D&D (2024) Check Out The New Monster Manual’s Ancient Gold Dragon

Wizards of the Coast has previewed (part of) the stat block for one of its iconic monsters on social media. Take a look!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not sure what you are getting at then, are Epic Tier casters never supposed to use 6-9th level spells?

If Epic Tier casters use two or three 6-9th level spells are they now 'ineffective' in the next encounter?

Is battling a CR 24 Ancient Dragon not likely to be the culmination of that "Adventuring day"?

A strawman is when you argue against a point that was not made, so you can knock it down and claim victory. I never made any claim about Adventurers becoming impotent. I never made any claim either way about the fight being the culmination of the adventuring day.

If you would address the actual point I WAS making, I would be willing to continue this line of the discussion.

Its not far beyond what most Epic Tier characters achieve. ACs 25-30 are common (for lots of epic characters).

So what, epic characters have so many ways to heal or resist damage or gain temp HP that even a full attack chain plus the Tarrasque's Legendary Actions likely won't drop a martial character IF they ALL hit.

You need to play more Epic Tier. ACs of 25-30 are common.

26 is between 25 and 30, so I don't understand why you think saying 25-30 disproves my 26. Also, 30 is the high end, even of your own argument. So again, not seeing why 25 to 30 disproves my point.

And finally, you are pulling a slight of hand. An AC of 30 vs a +19 to hit still means you get hit at least half the time. Temp hp and resistance to damage does not affect the chance of you being hit. Neither does healing. So you have basically conceded the point that the fighter with an AC of 30, which is the top-end of your expected ACs you keep listing, is going to get hit, likely a lot. Whether or not you can heal that damage has nothing to do with my point, which was purely about "will you get hit most of the time". Which is yes.

I understand the Death Spiral, just as I understand the economy of Actions.

If the dragon takes two rounds of actions from all 4 PCs the fight is basically over. Thus to stand a chance of winning it needs to drop or at best deplete PC actions against it.

If the Monster goes down with around 10-11 PC turns worth of actions, its only chance is taking down a PC per turn: 4, 3, 2, 1 = 10

First of all, we now know that is not neccessarily true, do to the playtest linked previously.

Secondly, the answer to the action economy is not required to be damage. It is not having it be a solo fight. Which has been the consistent advice on all boss battles for at least a decade.

Thirdly, it doesn't have to have good odds of solo TPKing the party from max resources for it to be a good fight. That is an unreasonable standard

If by "Ultra Mega Death Edge Death Death" you mean the CR 30 monster, if it lands every attack drops 1.75 average HP Player Characters per round, then yes it should be Ultra Mega Death Edge Death Death.

I'm dismissive of the damage because I know first hand the damage is not high enough to trouble Epic Tier PCs - its as simple as that.

I disagree. For a Solo monster the damage is low. It won't make a dent.

"Won't make a dent" he says as he decides to cast some of the most powerful healing spells in the game to counteract the damage.

I don't buy the nonsense that Monster Challenge Rating was determined without assuming the PCs would have Level Appropriate gear.

Aside from the 2014 Luck feat I can't think of a feat that is notably better than taking the ability score boost.

Then you haven't paid much attention to optimization.

That's what I meant - so we can have functioning solo monsters.

But they still do not function as solo monsters. That is why giving bosses minions and lieutenants in the fight is the CONSTANT advice given.

The damage is not high enough. Plus the idea that a Wizard will have no way to mitigate the Fire damage is extremely unlikely.



Who don't operate on the front lines and Absorb Elements drops the damage below even Wizard HP totals - which they won't need if they already know they are facing a Dragon, which is likely because its a solo boss monsters not likely a random encounter, because they will Fire Resistance/Immunity already 'on'.



Wasn't there a gamer in the Playtest Thread who says his Monk PC solos the dragon 1 vs. 1.

You are not understanding how powerful Epic Tier PCs are.



Whom it likely doesn't hit with all attacks.



We have to highlight it because a lot of Epic PCs are Resistant to fire.

Instead of the Fire damage the dragon should just have dealt more slashing or piercing damage.



87 damage on a turn is not going to 'cut the mustard' at Epic Tier.

Resistance to fire damage drops the 87 damage to 75. That might not kill a wizard on average... but if you roll better than average it still will. Resisting 12 damage (total) is not making the wizard unkillable by this dragon. And not operating on the front line is pretty meaningless against a creature with an 80 ft fly speed and 15 ft reach

And you know what the strangest thing is? I keep giving numbers. Average damage, average hp, potential ACs and the chance to hit. You keep saying "you don't understand how strong these characters are". With.... nothing to change my mind. Just the insistence that I cannot possible have any idea what I am talking about, because I disagree with you.

So the Dragon nerf's its best attack to give the PCs an easier fight...is that what you are saying?

GM's have to play Epic Monsters to win and not pull punches.

