D&D 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen Errors

[MerricB]

Originally posted by EbbTide808:

In area 9 (the dragon shrine) of episode 3 (the dragon hatchery) it states that the chest can be opened by the key found in area 11 (which is Mondath's chambers).  However, there is no key in the description of that area. Was the intention for Mondath to have the key?
 
Thank you for all the clarifications!

Originally posted by Huscarl:

EbbTide808 wrote:In area 9 (the dragon shrine) of episode 3 (the dragon hatchery) it states that the chest can be opened by the key found in area 11 (which is Mondath's chambers).  However, there is no key in the description of that area. Was the intention for Mondath to have the key?

The key could be on the writing desk, in Mondath's trunk, or in one of her pocketses.
 
Steve
 

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by maceo00:

In the Dragon Hatchery there are three eggs with one egg being more difficult to discover.
 
The rewards (p.27) are 250xp for each egg destroyed or taken and 500xp if you only destroy or take two of the three.
 
So if the characters find and take/destroy the third hard-to-find egg they are penalized?
 
I'm sure I'm missing something.
 
 
Originally posted by trystero11:

maceo00 wrote:In the Dragon Hatchery there are three eggs with one egg being more difficult to discover.
 
The rewards (p.27) are 250xp for each egg destroyed or taken and 500xp if you only destroy or take two of the three.
 
So if the characters find and take/destroy the third hard-to-find egg they are penalized?
 
I'm sure I'm missing something.

I suspect the intent is a flat 250 XP per egg (which equates to 500 XP if the party only gets two of the three eggs) rather than 250 XP per egg and an additional 500 XP for only getting two. But that's just my guess.

Originally posted by Huscarl:

I suspect the intent is a flat 250 XP per egg (which equates to 500 XP if the party only gets two of the three eggs) rather than 250 XP per egg and anadditional 500 XP for only getting two. But that's just my guess.

That's correct, Originally there were 20 dragon eggs in the nursery, but that was cut down to three in development. The reward was 1,000 XP for dealing with all 20, or 500 XP if characters missed the 20th egg and left it behind (because the cult would recover it). When the number of eggs was changed, the XP reward was changed to 250 XP per egg captured or destroyed. The last bullet point in that list could be stricken; it's obfuscating more than it's clarifying. 
 
Steve
 
 

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by trystero11:

A few other minor issues I've noted (some of which are just minor typos and grammar):

• p. 9, Dragon Attack section: For consistency, change "Its chief contribution has been its Frightful Presence" to "His chief contribution has been his Frightful Presence". Change "its fight, and it isn't keen" to "his fight, and he isn't keen".
• p. 17, General Features section continued from p. 16: In the final paragraph, change "large ten" to "large tent".
• p. 26, Black Dragon Eggs (area 10A): In the third paragraph, the roper is listed as "not averse to talking", but ropers cannot speak or understand any language according to their statblock.
• p. 39, Waterdeep section: In the second paragraph, the text says "Azbara Jos remains with the cultists during this time, and Jamna expresses her desire to remain with them until they uncover the treasure's destination." This is ambiguous: the second "them" refers to the PCs, not the cultists.
  
• p. 41, Carnath Roadhouse map: The map appears to be missing a red "door" indicator in the gap in the northern wall of the warehouse (area 3), just west of the stairs to the upper level. The text for area 3 mentions a warehouse door ("latched but unlocked").
  
• p. 70, Hunting Lodge Upper Floor map: There are three rooms marked as area 18, which is supposed to be Talis' bedchamber. I'm assuming that the northernmost two rooms marked as area 18 should be unmarked (and should be treated as empty bedrooms, since there is no description for them) and that the southernmost room, with the burgundy bedspread mentioned in the area 18 description, is the correct location. Also, area 22 is not indicated on the map, though its location is clear from its description.
  

Originally posted by EbbTide808:

trystero11 wrote:

• p. 26, Black Dragon Eggs (area 10A): In the third paragraph, the roper is listed as "not averse to talking", but ropers cannot speak or understand any language according to their statblock.

​​ 
Their lack of language is also backed up by the Monster Manual entry. I'm assuming here that this encounter was designed before it was decided ropers neither speak nor understand language.  As it stands, without the roper initiating a conversation with the players their only choices are really just to fight or flee. Fighting would likely result in a TPK. The whole point of this encounter is to get the players talking their way out of a combat they will likely lose. 

