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

[Wrathamon]

In this module, it's perfectly reasonable for PCs to go into a town that's being attacked by a dragon. And it's perfectly reasonable for them to attack that dragon, from the safety of the keep, along with scores of militia men. Again, the PCs are not told or expected to engage the dragon toe-to-toe. They are expected to snipe from a distance until the dragon goes away, or to find another way to drive it off (as many actual play reports have recounted).

As it happens, both Phandelver and Hoard take a mixed-approach, allowing for DMs to approach the adventures either way. And though that means that the DM has to make some decisions to present the module in their preferred style, that's a feature, not a bug.

In our session of this adventure, we ran down inside the keep instead of fighting the dragon. The DM was dumbfounded and didnt know what to do. Not sure if the adventure gives the DM insight on common what if scenarios. He had the Mayor guy keep yelling at us to fight the dragon! His men were dying! One of us ran to try to get the guards to get inside the keep, but the guards died and that player gave up. After a bunch of prodding, I cast a cantrip at it and missed on a pretty good roll and then I gave up, thinking it wasnt possible. The DM basically broke and just said all you have to do is deal some damage guys ... come on. Instead of moving the game along. Does the adventure give the DM any idea if the common run away option occurs? I can think of many things to do if the players did this to move it along, but a new DM might do what this DM did and think they are suppose to do this and railroad you into it.

 

[Ludus]

In our session of this adventure, we ran down inside the keep instead of fighting the dragon. The DM was dumbfounded and didnt know what to do. Not sure if the adventure gives the DM insight on common what if scenarios. He had the Mayor guy keep yelling at us to fight the dragon! His men were dying! One of us ran to try to get the guards to get inside the keep, but the guards died and that player gave up. After a bunch of prodding, I cast a cantrip at it and missed on a pretty good roll and then I gave up, thinking it wasnt possible. The DM basically broke and just said all you have to do is deal some damage guys ... come on. Instead of moving the game along. Does the adventure give the DM any idea if the common run away option occurs? I can think of many things to do if the players did this to move it along, but a new DM might do what this DM did and think they are suppose to do this and railroad you into it.

In my group's session, the governor told the party (all first-level PCs) that the dragon was attacking solders on the roof, encouraged the PCs to help in the fight, and ran up there himself.

Now, every player in my group is a D&D veteran. We just started with 5e and aren't familiar with any changes that Mearls et al. made to monsters, but we figured that in any edition, first-level PCs had no chance against a very large, flying dragon using its breath weapon with disturbing regularity.

As for the governor, we thought he was straight daft for (1) allowing the solders to be on roof in the first place and (2) running up there himself.

But the PCs went to the roof because that's what the players thought the PCs would do as good-aligned heroes. The moment the PCs arrived, it was immediately clear that the rooftop situation was a fiasco.

One PC, an outspoken dwarf, attempted to persuade the governor to order the soldiers to leave the roof. "This is madness!" he cried. The governor was not persuaded, and the PC tried to stealthily knock him out so command would pass to the red-bearded dwarf, who the PC thought would have more sense.

The PC was halfway successful. The governor was knocked out, but one of the soldiers noticed. The PC ran over to Redbeard and (after some doing) persuaded him to order the soldiers to leave the roof.

While this was happening, another PC was shooting arrows at the dragon, and a third was healing soldiers. The dragon was still flying around when everyone left the roof. (The consequences for knocking out the governor? We'll never know because the PC died later in the episode.)

I considered the rooftop encounter to be a fair success for the party, in that we avoided a TPK and saved some soldiers from the governor's foolishness. What I'm wondering now, however, is whether it would a success under HotDQ as written (in terms of encounter-based XP awards). My group is using milestones, so I don't know.

If HotDQ awards XP only if the PCs drive away the dragon by attacking it and inflicting enough damage... well, I'd find that troubling.

 

[Iosue]

If HotDQ awards XP only if the PCs drive away the dragon by attacking it and inflicting enough damage... well, I'd find that troubling.

