D&D 5E How We Beat the HD, HotDQ, Spoilers

[KarinsDad]

We played our second session of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. It started out with the Half Dragon Challenge of a PC. PCs were second level.

My LG PC Wizard decided to take up the challenge. The Half Dragon agreed to let the 3 children go. My Wizard walked out to face the Half Dragon, ignored it and walked around it to the female villager. The Half Dragon demanded to know what I was doing and I replied that I was checking on the woman to make sure that she was ok. As the Half Dragon was blustering about how he had kept his word, I had the wizard grab ahold of the woman's arm. Pretending to examine her, I asked the DM if there was any way that I could cast a spell before the Half Dragon or the Kobold next to her with a sword could react. The DM gave my PC a Dex roll and I rolled higher than the other two. The DM said that I could have a surprise round (I do not think that she thought that I could do much with it). I had the wizard cast a Fog Cloud and then pulled the villager away from the Kobold, and then let her go and told her to run to the keep. The DM gave the Kobold a free swing at the woman, but because I had cast Fog Cloud, the attack was at disadvantage (since the Kobold could not see the woman anymore).

The Kobold missed.

We then went into normal initiatives. The wizard rolled lousy init, but the woman rolled high. The other PCs were at the keep doorway, about 60 feet away from the fog.

There were 6 PCs, 10 NPC bowmen from the keep, the Half Dragon, and 30 kobolds (that the DM had spread out into 3 groups, each group about 50 feet or so behind the previous group). The kobolds also had a high init, but they were afraid of the magic of the fog cloud, so on round one, the first 10 kobolds merely surrounded the fog as the other two groups of 10 moved closer (but still behind the concealment of the spell). The PCs rushed out and took a few pot shots at some of the kobolds and the NPC archers moved up to the parapet walls.

The woman managed to run toward the keep where the other PCs provided her cover, and the PCs killed a few kobolds.

The half dragon attacked the wizard in the fog cloud with disadvantage and ordered the kobolds to come into the fog and attack the wizard. The first half dragon attack missed and the second attack got foiled by a Shield spell (which also put up the wizard's Arcane Ward). The wizard cast an Acid Splash, but the half dragon saved.


On round two, the plan started to fall apart. I had thought that the entire group of PCs could fight well inside the Fog Cloud, but was unaware of the pack tactics of the kobolds. So the disadvantage of the spell was negated by the advantage of the pack tactics. 4 kobolds moved into the fog to attack the wizard, but fortunately only two of them hit (taking down the Arcane Ward).

The woman escaped into the keep, the NPC archers and PCs killed about 7 or so more kobolds, and there were about 10 kobolds attacking the PCs, damaging some a bit (but the main fighter up front has the Heavy Armor Master feat, so he takes very little damage from kobolds).

Since the wizard could not be OAed due to the cloud, but he did have 5 foes around him, so he decided to run back towards the keep.


On round three, the half dragon came out of the fog and engaged the fighter while the archers and PCs traded shots with the kobolds, killing about 5 more or so. At this point, the cleric and bard were a bit damaged and no longer had any spells remaining. In fact, only the Ranger had spells and he was too far away to heal anyone. The bard, cleric, and wizard were out (except cantrips).

The bard managed a Vicious Mockery on the Half Dragon, the archers and PCs managed to kill some more kobolds, but by now, the rest of kobolds had come around the fog cloud.


On round four, the pack tactics of the kobolds really started working well. The half dragon did a lightning bolt breath weapon on the fighter and the rogue, but both saved, so they were in single digit hit points. The player of the bard was a bit peeved that the half dragon had avoided the Viscious Mockery disadvantaged attack by using its breath weapon. The rogue ran back into the keep, another 5 or so kobolds died (the archers were doing pretty well here). The cleric, bard, rogue, and fighter all had 5 or fewer hit points. The bard and cleric ran into the fog cloud, hoping it would help.


On round five, the fighter decided to disengage from the half dragon and head back towards the keep. This gave the archers a clear line of fire at the half dragon. The DM rolled huge here, with 1 critical and 5 other hits. The half dragon took 30 plus points of damage, so it decided to head back into the fog cloud and kill the cleric. Little did it know that the cleric was a tempest cleric with one Wrath of the Storm and Destructive Wrath remaining. The half dragon knocked the cleric unconscious, but the cleric did 16 points of thunder damage and also knocked the half dragon unconscious.


The big boom from inside the fog cloud more or less let everyone know something big had happened in there, so the DM ruled that the rest of the kobolds went into it, found the unconscious half dragon, and dragged him away into the darkness behind the fog cloud. The PCs managed to save the cleric, and the villagers cheered that they had also saved the four captured townsfolk (in addition to the 20+ other villagers that we had saved in the first gaming session).