Originally posted by DahUnder:

Very interesting to read everyone's concerns. I'm an old gamer having the interesting experience of a party that includes just one vet and three new, young players. Completely agree with the notion that the DM has to get a feel for the party and adjust a bit on the fly. I had to ease the hatchery a little bit and I strengthened the party for future combat by making the relations with Frume and Erlanthar stronger. Thus, the two of them just bequested the party with some needed, character targeted, simple magic items.
 
Here is my bemusement with the adventure and I'm hoping I just missed a line or two of explanation- The Well of Dragons is at the northern edge of the Sunset Mountains.  That being the case, why are these cultists taking their treasure all the way north of Waterdeep? Is there a necessity of delivering via Skyreach Castle? Is it impossible to travel ENE from where the adventure begins?

Originally posted by mrsrockguru:

trystero11 wrote:A few other minor issues I've noted (some of which are just minor typos and grammar):

• p. 70, Hunting Lodge Upper Floor map: There are three rooms marked as area 18, which is supposed to be Talis' bedchamber. I'm assuming that the northernmost two rooms marked as area 18 should be unmarked (and should be treated as empty bedrooms, since there is no description for them) and that the southernmost room, with the burgundy bedspread mentioned in the area 18 description, is the correct location. Also, area 22 is not indicated on the map, though its location is clear from its description.
  

 
Yeah I have 3 rooms marked as 18 on the upper floor of the Lodge, also missing room 12 on the lower level for the Kobold servants.....
 
The Village of Parnast:- building 6 is marked on the map but there is nothing stated in the notes as to what it is. The castle starts at 6 which is the gate house.....help?
 

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by Fallstorm:

Huscarl wrote:As noted somewhere on these boards, the encounter "No Room at the Inn" in episode 4 is way deadlier than it ought to be. I don't recommend playing it as it stands. Find my earlier response on that for advice on how to fix it. 
 
Otherwise, I don't think there are any encounters that characters can't get through somehow. That doesn't mean they can overcome every encounter through violence -- but see my sig line for my feeling about that. Wizards has made it clear throughout the development of 5E that D&D stands on three legs -- combat, exploration, and interaction. If characters run into a situation they can't win through with combat, then they need to try something else. It really is that simple. Is a situation unfair because characters can't defeat it with their swords, when they haven't explored other options? In HotDQ, "hit it" is the wrong response to many situations, just as it is in real life. 
 
Beyond that, there's the issue that an encounter that's tough but balanced for one party can be a suicide trap for another and a skate through the park for a third. Typing away at our desks in the great Pacific Northwest, we don't know how many players are sitting around your table, how experienced they are, what situations their characters are optimized for (if they're optimized at all), or how much and what type of magic they're packing. Unless you have a game where every group of characters adheres tightly to a narrow power curve -- and I expect we all remember clearly how popular that was during the 4E years -- then the idea that remote designers can build one encounter that's perfect for every table of D&D players around the globe is a bit far-fetched. 
 
In other words, the only person who's really qualified to judge whether an encounter is balanced for a group of characters is that group's DM. I suppose that sounds a bit like me saying, "It's not my job, man," but that's the reality of the situation as I see it. And it always has been, even when publishers try to claim it's not. 
 
Steve
 
 

 
Steve,
 
First, thank you for taking time out of your day to answer people's questions on this forum.  My question (and I am not trying to do a "gotcha" here) has to do with your statement about PCs being able to make it through every encounter via one of the three legs of 5E (combat, exploration, and interaction), and every encounter beside "No Room at the Inn" being balanced.  Particularly I am thinking about Chapter 1 of the adventure where a 1st Level PC has to go up against the Half-Blue Dragon cult leader (I'm sorry I can't recall his name) that challenges one of the party at the keep.
 
To be clear, everyone in my gaming group is experienced DnD players, in fact most of us starting playing in 1E or 2E and we love every edition of DnD (including 4th which so far is my personal favorite).  We use smart tactics when we play.  Yet, I fail to see how this encounter was not desinged to outright kill a PC.  All of this is assuming that my DM ran the adventure correctly.  I don't have a copy of it so if he did something wrong please do correct me here, but if he didn't let's examine this.  YOu have an encounter that takes place duing the first chapter when the PCs really don't have a chance to get a short rest and have had various encounters saving different parts of the town from cultists.  They come back and have this half-blue dragon character challenge them in exchange for letting a prisoner go and not attacking the keep.  While the PCs don't HAVE to accept the challenge the adventure seems to put pressure on them and make it clear that it is the correct thing to do as any heroic (especially good aligned character) is going to take this bait in order to free a hostage and stop the keep from being assaulted.     Then a 1st level PC has to go out and fight this character that gets two attacks with a great sword and has a breath weapon that does 4d10 (if I recall correctl) damage.    Our fighter took up this challenge.  I will admit he had been injured in one of the previous encounters but he still had more hit points than any other member of the group.   Without scoring a critical hit this Half-Dragon killed the fighter in 2 rounds.  If I recall correctly (it has been a few weeks) the breath weapon did over 30 points of damage. That NPC would have killed any other PC in the group within a single round. 
 
