Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9418261">While you have a valid point, I think it is important to also look at the other side... humans did take down elephants, mammoths, etc. but often times were injured or died in the process. It was also typically several humans vs. one creature, which they ran to exhaustion, harassing, etc. the entire time.Now, take those Stong Age humans and put them up against a chimera, for example. Enough humans will eventually kill it, sure, but they'd lose dozens in the process. In 5E terms, given high enough numbers, even hundreds or thousands, of commoners with bows would kill an adult dragon.D&D doesn't nerf human weaponry IMO. But the game isn't designed around having masses of humanoids (PCs, hirelings, etc.) battle creatures---it is designed around the party.Anyway, consider an elephant in 5E. It would take about 12-15 "hits" to reduce it to 0 hp. With an AC of 12, a dozen Stone Age "hunters" could probably take it down in 2-3 rounds. Sure, some of them might get hurt or even killed if they got too close. But strategy could allow one or two hunters to be "targets" while the rest use hit-and-run tactics. And of course, bows and thrown spears, as well as the classic maneuver it into a tight space / off a cliff move, help a lot, too.Finally, this bring up a pet peeve I have, not really related to the thread: having a bonus to damage raise the minimum. The 5E elephant, for example, due to Strength CANNOT deal less than 9 damage. Which outright KILLS a commoner, even though IRL people have surviving elephant attacks. IMO every attack, I don't care what it is, should be able to deal only 1 point of damage, regardless of modifiers.</blockquote>

Verification