D&D (2024) Testing against the Gold Dragon

Use your inspiration to reroll the save..
Don't if you don't have a reasonable chance to actually save.
You need at least a +10 bonus on average to make the investment worth it. And at least a +4 bonus before you should even bother at all.
It's a 20th level fight. I would be frustrated if it felt just like a 10th level fight.
I don't like a DC 24 banishment effect.
But as I already said somewhere: having mage slayer should be mandatory for everyone that does not want to be taken out of combats woth a single mind effecting spell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Use your inspiration to reroll the save.

It's a 20th level fight. I would be frustrated if it felt just like a 10th level fight.
You can make it feel like a 20th level fight as opposed to a 10th level fight without kicking players out of that fight.

I would honestly rather have my character DIE than be unharned but unable to act.

In the case of the Gpld Dragon, I like the fluff of the banishment, and I wouldn't mind it the first time (as opposed to a stun effect, which I never enjoy) but if I clawed my way back to the fight only to get hit with it again?

I might just leave the table.

"Have fun playing, gang! I have better things to do with my time!"

Look, I'm not particularly proud of being that impatient. I just expect that it would make me feel that way.
 


I agree with most everything you said, except this:
I would honestly rather have my character DIE than be unharned but unable to act.

I really can't even get my head wrapped around that. I guess I am colored by the idea that dead = dead in my games. Magic to bring people back from the dead is very rare in the game we are playing. So if my choice is: lose my character for ever versus be out of the fight for a round or two, it doesn't even really seem like a choice. Banish 100% of the time for me. Not saying it would be fun for that combat, but I still have my beloved character (unless it is a TPK - in which case sure)
 

Yeah, I likely would never use the Banishment on the same character twice in a row, unless they made themselves the only possible target. Just because you CAN do something, does not mean you should.
 

Yeah, I likely would never use the Banishment on the same character twice in a row, unless they made themselves the only possible target. Just because you CAN do something, does not mean you should.
It is a playstyle issue as a DM. Do you (as DM) play the monsters to win or do you play them to be "fun" for the players. Both are valid approaches with the right group (players and DM).
 

I agree with most everything you said, except this:
Well, I suppose that I might have meant "drop to zero" - but I stand by the other, too. At least dying makes it feel like the monster is dangerous, not that my character is useless.

My attitude there also stems from trauma from a 4e fight thst lasted 20 rounds wherein I was stunned, but otherwise unharmed for 18 of them (and missed my two attacks in the 2 rounds I got to play). I will never go back to that horror!

I really can't even get my head wrapped around that. I guess I am colored by the idea that dead = dead in my games.
In 39 years of gaming I have only - once - had a character come back to life. And that was two years later for a sequel campaign where the mystery of how he came back was a major plot point. And it was only because everyone missed him, not just me.

Magic to bring people back from the dead is very rare in the game we are playing. So if my choice is: lose my character for ever versus be out of the fight for a round or two, it doesn't even really seem like a choice. Banish 100% of the time for me. Not saying it would be fun for that combat, but I still have my beloved character (unless it is a TPK - in which case sure)
I can make new characters. I like monsters to be dangerous, not just toy with me. At least I'd get to RP a dramatic death instead of RPing the frustration of getting tossed aside whole my friends fight. Or worse, the blank RP of being stunned.
 
Last edited:

I figured they might be blocked one direction or the other. 🤷‍♂️


And a bit of luck IMO.
Not remotely luck. Just math. The monk is a sure bet. It isn't close.

Let's put them toe to toe. Dragon: AC 22, HP 546, 4 attacks doing 28 damage each (assuming an extra attack for its legendary action. Monk: AC 27 (unarmored defence + bracers and ring), HP 183, 5 attacks doing 18 damage each (1d12+1d6+8).

Assume Monk attacks first because higher initiative bonus and much higher speed (though you can assume the opposite if you want; then the monk takes a bit more damage on the first round but still wins easily). Monk is taking half damage from all attacks that hit due to superior defence (they don't really need to use it, but why not?).

The dragon is poisoned for the entire encounter, because hand of harm (unless you're immune to the poisoned condition, you're poisoned. There is no save). So the dragon only has a 30.25% chance to hit with any attack (.55x.55), or 1.21 hits per round. Monk can deflect one attack for up to 32.5 damage each round, and may as well spend a focus point to hit back for 11 damage (20x.55, given the dragon's +9 dex save). Also, the dragon only has a 0.25% chance of a critical on any attack, so critical hits from it are not really worth considering. So in melee, the ancient gold dragon only manages to damage the monk once every 5 rounds on average, for 14 HP. Or an average of 3 damage per round (these are averages; in actuality it's a bit swingier than this but the monk is really in zero danger).

