yes and no... like I said in last post if my black dragon attacked Monday at high noon and Wednesday at midnight then not again until the following week on Friday just at day break... the town needs to get hit, sound an alarm, raise the force and fire... that COULD best case be 3-4 rounds but in worst case be 5ish minutes before a counter attack can happen.
In France and Germany on the other hand, peasant rebellions were a serious concern, so feudal lords tried to prevent peasant from having access to weapon that could be used against them. I think England is the outlier here.
They will all eventually get their bows and unless the dragon runs away, they will pretty much all eventually get their shots off. The dragon will do tremendous damage to the town, but they can kill it.
By the third hit, there wouldn’t BE a town left. Most inhabitants would have packed up and left after the second attack.
I often wonder both in Homebrew and in WotC setting what the standing armies really are. I mean how often do you need soldiers? do you have a career field where there are just soldiers that make there lives being combat ready? if so how many? you need to still have farmers and fishermen and hunters, and they can fill out ranks in an emergency but what %?
very true
Right. It has to hit fast and run away. Why? Because they can kill it. It has to be smart and run away, coming back later at a time when it can do the same thing. This is still problematic in that dragons should not have to use guerilla warfare to beat a town. Not a city.........a town! A dragon should just be able to show up, have its way with the town, and then leave when it wants to.
I think it started out a mention of how bounded accuracy handcuffs the gm with monsters incapable of rising to the challenge of challenging optimized pcs because they are all designed for an absurd thought experiment involving villagers & a dragon. From there it got stuck in (dis)proving if the selling point of bounded accuracy was working as designed (and terrible) or only a problem because of a bad gm.sorry i think i must've missed a critical post in the discussion, is it the villagers or the dragon who's the one powergaming in this scenario?
The bolded part really applies here IMO.
To me, that doesn't read anywhere near as straightforward as you seem to be implying. What does abandon mean? To you it seems to mean they can't take additional levels and need to multiclass but would at least retain what they've learned so far or if allowed by the DM become an Oathbreaker . To others it could mean they lose access to their class powers, since they've abandoned their class it's reasonable to argue they've also abandoned the features of that class. Either way, the rules aren't clear at all. Want an example of clear? Here's what 2e has to say about paladin's committing evil deeds, which would be the closest equivalent to failing their oath:
Harsh perhaps, but it's pretty clear what happens. No guess work on what happens to your exp or can you now specialize in a weapon.
5e puts so much of the burden on the DM to figure out what happens because as you've noted in bold the rules often enough can't be bothered to be clear enough so we need Jeremy Crawford to tweet clarifications. I'm 100% in agreement with @Micah Sweet that errata and tweets shouldn't be used anywhere near as much as they are to cover up for half-defined rules.
I agree then. The bounded accuracy is too tightly bound.