All in all, the DM cut us a few breaks with allowing the wizard to get off the first spell, having the kobolds attack in waves, and in giving us the archers on our side. Otherwise, it would have been a near TPK with a few PCs escaping back to the keep before the rest were wiped out.


Course, without the archer backup, my PC would have instead of using fog cloud, used his persuasion to try to convince the half dragon that he was an oracle who could see the future and that if the half dragon did not let the woman and the wizard go, a large party of guards and spellcasters from Berdusk would be on his trail to avenge me and that he would not survive the next month. I was kind of glad that I did not have to go that route since I suspected that my PC would be either dead or unconscious from such a lame bluff. Kicking the snot out of the half dragon was a lot more satisfying.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Just to tell you while Cyanwrath would have probably kicked your ass. He would have kept his word and fought one on one had you not been treacherous.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just to tell you while Cyanwrath would have probably kicked your ass. He would have kept his word and fought one on one had you not been treacherous.

Screw treachery and screw an encounter designed to kick my ass. If the adventure designers are going to put this type of total garbage into a module, then my LG PC is going to put saving the hostages leaps and bounds above being honorable.


The encounter reminded me of the Green Dragon in the Starter Set and the Blue Dragon here.

I don't understand what lesson the module designers are trying to "teach players", but it's total crap IMO. These impossible encounters (and this one would have been if not for the DM) just teach me to not buy WotC adventures in the future.

Instead of rat bastard DMs, we now have rat bastard adventure designers. Whatever. I'm playing the game to have fun, not to have a player humiliated by the power of the DM (and more specifically, by power of the module designer).

There's nothing wrong with difficult encounters, but ones designed to screw over players via the supreme power of high level monsters are just plain garbage. It's a fricking game.


So yeah, the monster being honorable and fighting me one on one means exactly zero to me as a player.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would disagree that hard-to-extremely-difficult-to-win encounters in D&D modules are a bad thing. To have every encounter be one that PCs know (or learn after like three sessions) that they can defeat just by beating people up can lead to anti-climactic adventuring. If every villain gets statted to be defeatable by a typical party, it means you have no "recurring" bad guys because every fight just gets "cleared" (unless the party plays poorly, or the DM chooses to have them retreat).

What this module teaches players is that it's okay for DMs to put players into impossible situations or against very difficult-to-nigh-impossible opponent just to see how they react or because sometimes a party does face impossible odds, but that you aren't required to kill them if they don't succeed. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing "either the party kills everyone or the monster TPK" situation each and every time.

Those of you who don't like that kind of lesson are more than allowed to rail against it... but it doesn't thus follow that it's a bad lesson to give or its "bad adventure design". Players need to experience it themselves before determining whether its a style they want to play in the future.

 

[razamoon]

My LG PC Wizard decided to take up the challenge. The Half Dragon agreed to let the 3 children go. My Wizard walked out to face the Half Dragon, ignored it and walked around it to the female villager. The Half Dragon demanded to know what I was doing and I replied that I was checking on the woman to make sure that she was ok. As the Half Dragon was blustering about how he had kept his word, I had the wizard grab ahold of the woman's arm. Pretending to examine her, I asked the DM if there was any way that I could cast a spell before the Half Dragon or the Kobold next to her with a sword could react. The DM gave my PC a Dex roll and I rolled higher than the other two. The DM said that I could h

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?362018-How-We-Beat-the-HD-HotDQ-Spoilers#ixzz3DCUKMwaN

 

[Syntallah]

Did you know going into the encounter that it was "unwinnable"? If so, then shame on you, the player for metatgaming. If you didn't know about the nature of the encounter, then shame on your LG wizard who used subterfuge and deceit.

And to back up the above post by DEFCON, let's take a look at a couple things:

- I have yet to see any designer of HotDQ say that he meant for that encounter to screw over a character
- A rat bastard DM doesn't need a WOTC adventure to screw anybody over
- In a living breathing world, there are going to be things that the Party cannot beat by force (i.e. there are two other pillars)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Screw treachery and screw an encounter designed to kick my ass. If the adventure designers are going to put this type of total garbage into a module, then my LG PC is going to put saving the hostages leaps and bounds above being honorable.

It seems to me you did exactly what you were supposed to do-- you played to your character, and that the DM went right along with you on it by saying 'Yes' to your plans and seeing if they bore any fruit. That's the whole point of playing the game.

Are you mad because you would have suffered a TPK if the rolling didn't work out (because of the numbers of enemies the adventure says would have been there)? Seems to me that that's the point of making you decide how you wanted to react to it. You have a choice of doing what the villain demanded of you, or doing something else and let the cards fall where they may. Thus what the game is great for-- having any options you want to take available for you.

As I read your post, I thought you were making awesome character choices, did things that were great and could do them precisely because of the strength of what tabletop RPGs and a DM allow you to do. You went against the typical reaction to the situation and you pulled out a really tense win. I'd say there was nothing wrong at all with how the encounter was set up.

