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!

IMG_1095.jpeg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's not what the Encounter XP Budgets tell us.

A CR 30 Monster is a Highly Difficult encounter for 8 Level 20 Characters
A CR 15 Monster is a Highly Difficult encounter for 5 Level 10 Characters
I'll put out the math so we all are speaking the same language. I will also use 4 PCs as the standard default.

For lvl 10 characters, their encounter budget for a hard encounter is: 3,100 x 4 = 12,400
A CR 15 monster 13,000 xp. The overall encounter is 105% of the budget.

For lvl 20 characters, the budget is: 22,000 x 4 = 88,000
The CR30 tarrasque is 155,000 xp. The overall encounter is 176% of the budget.


So the tarrasque to a 20th lvl party should be SIGNIFICANTLY more deadly to the 20th levl party than a CR 15 to a lvl 10 party.

So what CR would be the equivalent for a lvl 10 party, based on these calculations? That would be: 21,824 or ~CR18.


So lets look at some CR18 damages compared to the 62 hp of a 10th lvl wizard with 14 con.

Drow Favored Consort: 105 DPS
Fire Giant Forgemaster: 72 DPS
Amnizu: 76 DPS

so yeah wizard is getting dropped. That should be the minimum expectation for the tarrasaque, and likely moreso since 20th level groups have so many ways to heal and avoid death.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you shoot for the "golden 65%" then this AGD with +17 attack should be targeting AC 25. Except in farily high-powered games, IME AC 25 is pretty much a high cap for PCs.

With AC 22, the PCs should be shooting for +14 on attack. Likely enough given +11 from proficiency and ability alone, if not a little better in 2024 with ability scores over 20 more possible. However, even a +11, throw in a +1 or +2 weapon and maybe a spell like bless or something and the PCs are right at or better than the 65% target.

A simple house-rule I do when I run high-power games is up the AC by 1 point per tier. So, this AGD would be AC 26 then.
Its important to keep in mind that while to hit rates have some impact on a given hits expected damage, it has a notable impact when you look over the entire rounds worth of attacks.

Going back to our gold with its +17 attack. If you take a simple wizard with +1 dex, mage armor, and shield that is an AC 19. A full 90% chance to hit, practically a given!

However, if you look at the dragon hitting 4 times in a row (aka its 3 primary attacks and then one LA), there is only a 65% chance that happens. More likely than not, but certainly not a given (and that's what the dragon needs to do to drop a standardish wizard).

And then if the wizard gets healed and the dragon has to do it again? The overall chance of all 8 attacks hitting is only 43%.

And again that is from a mighty 90% chance to hit. How about an AC 23 (+1 plate, +1 shield, defense fighting style). A nice AC but nothing crazy. Its only 32% chance that all 4 attacks hit, and a meer 10% chance that all 8 do over 2 rounds.


So while AC might not seem like its doing much against that +17....when you look at the fight as a whole, its doing a lot more than you think.
 


Its important to keep in mind that while to hit rates have some impact on a given hits expected damage, it has a notable impact when you look over the entire rounds worth of attacks.

Going back to our gold with its +17 attack. If you take a simple wizard with +1 dex, mage armor, and shield that is an AC 19. A full 90% chance to hit, practically a given!

However, if you look at the dragon hitting 4 times in a row (aka its 3 primary attacks and then one LA), there is only a 65% chance that happens. More likely than not, but certainly not a given (and that's what the dragon needs to do to drop a standardish wizard).

And then if the wizard gets healed and the dragon has to do it again? The overall chance of all 8 attacks hitting is only 43%.
That isn't how I work the numbers...

The dragon doesn't have to hit with all 4 attacks. You are better off looking at expected damage per round. In your example, the dragon (actually) hits 95% vs. AC 19 (only missing on a 1, a 2 hits).

Going with the most basic attacks, it does a GB at the end of the turn of the creature before it acts. It only has a 90% to hit with that, for 7d6 damage, is 23.275 (including crits).

Then the dragon attacks with 3 rends, all with 95% chance (assuming the wizard doesn't cast shield...?), dealing 27.5 damage per attack expected (again, including criticals).

