D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[Yaarel]

Commoners do not have long bow proficiency as it's a martial weapon so they don't add any proficiency bonus. They also are listed with a 10 strength. So they need to roll a natural 19 or 20. And the commoner archers are shooting at disadvantage because it's beyond the regular reach of a longbow of 150'. An adult red dragon has an AC of 19. So each of the 300 commoners need to roll a double 19 or 20 to hit.

My back of the envelope estimate is each militia member has 0.01 odds of hitting each round. So I think 3 hit each round. Each hit does 4.5 damage (though I realize I didn't calculate crits there, I'd need to do the odds of rolling double 20s to crit). The dragon will take 13.5 damage each round (a bit more for crits). The adult red dragon has 256 hit points so needs 57 hits to take it down, or 19 rounds in this scenario . And that's not counting the militia members who are frightened and don't even get to fire in a round and the DC to save against their Frightful Presence is Wisdom DC 19, and commoners have a +0 to Wisdom saves, so the overwhelming majority will be afraid as it has a 120' radius. Those not afraid will be the ones dying every round, and I didn't include deaths from the Dragon in my analysis either.

If that is correct, then I don't think the militia is going to succeed in killing the dragon.

According to the 5e "Commoner" statblock, they do have a +2 to hit comparable to a Proficiency. The statblock Abilities are all +0 (Score 10). But an array of 13,12,11,10,9,8, or as I do to avoid negatives 13,12,12,11,11,10, would increase the hit to +3.

Meanwhile, the official Soldier statblock (found in Ravnica), indeed has the 13,12,12,11,11,10 array. It lists a longsword as the weapon, but can easily be a proficient Martial longbow for an artillery unit soldier.

In medieval Britain, it was routine for citizens to train militarily in longbow, especially the poor, because the wood was more affordable.

 

[Mistwell]

According to the 5e "Commoner" statblock, they do have a +2 to hit comparable to a Proficiency

Not with a longbow they don't. No proficiency with longbow listed, and no general martial weapon proficiency listed.

. The statblock Abilities are all +0 (Score 10). But an array of 13,12,11,10,9,8, or as I do to avoid negatives 13,12,12,11,11,10, would increase the hit to +3.

They don't get an array. They get what's listed, just like the Dragon does.

Meanwhile, the official Soldier statblock (found in Ravnica), indeed has the 13,12,12,11,11,10 array. It lists a longsword as the weapon, but can easily be a proficient Martial longbow for an artillery unit soldier.

A village doesn't have 300 full time trained soldiers. That's why it was called a militia. I was generous in even assuming they had 300 longbows which cost 50gp each (about a years worth of labor) and it's very unlikely they'd have them given they don't even use them competently.

In medieval Britain, it was routine for citizens to train militarily in longbow, especially the poor, because the wood was more affordable.

I am going by the rules not medieval Britain. There is a list of proficiencies and they don't have it. You guys can't change the scenario after pages of debating this. It is what it is. The claim was made a village can turn out 300 ordinary people and kill a dragon and this somehow proves Dragons are too weak in 5e. No, they can't, which disproves the claim being made. You can't change the rules and then use that change to claim the rules are not good - they work fine how they're written, they only started to break down when you guys suddenly tried to houserule villages with 300 trained soldiers and costly equipment they couldn't afford and different stats than what's in the rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

There is no disadvantage for 150+ feet unless the dragon is just waving at them. The breath weapon doesn't go that far and the claws, tail and bite are even closer.

That's why I jumped straight to emptying bags of terminal velocity cannon ball sized rocks. Dragons are about equal to much better than a commoner when it comes to int & Wis. With flight maneuverability ratings gone now it could simply hover several hundred feet up and raining down death if the dragon felt that they must deal with the village militia before making them into starving refugees.

Designing the edition around justifying "but the peasants could" is just silly because no village would be stupid enough to send it's entire militia to go poke a dragon in the eye for funsies with a significant portion of the village population. Likewise a dragon is likely to be similarly into the idea of not poking the village in the eye because that village or the crown it pays taxes to could hire adventurers to quietly gank them.