This death wasn't due to a character seeking violence as the only means to solve every problem.  This death wasn't due to a character making poor decisions in a dungeon and not picking up on clues, etc.    This death wasn't due poor dice rolling on the part of a character.  From what I saw it was due to a 1st level PC being de facto railroaded into a facing a creature that it would take a miracle for the PC to win against and would likely kill a PC.    In my humble opinion, an encounter like this is a mistake in design.  It's one thing if a PC dies to poor decisions (including thinking violence is the way to solve every problem), but is another thing entirely for a PC to die to an encounter that puts peer pressure upon the PCs to engage in as heroes and then puts a PC up against undefeatable odds.
 
Did you think this encounter was balanced?  Did my DM run this correctly or is the Half-Blue Dragon not as powerful as my DM made him out to be (no breath weapon, etc)?

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by MonsterEnvy:

 

Huscarl wrote:As noted somewhere on these boards, the encounter "No Room at the Inn" in episode 4 is way deadlier than it ought to be. I don't recommend playing it as it stands. Find my earlier response on that for advice on how to fix it. 
 
Otherwise, I don't think there are any encounters that characters can't get through somehow. That doesn't mean they can overcome every encounter through violence -- but see my sig line for my feeling about that. Wizards has made it clear throughout the development of 5E that D&D stands on three legs -- combat, exploration, and interaction. If characters run into a situation they can't win through with combat, then they need to try something else. It really is that simple. Is a situation unfair because characters can't defeat it with their swords, when they haven't explored other options? In HotDQ, "hit it" is the wrong response to many situations, just as it is in real life. 
 
Beyond that, there's the issue that an encounter that's tough but balanced for one party can be a suicide trap for another and a skate through the park for a third. Typing away at our desks in the great Pacific Northwest, we don't know how many players are sitting around your table, how experienced they are, what situations their characters are optimized for (if they're optimized at all), or how much and what type of magic they're packing. Unless you have a game where every group of characters adheres tightly to a narrow power curve -- and I expect we all remember clearly how popular that was during the 4E years -- then the idea that remote designers can build one encounter that's perfect for every table of D&D players around the globe is a bit far-fetched. 
 
In other words, the only person who's really qualified to judge whether an encounter is balanced for a group of characters is that group's DM. I suppose that sounds a bit like me saying, "It's not my job, man," but that's the reality of the situation as I see it. And it always has been, even when publishers try to claim it's not. 
 
Steve
 
 
 

Cyanwrath is unlikely to kill the character. (Though he is likely to win.) He just inflicts a failed death save when he wins then leaves. Unless you get unlucky and roll a natural one someone should have gotten to you and stablized you in time. 

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by Fallstorm:

Cyanwrath is unlikely to kill the character. (Though he is likely to win.) He just inflicts a failed death save when he wins then leaves. Unless you get unlucky and roll a natural one someone should have gotten to you and stablized you in time. 

 
Cyanwrath is unlikely to kill a character?  Dude, what game are you playing?  Let's see our 1st level GW Half-orc fighter had a maximum of I believe 13 HP. We used the standard array and I believe the player put a 15 in Str to get a 17 strength and a 14 in Con to get a 16 Con.  So 13 HP at level 1.  Again, after a night on the town fighting kobolds and cultist no one was at full hit points.  I can't recall how far donw he was however, but I honestly don't think the fighter was below 10 but again I am not sure.   
 