All together, the expected damage is 105.775 in one round vs. AC 19. Given a 20th-level Wizard with CON 14 will average 122 HP, the dragon is not likely to take him down in a single round.
And again that is from a mighty 90% chance to hit. How about an AC 23 (+1 plate, +1 shield, defense fighting style). A nice AC but nothing crazy. Its only 32% chance that all 4 attacks hit, and a meer 10% chance that all 8 do over 2 rounds.
Same attack sequence against AC 23 would yield 84.075 expected damage. Given a typical fighter with CON 16 at 184 hp, this is less than half the fighter's HP. A single heal at 7th level would negate all that damage; and a 20th-level cleric can do that at least twice.

So while AC might not seem like its doing much against that +17....when you look at the fight as a whole, its doing a lot more than you think.
I don't think AC is doing a lot... I think the lack of damage on the dragon's part is the bigger factor.
 

I find it interesting that so many people are being theoretical about things when there's a thread where combat with the dragon is actually tested out just a few threads below this one.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I recall a thread once where some "tested" the new Vecna (who lost) and then it was done "more effectively" and Vecna kicked ass.

One person's run at a mock-combat is not like how another might do it. And I imagine many of us (yourself included apparently) are following both. :)
 

That isn't how I work the numbers...

The dragon doesn't have to hit with all 4 attacks. You are better off looking at expected damage per round. In your example, the dragon (actually) hits 95% vs. AC 19 (only missing on a 1, a 2 hits).

Going with the most basic attacks, it does a GB at the end of the turn of the creature before it acts. It only has a 90% to hit with that, for 7d6 damage, is 23.275 (including crits).

Then the dragon attacks with 3 rends, all with 95% chance (assuming the wizard doesn't cast shield...?), dealing 27.5 damage per attack expected (again, including criticals).

All together, the expected damage is 105.775 in one round vs. AC 19. Given a 20th-level Wizard with CON 14 will average 122 HP, the dragon is not likely to take him down in a single round.

Same attack sequence against AC 23 would yield 84.075 expected damage. Given a typical fighter with CON 16 at 184 hp, this is less than half the fighter's HP. A single heal at 7th level would negate all that damage; and a 20th-level cleric can do that at least twice.


I don't think AC is doing a lot... I think the lack of damage on the dragon's part is the bigger factor.
You should be assuming the Dragon has all 3 LA’s not 1
 

I find it interesting that so many people are being theoretical about things when there's a thread where combat with the dragon is actually tested out just a few threads below this one.
And its a good test to see. Ultimately that test was a pretty worst case scenario for the players, their was 0 prep, they all started clumped together, their dice luck in the first couple of rounds was horrendous (the fact that the fighter got banished with a +21 saving throw not once but twice is what completely swung the fight). And the wizard in that group picked some very bad spells against a legendary dragon (the wizard could have just used magic missile and been more effective in that fight).

and even with all of that the fighter almost killed the dragon.

What it showed is that the dragon is a credible threat if you don't take it seriously, its not just some goomba you can stomp at will. It highlighted the possibilities for the banish and how strong it can be. But I think its also shows how lacking the dragon could have been if things had gone even slightly better for the players. Again the fighter doesn't get banished, the dragon is probably dead on round 2.
 

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I recall a thread once where some "tested" the new Vecna (who lost) and then it was done "more effectively" and Vecna kicked ass.

One person's run at a mock-combat is not like how another might do it. And I imagine many of us (yourself included apparently) are following both. :)
The Vecna fight was a big surprise to me, I did not think that vecna would do as well as it did. Ultimately I think that was a well run mock fight, the players and vecna all tried some smart tactics and spells, nothing super crazy optimal but play I considered reasonable for players that would have played those characters a while.

It showed that having 3 attacks at those high CRs is just way stronger than 2 in many cases. Being able to drop an opponent on your first attack, move in, crit crit and instant dead, is SOOOOO much scarier than a two attack routine that will leave the player with 2 death saves but then all sorts of ways to just heal them back up.
 

You should be assuming the Dragon has all 3 LA’s not 1
It only gets 1 before it goes and then another PC gets to act. That PC might be able to heal or whatever the PC who was just attacked, so I can't really assume the damage continues. That is just how I do it.
 


Trending content

Remove ads

Trending content

Remove ads

Top