No, that isn't what I was saying. But good job making a second strawman, little sloppier than the first though

 

[Chaosmancer]

To me here's an easy example:

Imagine a 17th level wizard with a 14 con has 98 hp. Now you might argue would a wizard always have 14 con, but I would argue that I am not included the myriad of ways this wizard might have buffed up their HP total (Aid, Heroes feast, temp hp from so many options you take your pick, etc).

Even at 98 hp, it takes the dragon 4 attacks to bring the wizard to 0. And note that if assume a simple AC 19 for the wizard, aka mage armor + shield + 12 dex, nothing crazy at these levels...but with a simple AC 19, the dragon only gets all 4 attacks to hit 65% of the time, more likely than not but certainly no guarrantee. Also, if the wizard does have fire resistance on, it actually takes 5 attacks on average. And then, it takes 2 more attacks while he's unconscious to kill him. And that's before I've looked at invulnerability or resistance to BPS or death ward or contingency, etc. and of course then he's one decent heal spell from being completely back in the fight.

So one of the physically weakest members of the party can stand up to a creature 7 CRs higher than its level, and face tank its entire attack regiment, plus a few LAs before the real risk of dying. And this isn't just any high CR monster, dragons are supposed to represent one of the physically strongest creatures in existence.

So yeah....the damage does seem low to me.

"Wizard with full buffs can only survive a single turn, possibly most of a round. Therefore monster is too weak"

That's not how that is going to play at the table. The wizard player is not going to be going "Look guys, it took a legendary action to drop me to zero, I'm under no threat whatsoever. This fight is going to be a cakewalk."

 

[Chaosmancer]

so then what are they supposed to do? just bat around some hitpoints for 3 rounds and then die?

Again this is a fight 7 CR higher than the players, if the dragon cannot even drop a PC in a round let alone kill them....than there is no real fight.

Yes there is. Just because a monster doesn't nearly TPK a party does not mean they did not have a rough fight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or, y'know, acknowledge that some groups have more than 4 players in their party...

If you're running a 7 player game, then a boss monster of matching CR to their level is going to get absolutely stomped.

Sure, and if like my next IRL game you are running a 2 player game, than using a boss monster of matching CR might be almost too much for them to handle.

The game designers have stated that they balance around 4 PCs, because that is the average. If you are specifically changing things because you have more PCs, that is a different discussion.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I don't think they are supposed to take down a PC in one round.

Exactly. That's why high CR Monsters are almost zero challenge for Epic Tier PCs. Their damage is too low.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I love this discussion! Thanks to all of you!

Where can I find some Epic Hero write ups? I'm not a master of the 5E rules so I don't know what a fighter or barbarian can do in terms of healing themselves. Other than potions. Or some insights into the feats or class abilities that can do this.

I play more Level Up and did run a group in there up to 17th level and they were powerful at that level.

Thanks!

There are not too many Epic Hero write ups. That might be a great idea for my new website, a place where people can showcase their Epic Tier characters and then others can use them as NPCs or as ideas for their own PCs.

 

[Upper_Krust]

A strawman is when you argue against a point that was not made, so you can knock it down and claim victory. I never made any claim about Adventurers becoming impotent. I never made any claim either way about the fight being the culmination of the adventuring day.

If you would address the actual point I WAS making, I would be willing to continue this line of the discussion.

Which was why I asked for clarification.

You DID say a PC caster using one of its higher level spells against the dragon was a big deal - which I countered it wasn't because they have 6 spells of levels 6-9 and most combats only last 3-4 rounds.

You DID mention "Adventuring Day" and how the party might not have all its best abilities still to use - which I countered by saying the Dragon's XP Reward positions it as a Highly Difficult encounter ON ITS OWN - not as the 3rd encounter of the day.

26 is between 25 and 30, so I don't understand why you think saying 25-30 disproves my 26. Also, 30 is the high end, even of your own argument. So again, not seeing why 25 to 30 disproves my point.

I simply stated AC's of 26-30 are common. You seemed to be of the opinion the Dragon will be easily hitting martial characters...it won't.

Which segued onto our discussion about how Banishing one character (the Tank) can have adverse impact on the Party's survivability.

And finally, you are pulling a slight of hand. An AC of 30 vs a +19 to hit still means you get hit at least half the time.

It doesn't have +19 it has +17.

Temp hp and resistance to damage does not affect the chance of you being hit. Neither does healing. So you have basically conceded the point that the fighter with an AC of 30, which is the top-end of your expected ACs you keep listing, is going to get hit, likely a lot.

No it won't and things like Second Wind as Bonus Actions are Healing which does not impede the Fighters ability to attack.

Whether or not you can heal that damage has nothing to do with my point, which was purely about "will you get hit most of the time". Which is yes.

No it isn't. With AC 28 you don't get hit most of the time, the Dragon misses you more than it hits.

First of all, we now know that is not neccessarily true, do to the playtest linked previously.

Secondly, the answer to the action economy is not required to be damage. It is not having it be a solo fight. Which has been the consistent advice on all boss battles for at least a decade.