Cyranwrath attacks with a great weapon.  His to hit roll is good because a I don't recall him missing and his attacks to 2d6+strength mod damage for each attack and if I recall correctly he gets to because I think the fighter was hit twice in round 1.  The next round I want to say Cyanwrath attacked and breathed (I'm don't recall if he used his breathweapon in the same round he breathed and if he did I don't know if this is legal or not.  The fight MAY have been 3 rounds because either way I know Cyanwrath did another rounds of swinging after the first and used a breath weapon).  The NPCs Breath Weapon I want to say did over 30 HP of damage.  The DM rolled the dice right in front of us and I think it was 4d10, but in all honestly by that point I was so burnted out on this adventure I wasn't paying attention as it wasn't my character fighting.    All, I know is Cyran didn't not roll a critical and the damage dealt was sufficent enough, more than sufficent enough to outright kill a 13HP maximum 1st level PC per the instant death rule on page 197 of the PHB, and the breahth weapon is what sealed the fate.
 
This encounter railroads a PC into going to fight and has a high chance of killing a PC.  That is not a good combo in my opinion.

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by thorbardin:

quote from the adventure:
 
"Cyanwrath is the likely winner of this match, whether he's fighting Sergeant Markguth or a character. When his foe drops, he strikes one more time; the last blow kills Markguth or inflicts one death roll on a character."
 
 
So the game designers knew the likely outcome. Why would they do this? To set up a nemesis for the players to want to kill later.  To make it a little more believable that their leader is more than a 1st level grunt, even if they players are only 1st level. To make being a hero a little harder than killing a bag of rats. To make Cyanwrath a badass villain. And perhaps on a meta level, for people to remark how hard this adventure series is.
 
What does the DM do in this situation... if he rolls lots of damage on a hit in front of the player.
 
1. The DM follows the dice and kills the character. The player rolls up a new one, and the other characters swear vengeance on his death. "He was a good man, snatched too soon, his whole life ahead of him." I'd start the new character at level 2, because everyone should level at the end of this encounter. No biggy, the player has lost a character he's invested one or two sessions in. 
 
or
 
2. The DM fudges the dice, or says Cyanwrath holds his blade at the last moment, not severing the jugular... and almost kills the character.. knock off an additional failed death save. The blow was vicious and would've killed anyone else, now he has the ugly scar to remind him of his loss. Cyanwrath spits into the face of the fallen character in contempt of an easy challenge and stalks off. Vengeance! His friends rush to his aid as his lifeblood pumps out on the soggy ground.
 
I think the expectation gap for players ("what the hell is going on?") is if their DM never puts the players up against challenges that could outright kill them, and then that "everything must be fair" DM runs this adventure verbatim. It's a brutal wake up call.
 
Similar conversations have been about the deadly Adult Blue Dragon. The advice given in the adventure text is for the dragon to not immediately engaged the PCs, to rather show the dragon's awesome power by killing lots of guards (1d4 at a time). The subtext is to see if the players can think up a strategy to effectively help without being idiots and standing out in the open on the battlements with all the other noobs who are being slaughtered. If the DM shows the danger beforehand, the players should be smart enough to not openly engage the dragon and still help to drive it off.
 
Last comment re: being railroaded in this situation... I have to politely disagree. yes, there are many pointers for the PCs accepting the challenge (the quest giving mayor would appreciate it, the PCs are SUPPOSED to be the heroes of the story), but if the DM foreshadows the power and strength of this guy before the combat, just like the dragon above, then the player knows what he's actually accepting, and can say no. The adventure continues if they do say no, which isn't a hallmark of a railroaded encounter. If the player doesn't know he's going up against a CR 4 enemy and just says "Yes"... well then the DM hasnt communicated the threat sufficiently. If the DM has, and the player still thinks he can take him, it's a noble (and perhaps stupid) death. 
 
Hope this offers a different perspective. It may not have been the material (or not at least all the source materials fault), it may also be how it was delivered to and digested by the group.
 
 
 

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by Ramzour:

A small, but important distinction: to bring a creature to 0 hit points and additionally inflict 1 Death Saving Throw Failure upon it (which is what Cyanwrath does) is different from killing a creature. 
 
Ok, that said, let's be honest....there is not really a difference between the two! As Fallstorm points out, the Hero has practically zero chance of winning the combat. Perhaps the easiest fix would be to change what Cyanwrath does. Instead of what is written, say he chooses to perform a non-lethal knock-out on the Hero PC. No need to literally kill a PC or fudge die rolls in this situation! 
 
