greenest.

 

[swordnut]

I really don't understand this response. It doesn't take tons of time to create an original campaign. In fact, I would argue that it takes at least as much time to read the AP and become familiar enough with it that you don't constantly screw things up or drag the game to a halt because you have to re-read big sections of it at the table.


DMing takes work either way. If you create the story yourself, at least you already have it in your head, so it's far easier to deal with unexpected player actions.

the time i have is limited to the 30 mins before a session, but i read quickly

 

[Prism]

Oh, really? Have you gotten to the encounter "No Room at the Inn?" I'll be interested to see how much you enjoy that one if he plays it as written.

I assume that's the one with the boisterous men in the inn that try to provoke us to attack them. We were sensible and didn't rise to the bait. When it looked like they would attack the barman we cast a calm emotions, three failed their saves and we withdrew. No need to fight some drunks on the road

I am led to believe this encounter has an online errata btw - though we didn't play that

 

[SuperTD]

That's the goal of some PCs. Not the goal of all PCs.

And it's irrelevant what the adventure expects you to do. The players do not know that. Only the DM knows that. What's relevant is how players respond to the information presented to them about the adventure.

As for the question "why the players ever assume that the dragon would specifically go for the PCs?", that sounds like a really naive question. The more obvious question is, why wouldn't a dragon respond to the PCs? You are a dragon. You have high intelligence. You see everyone except your ally army either flee to the keep, or flee away from the town. Here are 4 creatures moving toward you. Minimally, you might want to know why they are doing this.

As a PC, I would never just assume that a dragon is going to ignore my group. It's a DRAGON!!!! One of the fiercest creatures known.

In real life, do you walk through the tiger's pit at the zoo? Do you just assume that the tigers will just ignore you? Sorry, but assuming that a dragon will ignore the PCs and not attack them sounds like a really really bad assumption. The kind of assumption that in real life, gets people nominated for the Darwin Awards.

Again, you're assuming the PCs are just blatantly walking up to the dragon. I agree that characters are extremely unlikely to just walk up to a dragon for a friendly chat, but when playing a heroic fantasy RPG most people will want to at least try and help the villagers in some way. I don't know why you assume that because these 4 people are moving around town (likely dressed in basically the same clothes as the cultists, as in armour) it will seek them out. The only way I can see that happening is if the march up to the keep in plain sight yelling "I'm gonna get ya, you big blue beastie!"