D&D 5E Dragons and Resistances

[DaveDash]

It's pretty easy for high level adventurers to dictate the time and place of the engagement with a Dragon using a range of spells. Scrying, arcane eye, find the path, etherealness, gate the Dragon to you, and so forth.

Ethereal into the Dragons lair, Ottos Irresistible Dance, dead dragon round 1. They don't get true sight any more, remember? Makes them quite easy to ambush.

Now you could restrict all this by having a Dragons lair trapped and warded, but throwing in magical guards and wards around a Dragons lair is increasing the CR of the fight, making up for a weakly designed monster.
Dragons also presumably have to come out of their lairs to hunt and this makes them easy to ambush by high level parties, due to their inherent weaknesses.

It really doesn't matter how clever you are as a DM, four clever players will find ways to exploit a Dragons weaknesses, which there are many. You can't assume clever players wont find ways to get to the dragon directly, or won't conserve their resources until the Dragon fight.

IMO it was a design flaw to remove true sight and such from monsters which are basically meant to be the ultimate solo challenges in the game.

 

[Mouseferatu]

IMO it was a design flaw to remove true sight and such from monsters which are basically meant to be the ultimate solo challenges in the game.

Are they, though?

Don't get me wrong, I like dragons being at or near the top of the pyramid, too. But is the game really intended to work that way?

It certainly was (or at least arguably so) in 3E and 4E. But before that? Look at BECMI or 1E. There's nothing in those editions to make dragons any more substantial than other creatures of the same general HD/XP value.

There's no inherent reason dragons must be among the toughest things in the game. One could argue that, just as the "dungeons" in Dungeons & Dragons are quite common in default play, so too should the "dragons" be.

Again, I don't prefer that take myself. I want my dragons exceedingly rare and exceedingly deadly. But it's certainly a legitimate take, with some historical support.

 

[DaveDash]

Are they, though?

Don't get me wrong, I like dragons being at or near the top of the pyramid, too. But is the game really intended to work that way?

It certainly was (or at least arguably so) in 3E and 4E. But before that? Look at BECMI or 1E. There's nothing in those editions to make dragons any more substantial than other creatures of the same general HD/XP value.

There's no inherent reason dragons must be among the toughest things in the game. One could argue that, just as the "dungeons" in Dungeons & Dragons are quite common in default play, so too should the "dragons" be.

Again, I don't prefer that take myself. I want my dragons exceedingly rare and exceedingly deadly. But it's certainly a legitimate take, with some historical support.

Yes, having Dragons as "just another monster" is perfectly valid. I started playing AD&D 2nd Edition however, and from that moment on they were some of the ultimate monsters in the game.

But casting that all aside, they still don't live up to their CR, IMO.

It doesn't matter how smart you play them, if you take them as written, they don't hold up so well. This is mostly due to their base damage outside of their breath weapon is quite low for their CR, and their legendary actions require them to get close to stack up additional damage, which is usually a pretty bad idea.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Funny thing is, I just compared some stats. Green dragon--a good, average dragon--at all age categories vs. another creature of the same CR and the default values in the DMG. (I used an ogre, a frost giant, a purple worm, and an empyrean, the last of which is actually one CR higher than the equivalent dragon, but there were no non-dragons of the precise CR.)

And here's the thing. In every single case, the dragons compared well in almost every respect. Their average damage (if one includes legendary actions) is on par, their HP is on par or better, their AC and saves are on par or better. It varies, of course, but we're talking about only a bit in each direction. And I did not take lair abilities into account.

Dragons are under-hit-pointed compared to the DMG defaults, but so are the others. Everything else? Well, any perceived inferiority on the dragons' part, averaged over a three-round fight, is just that: perceived.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Now, if you want to argue that most critters in the MM are weak for their CR, you might well have a case.

But the numbers just don't justify singling out dragons.

 

[Jaelommiss]

I think a big reason that dragons seem weak is because players fear them more than the majority of other foes. From what I have seen, players are far more likely to spend every ability they have as soon as they see a dragon. They do not do the same for other creatures, even when they are equally challenging. Because players throw everything they have at dragons, dragons tend to die faster, and thus appear weaker compared to equal CR monsters.

A dragon's biggest weakness is being a dragon.

 

[Derren]

Now, if you want to argue that most critters in the MM are weak for their CR, you might well have a case.

But the numbers just don't justify singling out dragons.

That was the conclusion in the "Legendaries are not Solos" (I think) thread that at mid to high level the CR system breakes down unless you use lots and lots of monsters.
Dragons as iconic monsters are just the most likely candidate where this is noticed as people expect a hard fight and they often fight alone without hordes of minions.

 

[DaveDash]

Now, if you want to argue that most critters in the MM are weak for their CR, you might well have a case.

But the numbers just don't justify singling out dragons.

I guess the correct statement is that solo's do not work in 5e.

For example, take the Archmage from the back of the book. By himself, a party (even lower level) can probably kill him in one round, but give him some minions to hide behind and he becomes a much more formidable foe.

The problem with Dragons is their lore generally dictates that they act alone, and they need to be able to stand up alone. That's why I give them max hitpoints and true sight.

 

[Erik42]

As has been mentioned, dragons did not originally have magic resistance or special defenses, such as needing magic weapons to hit. Early in the game, there was a lot of discussion that dragons were weak - an ancient huge red dragon only had 88 hp an AC of -1 and could only use their breath weapons three times a day. Most people seemed to think that this was unfair as it was widely agreed that dragons should be pretty close to the top of the food chain. A good article came out in Dragon Magazine that suggested bolstering dragon damage, adding a tail sweep and a wing buffet to their attacks.

In my mind, the think that should make a dragon dangerous is its intelligence. Dragons should be played intelligently - in their lairs they should have defenses out in place and a quick escape route. They should take full advantage of their ability to fly; I always liked to have them fly out of the party's range and drop things, strafe with their breath weapons, and not be afraid to retreat if outclassed. Dragons are old, which means that they have learned to survive. If they have acquired magic items, I have them use them in combat if appropriate.

Dragons are going to be as tough or weak as the DM wants them to be.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

Right, see, I said "intelligently." If your DM is treating the dragon as if it is unaware of the existence of crossbows, he is doing it wrong. A smart dragon would fight outdoors only on a windy day (disadvantage for ranged weapon attacks), and it would almost never fight outside the region that counts as its lair. Against ranged attackers, a blue or white dragon would more likely burrow than fly; green or black would prefer to fight deep underwater. They would all do everything possible to keep you from having a clear shot as they let their breath recharge. Also, spellcasting dragons have plenty of ways to stymie ranged attacks.

People seem to enjoy a very restrictive reading of the word "lair," by the way. In my game, if a dragon lives inside a mountain, then that whole mountain is its lair, so lair effects can be used anywhere in, on, or above that mountain. Regional effects extend one mile beyond that. The mere act of getting to the dragon's lair is an arduous process, and a severe drain on resources.

I'm guessing a lot of the so-called "easy dragon fights" went something like:

"Can we fight a dragon?"

"Sure. A dragon swoops down out of the sky. Roll initiative."

Which actually has nothing to do with how dragons should be played.

Right on brother!