If that were true then people wouldn't have been complaining to WotC the damage dealt by Epic Monsters was not too low for the past decade. But they have...and WotC have acknowledged this for years - they just seem incapable of designing an actually difficult challenge.

Thirdly, it doesn't have to have good odds of solo TPKing the party from max resources for it to be a good fight. That is an unreasonable standard

I agree to be a 'good fight' a monster doesn't need to have good odds of a TPK.

But I disagree if we are wanting the monster to be a "Highly Difficult" challenge for Epic Tier PCs.

"Won't make a dent" he says as he decides to cast some of the most powerful healing spells in the game to counteract the damage.

THAT'S WHAT EPIC CHARACTERS DO! They use powerful abilities, high level spells, legendary magic items.

Do you want them to not use high level spells at all against what is supposedly a Highly Difficult CR 24 monster?

Then you haven't paid much attention to optimization.

Char-Ops Powergamers will always find some way to break the game - but those are not the norm and we do not need to consider them with regard the typical power of Epic Tier PCs.

But they still do not function as solo monsters. That is why giving bosses minions and lieutenants in the fight is the CONSTANT advice given.

Which would be wholly unnecessary if the damage was simply high enough.

Resistance to fire damage drops the 87 damage to 75. That might not kill a wizard on average... but if you roll better than average it still will. Resisting 12 damage (total) is not making the wizard unkillable by this dragon. And not operating on the front line is pretty meaningless against a creature with an 80 ft fly speed and 15 ft reach

I think Stalker0 highlighted the contrast between a CR +7 monster vs. lower level characters and a CR +7 monster vs Epic Tier characters...against the lower level party the CR +7 difference dealt proportionally far more damage. Yet against Epic Tier characters who have far more ways to avoid, negate and heal damage the CR +7 monster deals proportionally far less.

So why are CR 24 monsters designed to be proportionally less deadly than CR 12 monsters?

If anything Epic Tier monsters should be dealing proportionally MORE damage, not less.

And you know what the strangest thing is? I keep giving numbers. Average damage, average hp, potential ACs and the chance to hit. You keep saying "you don't understand how strong these characters are". With.... nothing to change my mind. Just the insistence that I cannot possible have any idea what I am talking about, because I disagree with you.

What you have consistently done is pit the dragon against a Wizard and said if everything hits the Wizard is probably close to or at 0 hit points.

My point is, that should be the case against the Average PC, not the weakest PC with the lowest AC and the lowest Hit Points.

No, that isn't what I was saying. But good job making a second strawman, little sloppier than the first though

You seem to be getting unnecessarily upset. We are just having a friendly discussion here.

You are saying the damage is good enough. I am trying to explain to you it isn't (maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining myself, but the same issues remain).

1. People have been complaining to WotC about this for 10 years, its not just my opinion.
2. People who have played Epic Tier campaigns KNOW from experience, the monsters don't deal enough damage.
3. 2024 introduced more Power Creep for PCs, meaning the problem is only going to get bigger.

So in light of the new Gold Dragon stat-block; does +9 fire damage solve the issue?

Personally I already KNOW it won't and I suspect many others think the same. Hence our criticism of this new Ancient Gold Dragon and by extension the likelihood of the other high CR monsters in the 2025 Monster Manual not getting sufficiently buffed as well.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Sure, and if like my next IRL game you are running a 2 player game, than using a boss monster of matching CR might be almost too much for them to handle.

The game designers have stated that they balance around 4 PCs, because that is the average. If you are specifically changing things because you have more PCs, that is a different discussion.

All you need to do is stick to the XP budgets for the characters in your group. You don't need to match Challenge Ratings.

We know at what the XP Budgets is for PCs in for a Low Difficulty, Moderate Difficulty or Highly Difficult challenge.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I simply stated AC's of 26-30 are common

This is not my experience. Which is the point. High level characters will be VERY different in their abilities, depending on things like level of optimisation and equipment. The most obvious way to get an AC of 30 is +3 Full Plate, +3 Shield, Shield spell and Defence fighting style. Which might be perfectly normal in your experience. Weras in an non-optimising low magic item award game, the equivalent level 20 character might struggle to make an AC of 20. That's the difference between a cake walk for the players and a cake walk for the dragon.

 

[Upper_Krust]

This is not my experience. Which is the point. High level characters will be VERY different in their abilities, depending on things like level of optimisation and equipment.

Well when I say AC 25-30 is common, I mean among Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians and front line martial types.

The most obvious way to get an AC of 30 is +3 Full Plate, +3 Shield, Shield spell and Defence fighting style. Which might be perfectly normal in your experience. Weras in an non-optimising low magic item award game, the equivalent level 20 character might struggle to make an AC of 20. That's the difference between a cake walk for the players and a cake walk for the dragon.

I am just assuming a typical game with typical magic items, not a Low Magic Campaign - which obviously the GM may have to make allowances for.

Edit: Might be worth adding I don't expect to see a lot of Low Magic Epic Tier campaigns.