 

[Yaarel]

Not with a longbow they don't. No proficiency with longbow listed, and no general martial weapon proficiency listed.


They don't get an array. They get what's listed, just like the Dragon does.


A village doesn't have 300 full time trained soldiers. That's why it was called a militia. I was generous in even assuming they had 300 longbows which cost 50gp each (about a years worth of labor) and it's very unlikely they'd have them given they don't even use them competently.


I am going by the rules not medieval Britain. There is a list of proficiencies and they don't have it. You guys can't change the scenario after pages of debating this. It is what it is. The claim was made a village can turn out 300 ordinary people and kill a dragon and this somehow proves Dragons are too weak in 5e. No, they can't, which disproves the claim being made. You can't change the rules and then use that change to claim the rules are not good - they work fine how they're written, they only started to break down when you guys suddenly tried to houserule villages with 300 trained soldiers and costly equipment they couldn't afford and different stats than what's in the rules.

I consider a town of a thousand ablebodied citizens has 300 who can use weapons. Medieval towns train for this growing up.

If you are forcing me to find an official statblock that lists a longbow (even tho it is RAW for DM to create statblocks), consider the Warrior (Essentials Kit) with longbow attack +3. This warrior represents everyone who grew up participating in the town military training.


This is a situation where the Background needs to allow a martial weapon proficiency, and obviously the Soldier statblock should include the longbow attack.


Meanwhile, perhaps the town is training in magical defenses growing up. The Wizard Apprentice (Mordenkainen) is range attacking 1d10 +2 force damage from 120 feet away, plus three slot 1 spells. This is any Humanoid in any Urban environment, such as a typical town with an army. (Not sure why they have three slot 1 spells rather than one, but that is what the statblock says.)

 

[Maxperson]

That's why I jumped straight to emptying bags of terminal velocity cannon ball sized rocks. Dragons are about equal to much better than a commoner when it comes to int & Wis. With flight maneuverability ratings gone now it could simply hover several hundred feet up and raining down death if the dragon felt that they must deal with the village militia before making them into starving refugees.

Yeah, I get what you are saying, but to me that screams, "I'm the big bad dragon afraid of villagers to the point that I have to hide way up here and drop stuff." Not very dragon like. Dragons shouldn't have to worry about the villagers at all and should be able to just swoop down and burn a house there, a family there, here a family, there a family, everywhere some livestock.

Designing the edition around justifying "but the peasants could" is just silly because no village would be stupid enough to send it's entire militia to go poke a dragon in the eye for funsies with a significant portion of the village population. Likewise a dragon is likely to be similarly into the idea of not poking the village in the eye because that village or the crown it pays taxes to could hire adventurers to quietly gank them.

I get that, too. My feeling is that "peasants could" is enough to diminish dragon power in my eyes. Peasants should just not be able to.

 

[Mistwell]

I consider a town of a thousand ablebodied citizens has 300 who can use weapons. Medieval towns train for this growing up.

If you are forcing me to find an official statblock that lists a longbow (even tho it is RAW for DM to create statblocks), consider the Warrior (Essentials Kit) with longbow attack +3. This warrior represents everyone who grew up participating in the town military training.


This is a situation where the Background needs to allow a martial weapon proficiency, and obviously the Soldier statblock should include the longbow attack.


Meanwhile, perhaps the town is training in magical defenses growing up. The Wizard Apprentice (Mordenkainen) is range attacking 1d10 +2 force damage from 120 feet away, plus three slot 1 spells. This is any Humanoid in any Urban environment, such as a typical town with an army. (Not sure why they have three slot 1 spells rather than one, but that is what the statblock says.)