Why does Cyanwrath deal a non-lethal final blow instead of killing the PC? Well, let's look at his motivations. He knows he is clearly the more superior combatant and he's not interested in savage bloodshed, but something greater (the whole Cult of the Dragon agenda). His challenge is a power-play: don't mess with the Cult of Dragon! He doesn't HAVE to kill the PC outright because he doesn't have to prove himself. He wins the battle and leaves the character for dead. Whether or not the PC lives is irrelevant to him.
 
 
Additionally, thorbarin makes some good points(x) about villainy, meta-difficulty, and how to DM the situation! Nicely done.

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by Fallstorm:

~~

thorbardin wrote:
quote from the adventure:"Cyanwrath is the likely winner of this match, whether he's fighting Sergeant Markguth or a character. When his foe drops, he strikes one more time; the last blow kills Markguth or inflicts one death roll on a character."

So the game designers knew the likely outcome. Why would they do this? To set up a nemesis for the players to want to kill later.  To make it a little more believable that their leader is more than a 1st level grunt, even if they players are only 1st level. To make being a hero a little harder than killing a bag of rats. To make Cyanwrath a badass villain. And perhaps on a meta level, for people to remark how hard this adventure series is.

 
All of the supposed things you state the designers may have been trying to do with Cyanwrath is possible without building an encounter that is designed to kill PCs.  Many story arcs and adventures have reoccurring villains in them and those villains (while a legitimate threat) are not guaranteed to flat-out kill player characters.
 

thorbardin wrote:
What does the DM do in this situation... if he rolls lots of damage on a hit in front of the player.1. The DM follows the dice and kills the character. The player rolls up a new one, and the other characters swear vengeance on his death. "He was a good man, snatched too soon, his whole life ahead of him." I'd start the new character at level 2, because everyone should level at the end of this encounter. No biggy, the player has lost a character he's invested one or two sessions in.
or
2. The DM fudges the dice, or says Cyanwrath holds his blade at the last moment, not severing the jugular... and almost kills the character.. knock off an additional failed death save. The blow was vicious and would've killed anyone else, now he has the ugly scar to remind him of his loss. Cyanwrath spits into the face of the fallen character in contempt of an easy challenge and stalks off. Vengeance! His friends rush to his aid as his lifeblood pumps out on the soggy ground.

 
I have issues with point number one.  I have no problem with a PC dying due to poor decisions being made, or because there was a string of unfortutitous roles happening with the dice, etc. But for a PC to die because he has been placed in a situation that is designed from the jump to kill him and an adventure that pressures the character to take this path (being the hero and accepting Cyanwrath’s challenge in order to spare a bunch of innocent people) I have a problem with.   Also, it is an inconsistent argument to state that DND 5E is based on 3 legs (combat, role-playing, and exploration) and then say losing a character after 1-2 sessions is no big deal, because if you do value role-playing then changing characters shouldn’t be like changing a tire.   Here we had a Player who made up a character.  While we are min-maxers and tactical minded gamers we do put thought into our characters and this guy had come up with a concept and background for the character.  He was a half-orc fighter, the result of a noble woman who was accosted by an orc tribe.   His noble family shunned him and didn’t claim him, but the character himself was deeply pious and honorable and strove to be a paladin.  He fell short of the glory so to speak so he was just a highly lawful and honorable half-orc fighter trying to overcome the prejudices his family and some segments of society had against him.  To lose such a character not through the characters wanting to fight his way through every situation, not through a string of bad rolls, not through poor decisions on the players part, but because the adventure pits him up against nigh unwinnable odds is poor encounter design.
Point number 2 seems more acceptable and still does the job of showing that the cult leader is not a grunt and inspires characters to try and pursue this villain later.  It does so without needlessly killing a PC.

thorbardin wrote:
I think the expectation gap for players ("what the hell is going on?") is if their DM never puts the players up against challenges that could outright kill them, and then that "everything must be fair" DM runs this adventure verbatim. It's a brutal wake up call.Similar conversations have been about the deadly Adult Blue Dragon. The advice given in the adventure text is for the dragon to not immediately engaged the PCs, to rather show the dragon's awesome power by killing lots of guards (1d4 at a time). The subtext is to see if the players can think up a strategy to effectively help without being idiots and standing out in the open on the battlements with all the other noobs who are being slaughtered. If the DM shows the danger beforehand, the players should be smart enough to not openly engage the dragon and still help to drive it off.