The monk is pretty much immune to the dragon's breath weapon, between having a +14 to dex saves, a re-roll if needed because disciplined survivor, and evasion. WORST case scenario is the monk takes 15 damage which...whatever - one hand of healing more than fixes it. Note that the monk is proficient in ALL saves, with a re-roll if needed, so spells in general are not a great option for the dragon.

Long story short, the dragon can barely damage the monk. In fact, if they want to spend a bit longer on the encounter, the monk can finish at full health by tossing a hand of healing on themselves as desired, but they don't need to bother. They're in no danger unless they run out of focus points.

How much damage is the monk doing? Note that all I've assumed the monk has for an upgrade is the eldritch claw tattoo (+1 hit/damage, and once per day can activate to add a d6 extra damage to attacks with up 15' range, which the monk is using). My monk got this at level 7; it's an uncommon magic item. Realistically, a level 20 monk will also have +2 or +3 wraps, but, eh, doesn't need 'em. I've intentionally given the monk minimal upgrades. So the monk is +14 to hit (+6 proficiency+7 dex+1 tattoo), with 5 attacks from the attack action + flurry of blows (one of which will be hand of harm). We would expect a .65 hit rate, but we'll reduce it to .6 for ease. Epic boon is combat prowess, so that turns one miss into a hit. Long story short: monk hits an average of 4 times/round for 72 HP, rounded up to 75 to account for the occasional critical hit.

So between that offence + a bit of damage from defect attacks, the monk should kill the dragon in seven rounds pretty easily, while taking almost no damage.

The dragon's best bet is to fly away. It needs to fly up, because the monk is actually faster than it. If I'm the dragon, I cast banishment until I get lucky and use the opportunity to escape.

Hand of harm makes a level 20 Mercy Monk absolutely lethal to anything that isn't immune to poison, and all monks have ridiculous survivability at that level.
 

My attitude there also stems from trauma from a 4e fight thst lasted 20 rounds wherein I was stunned, but otherwise unharmed for 18 of them (and missed my two attacks in the 2 rounds I got to pkay). I will never go back to that horror!
My version of this story was in a 3E game where a PC was paralyzed near the end of a session during a big battle with one of the campaign’s main villains. He was paralyzed for the entire next (6 hour) session and then finally was released early in the session after. I think that whole battle was like 56 rounds (it was kinda crazy).

Thankfully, the player had NPCs they could run and was very invested in the group’s actions and successes, so remained engaged and was not at all upset when I apologized for the circumstances.

But I get the frustration
 

You can make it feel like a 20th level fight as opposed to a 10th level fight without kicking players out of that fight.

I would honestly rather have my character DIE than be unharned but unable to act.

In the case of the Gpld Dragon, I like the fluff of the banishment, and I wouldn't mind it the first time (as opposed to a stun effect, which I never enjoy) but if I clawed my way back to the fight only to get hit with it again?
So, you'd rather the DM take it easy on the players? Do players not get to use Banishment on their enemies, either?

Being knocked out, or stunned, or banished, or whatever so as a player you have to just sit by and watch (for a little while) is eventually part of the game for everyone--even the DM. Through bad saves I once had a sub-boss "taken out" of a fight in round 1 and watched helplessly as the PCs pounded the crap out if it over five rounds---it never even got to act once--before they killed it.

It sucks, sure, but so does rolling badly and just missing all the time for five rounds, and such things happen more often IME.

I might just leave the table.

"Have fun playing, gang! I have better things to do with my time!"

Look, I'm not particularly proud of being that impatient. I just expect that it would make me feel that way.
I would certainly hope not!

If your PC is constantly targeted by such an effect there is a reason for it. Either you are the easiest to affect with it, making it practically a 100% safe option all the time (hopefully no metagaming on the DM here---which unfortunately I've see too much of), or you are the greatest threat in the enemies estimation and removing you from the fight is the enemy's best hope.

I understand it sucks when it happens (I often allow players whose prospects for rejoining look bleak to roll and even play for the enemy side!), but this is supposed to be a social activity for the whole group, and walking out like that would generate a serious discussion in the group whether or not to let you return. Acts like that ruin everyones' fun... not just yours.
 

Remove ads

Top