They are not made with PC abilities. They are commoners. It's listed in the book. And no, a town of 1000 does not have 1/3 as trained soldiers, this isn't medieval Europe, and Commoners "include peasants, serfs, servants, pilgrims, merchants, artisans, and hermits." That sounds like townsfolk to me. If were upgrading the scenario to some walled town prepped for warfare that's a different scenario.

 

[Yaarel]

They are not made with PC abilities. They are commoners. It's listed in the book. And no, a town of 1000 does not have 1/3 as trained soldiers, this isn't medieval Europe, and Commoners "include peasants, serfs, servants, pilgrims, merchants, artisans, and hermits." That sounds like townsfolk to me. If were upgrading the scenario to some walled town prepped for warfare that's a different scenario.

They arent merely "commoners". They grew up in a town legally-requiring military training.

 

[tetrasodium]

I consider a town of a thousand ablebodied citizens has 300 who can use weapons. Medieval towns train for this growing up.

If you are forcing me to find an official statblock that lists a longbow (even tho it is RAW for DM to create statblocks), consider the Warrior (Essentials Kit) with longbow attack +3. This warrior represents everyone who grew up participating in the town military training.


This is a situation where the Background needs to allow a martial weapon proficiency, and obviously the Soldier statblock should include the longbow attack.


Meanwhile, perhaps the town is training in magical defenses growing up. The Wizard Apprentice (Mordenkainen) is range attacking 1d10 +2 force damage from 120 feet away, plus three slot 1 spells. This is any Humanoid in any Urban environment, such as a typical town with an army. (Not sure why they have three slot 1 spells rather than one, but that is what the statblock says.)

You keep changing the scenario to justify the village (now town) militia being a threat to a dragon but going all the way back to the start of this way back here have yet to answer a single question about the scenario that explains why a dragon with human or better mental capabilities would fight the village militia on even ground right now or why the village suddenly lost its mind and sent the militia to pointlessly annoy the dragon.

 

[Mistwell]

They arent merely "commoners". They grew up in a town legally-requiring military training.

From what I was able to find on various message boards, the best argument I found on your end of the spectrum was, "the percentage of people in an army is roughly 5%, and increases up to a maximum of 10% during wartime. This means in a town of 1000, not currently fighting any wars, there should be approximately 50 trained guards. "

I then also saw, "The statistic is, in a medieval society, you're looking at about 90% of the population being subsistence farmers. 5% of the population being full-time military would mean that every other non-farmer is a guard. Remember that a town of 1000 people is actually not very big at all, and in an age where taxation is woefully unreliable, the government is fairly small. You'd be lucky to get 5 guards."

I also saw that the trained folk of a town would often be out of town on patrol, so many wouldn't even be in town ready to battle a dragon suddenly swooping in for an attack on the town.

So the estimate seems to range from 5 to 50 for a town of 1000. They're not beating an adult Red Dragon.

Your claim of 30% of the population being trained for warfare matches just one country: modern north Korea. That's it. No other nations were listed (old or modern) with such a high trained population level. Though nobody has good stats on, for example, Sparta.

 

[Yaarel]

From what I was able to find on various message boards, the best argument I found on your end of the spectrum was, "the percentage of people in an army is roughly 5%, and increases up to a maximum of 10% during wartime. This means in a town of 1000, not currently fighting any wars, there should be approximately 50 trained guards. "

I then also saw, "The statistic is, in a medieval society, you're looking at about 90% of the population being subsistence farmers. 5% of the population being full-time military would mean that every other non-farmer is a guard. Remember that a town of 1000 people is actually not very big at all, and in an age where taxation is woefully unreliable, the government is fairly small. You'd be lucky to get 5 guards."

So the estimate seems to range from 5 to 50 for a town of 1000. They're not beating an adult Red Dragon.

I agree, remote farmers far away might not train in military.

But we are talking about a town itself, where its citizens are required by law to train military, while growing up.

(Heh, in the Viking Period, kids start training for battle from around the age of 9, both male and female. It would be unthinkable to be untrained if ablebodied. Being part of the extended family militia to defend the family is a fundamental ethic.)