 
Players do and should have an expectation of the game and DM being fair when designing an encounter.  I mean, yes a DM could for example throw a group of 1st level PCs up against a Pit Fiend but what is the point.  In all honestly the Adult Blue Dragon is one of the reasons my group is having problems accepting the believability of this adventure.  Don’t get me wrong we appreciate the fact that the Blue Dragon is not designed to kill PCs outright and if he takes a certain amount of damage (I think around 30 pts) he just flies away as he doesn’t have enough interest in the keep but to me that just seems bogus.   To me it would make more sense to 1) not have a monster in the party in the first place that the characters could not win against in a hard fought fight.  I mean the Bug Bear if I recall in Lost Mines of Phandelvar was scary and we had a PC go down but it was a fair fight because you had 5 PCs going up against a foe that was a few levels higher than them, but in a straight up combat there is no way for 1st level PCs to stop that blue dragon so I question why a dragon had to be rampaging the keep vs a more manageable and level appropriate monster.  Secondly, it seems lame to me saying the dragon just loses interest and flies away.  What would have made more sense to me (and some of my fellow players) was to have the dragon only have a few hit points left (say 50 or so) from where the keeps ballista and such had been striking him and archer arrows (the archers of course would all have died valiantly trying to defend the keep) and the PCs come and finish the dragon off by doing the remaining hit points of damage.  The PCs would get the same amount of XP they would get for driving off the dragon as they shouldn’t get the same XP they would for killing an actual dragon.   Yet, to me this second approach does the exact same thing as the first except is more plausible and gives the PCs an actual sense of accomplishment.
 

thorbardin wrote:
Last comment re: being railroaded in this situation... I have to politely disagree. yes, there are many pointers for the PCs accepting the challenge (the quest giving mayor would appreciate it, the PCs are SUPPOSED to be the heroes of the story), but if the DM foreshadows the power and strength of this guy before the combat, just like the dragon above, then the player knows what he's actually accepting, and can say no. The adventure continues if they do say no, which isn't a hallmark of a railroaded encounter. If the player doesn't know he's going up against a CR 4 enemy and just says "Yes"... well then the DM hasnt communicated the threat sufficiently. If the DM has, and the player still thinks he can take him, it's a noble (and perhaps stupid) death.

 
After the brave death of our Half-orc fighter (Paladin wannabe) our group discussed this encounter. Our DM was kind enough to let us read some of the stuff around the challenge and I’m sorry dude this adventure did pretty much railroad you into accepting the challenge for all practical purposes.  I mean, what good aligned PC is going to let a battered down guard accept the challenge in his/her place or not take up the challenge and allow the keep to be raised.  Heck, from what the DM showed us in the adventure afterwards if the PC decides not to accept this challenge they lose all support from the mayor/keep and are on their own going forward.  So, while it does present an option of not accepting the challenge that option is really a bogus one and de facto railroads one of the PCs into accepting this death trap and that is what it is a PC death trap. I mean, by this logic the mafia gives people choices to either pay up or we break your legs but is that really a choice?
 
Thank you for your feedback however I do think you offered good tip (via the solution of non-lethal option) under point number 2 of how to keep the PCs alive while not downgrading Cyanwrath's villiany.   Unfortunately this will not bring our half-orc back but it can serve as a guide for future DMs who utilize this adventure.

 

[MerricB]

Originally posted by Fallstorm:

Ramzour wrote:A small, but important distinction: to bring a creature to 0 hit points and additionally inflict 1 Death Saving Throw Failure upon it (which is what Cyanwrath does) is different from killing a creature. 
 
Ok, that said, let's be honest....there is not really a difference between the two! As Fallstorm points out, the Hero has practically zero chance of winning the combat. Perhaps the easiest fix would be to change what Cyanwrath does. Instead of what is written, say he chooses to perform a non-lethal knock-out on the Hero PC. No need to literally kill a PC or fudge die rolls in this situation! 
 
Why does Cyanwrath deal a non-lethal final blow instead of killing the PC? Well, let's look at his motivations. He knows he is clearly the more superior combatant and he's not interested in savage bloodshed, but something greater (the whole Cult of the Dragon agenda). His challenge is a power-play: don't mess with the Cult of Dragon! He doesn't HAVE to kill the PC outright because he doesn't have to prove himself. He wins the battle and leaves the character for dead. Whether or not the PC lives is irrelevant to him.
 
 
Additionally, thorbarin makes some good points(x) about villainy, meta-difficulty, and how to DM the situation! Nicely done.

 
I think you give a valid solution to the lethality of this encounter without diminishing the objective of the encounter.  I agree Thorbardin did give good DM points also.