 

[KarinsDad]

It seems to me you did exactly what you were supposed to do-- you played to your character, and that the DM went right along with you on it by saying 'Yes' to your plans and seeing if they bore any fruit. That's the whole point of playing the game.

Are you mad because you would have suffered a TPK if the rolling didn't work out (because of the numbers of enemies the adventure says would have been there)? Seems to me that that's the point of making you decide how you wanted to react to it. You have a choice of doing what the villain demanded of you, or doing something else and let the cards fall where they may. Thus what the game is great for-- having any options you want to take available for you.

As I read your post, I thought you were making awesome character choices, did things that were great and could do them precisely because of the strength of what tabletop RPGs and a DM allow you to do. You went against the typical reaction to the situation and you pulled out a really tense win. I'd say there was nothing wrong at all with how the encounter was set up.

Thanks, but I'm still annoyed at the encounter design.

Yes, we managed to overcome the encounter with a helpful DM, but there are just so many things that would have made this encounter untenable (my Wizard not having Fog Cloud, our Cleric not being a Tempest Cleric, our Fighter not having the Heavy Armor Master feat) and I suspect that it is untenable at most tables with most groups of PCs.

I think at most tables, some poor player is supposed to have his PC go out and get his butt kicked and that is somehow supposed to be enjoyable to the people playing the game.

I just do not see how that is enjoyable for anyone.


I do think that this is a memorable fight for our group, but unlike Irontooth which is also a very nasty fight, I do not think that this fight (or the green dragon one or the blue dragon one) are supposed to ever be won. I think an Irontooth level of encounter would have been just as enjoyable as one with this Half Dragon that is supposed to be unwinnable.

Yes, it worked out for us. Barely. And yes, I get the concept of actually having a reoccurring villain that the players actually hate. I just do not like this type of encounter design to accomplish that.

The adventure, so far, has been a boatload of easy encounters (partially because our group of players has used group stealth to sneak up on the bad guys in 7 or 8 encounters out of 10) and 2 impossible to win encounters. This has been so lopsided that the DM is modifying the group stealth rules to make a surprise round not be so overwhelming for one side or the other (i.e. the other side gets perception checks instead of passive perception so that some of the foes are not surprised and some are, instead of nearly all of them being surprised nearly every time).


And no, I would not have been happy with a TPK. That would have really solidified my thought that this encounter design sucked.

 

[KarinsDad]

Did you know going into the encounter that it was "unwinnable"? If so, then shame on you, the player for metatgaming. If you didn't know about the nature of the encounter, then shame on your LG wizard who used subterfuge and deceit.

Sorry, where exactly does it state that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid?

You can play your PCs however you want and I'll play mine my way.

And to back up the above post by DEFCON, let's take a look at a couple things:

- I have yet to see any designer of HotDQ say that he meant for that encounter to screw over a character

The designer of HotDQ does not have to say that he MEANS for that encounter to screw over a character. By definition, that encounter is designed to humiliate a PC or a player. To me, regardless of designer intent, that's the outcome that will happen at many tables.

"HA HA. I am the big bad encounter designer and you are a peon player and I'm going to kick the stuffing out of your PC, and I'm going to railroad the encounter into a situation where by playing your PC as a hero, you do get the stuffing kick out of you. Watch the hostages die, or take their place and die."

Sorry, but that's total crap. You are entitled to your opinion that me as the player here is somehow at fault for trying to overcome an encounter where the deck is totally stacked against the players. "Shame on me for not playing my PC the way you thought I should"? The heck with that. I'm glad that you are not my DM.

I'll take a DM who works with me to give me a chance to overcome a ridiculous encounter instead of one who justifies ridiculous encounters and states that if a player does overcome a ridiculous encounter, that player is somehow not playing his PC correctly, any day of the week.

Dude. Seriously? Just because I vehemently dislike this type of heavy handed encounter design does not mean that I play my PCs bad/wrong/incorrectly or metagame. It means that I think that this encounter belongs in the scrap heap of seriously bad encounter designs. Humiliating a player or PC is a good design? I call BS.

 

[Jester David]

The encounter reminded me of the Green Dragon in the Starter Set and the Blue Dragon here.

I don't understand what lesson the module designers are trying to "teach players"

Other than "encounters will not always be even" so you have an incentive to think first, prepare, or devise a cunning plan rather than just charge in?

If the fight had been a straight "fair" fight you would have just dropped dice, gone through the familiar routine of attack, damage, kill, loot and never posted what you did. Because the fight was unbalanced you came up with a cunning plan and created a story that you felt compelled to share on ENWorld. The game created a memory that will last a long longer and be shared more times.

The module presented you with a no-win scenario and you Kirk-ed the crap out of it. Good job.