Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 410209" data-attributes="member: 151">Re: Re: Re: Re: Green Dragon stuffI suppose the question comes to mind: 'Why are you playing D&D to do this, then?'  You wanted to know how a single 10th level character could defeat a monster with a CR of 21, within the boundaries of the system.  When you were rebuffed that it wasn't tactically feasible under the rules, you pointed out that it would work due to story requriements.  If so, bully for you.  But if you don't like the cold hard fact that under normal 3E rules, this isn't possible except under unusual circumstances, I'm not sure what to tell you.  If you want the story to override the rules, then by all means do so....but don't chide others for pointing it out to you, after you asked.  There are other game systems that better reflect an emphasis on story over rules, and that seem to allow the more cinematic style you're looking for.If your DM is planning on making the encounter with the CR21 creature a EL 11 encounter, you should have mentioned that at the outset.  That would make this a winnable situation, but the Wyrm would either have to be extremely addled, wounded or some other mitigating factor to make this a winnable situation.  There are a variety of spells that can completely shut your DWS down, especially at the relatively low level you operate at.  Unless the dragon has lost his senses, he won't allow you to manipulate him into making himself a target.  And once he locates you, unless you're equipped with level inappropriate items, you are, by and large, dead.Does this mean that such a scenario is completely impossible?  Of course it isn't.  Under the right conditions, it can happen.  But you haven't specified those conditions, you've merely asked very generic ones, forcing the assumption that nothing is out of the ordinary, tactically-speaking.  Part of the issue here is that you come off sounding as if you want to have bragging rights for legitimately defeating the dragon, although it also sounds like you're having it handed to you on a platter.  Whether you intend it or not, you present the case a battle you've already won, like a puzzle-box that you'll shortly figure out how to open.  To players who've fought and lost characters in similar situations, that comes across badly.  Worse, it sounds similar to the situation of a middle-school student bragging about killing Tiamat with his 3rd-level fighter, after he found Excalibur.  Right or wrong, it reminds folks of extreme cases of silly monty haul-esque games.I personally see little thrill in defeating a much more powerful enemy by DM fiat, but YMMV.  My players and I share equal faith in the rules and our collective abilities, and I hold the dice above reproach, usually.  Will I change some factors to make a combat more challenging?  If it makes the game more fun, certainly.  But the rules allow a shared common reference, and if you fudge them too often, they become meaningless.  Recently, my players (6 15th-17th chars) went up against a powerful Black (CR 17 + Sorceror levels).  One of my players asked me if I would allow save-or-die spells to work against the black, and I told him 'certainly, and I'll give a golf clap and say, 'well played'.'  We both knew full well the odds of such a spell succeeding (and they didn't)....but the faith that it might is a motivational factor for players.  No risk means no fun for many players, and the story is meaningless if they can't actually fail.I'm curious...is the DWS character one you've leveled up from 1st...or was he created out of whole cloth at a higher level, possibly even as he currently is?  That might explain your 'I don't care if he dies, it'll be fun' attitude.A large chunk of the community here has been playing for 20 years or more, without the 'on and off' part, and truthfully, I don't think it's terribly relevant to the discussion.  In a discussion about gaming history, yes; but an argument about how to do something in a particular variant of the game that's only 3 years old, I don't think it is.  Length of play time has no effect on maturity, either: I've met mature gamers who've only played for a few weeks, and immature ones who've been playing since the '70s.</blockquote>

Verification