The XP awarded is based purely on how many soldiers survive the encounter. If less than 10 die, each PC gets 50 XP. If more than 10 die, each PC gets 25 XP. Given those parameters, if I was running it, and your group succeeded in getting all the soldiers off the roof, I'd award XP according how many soldiers died before everyone got off the roof.

It's really more of a skill challenge than a straight up fight. The dragon injures 1d6 soldiers and kills 1d4 with each pass. So it must make at least three passes to kill 10 soldiers. After each pass, it flies away from the keep until its breath weapon recharges.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's metagaming knowledge to say, "We're 1st level characters, so we don't have a chance against the dragon."

It's not metagaing knowledge to say, "We're inexperienced adventurers with limited martial skill and none of the truly potent magical spells, so we don't have a chance against the dragon.".

Just like in the real world, people in this world would grow up with stories about the toughest predators around. People who grow up in some parts of the world know exactly how dangerous a lion is or a poisonous snake or whatever. Just like in the real world, inexperienced fighters would know about the skill set of and stories about experienced fighters.

Are you claiming that you play a game of Dungeons and Dragons, and the PCs are not expected to know that Dragons are practically the epitome of monsters?

In Phandelver, it's dumb to engage the dragon toe-to-toe, and the module takes pains (and encourages the DM) to discourage the players from doing that.

In this module, it's perfectly reasonable for PCs to go into a town that's being attacked by a dragon. And it's perfectly reasonable for them to attack that dragon, from the safety of the keep, along with scores of militia men. Again, the PCs are not told or expected to engage the dragon toe-to-toe.

Now this sounds like a contradiction.

Because the authors wrote that it is expected to NOT attack the dragon in one module and TO attack the dragon in another module, the players are supposed to somehow know which to do in each case.

Say what?

That really sounds like metagaming knowledge.


And actually, I think you are misremembering. There is nothing on page 32/33 about the PCs not being expected to attack the green dragon. There is only a blurb on him running away at half hit points. There is also a PC background expectation where the one PC is encouraged to attack the dragon. And on page 32, Reidoth specifically asks the PCs to drive off the dragon. On page 31, he warns the PCs of all of the threats in the ruined town (not just the dragon) and suggests that they leave before they get killed.

The module encourages the PCs to attack the dragon which is basically suicidal because a single breath weapon should either kill or knock out most third level PCs in round one. Does it really make sense for the dragon to not use his breath weapon in a fight?


In both of these modules, the PCs are expected to attack the dragon. In the first module, the game designers attempt to mitigate the number of TPKs at gaming tables by having the dragon run away, regardless of whether that makes sense. For example, say that there is one PC left standing and the dragon gets to half hit points, why wouldn't he just finish off the last PC? That way, he doesn't have to give up his lair and his treasure (and might gain treasure from the dead PCs).

In the second module, the dragon is not really supposed to attack the PCs (especially with his breath weapon). But the dragon has no qualms about attacking NPCs. Does that really sound logical? No. It's a plot point that is written in one specific way so that a specific thing does not happen (i.e. the PCs dying).

Your entire premise about it being ok to attack a dragon is based on the fact that you know that the author of the module in both cases tries to mitigate a TPK.

PCs shouldn't know this, but they should know that they don't really stand a chance against a dragon.

But you are justifying your POV by claiming that PCs should not know that Dragons are one of the deadliest threats known to a campaign world society.

 

[KarinsDad]

The XP awarded is based purely on how many soldiers survive the encounter. If less than 10 die, each PC gets 50 XP. If more than 10 die, each PC gets 25 XP. Given those parameters, if I was running it, and your group succeeded in getting all the soldiers off the roof, I'd award XP according how many soldiers died before everyone got off the roof.

It's really more of a skill challenge than a straight up fight. The dragon injures 1d6 soldiers and kills 1d4 with each pass. So it must make at least three passes to kill 10 soldiers. After each pass, it flies away from the keep until its breath weapon recharges.

Yes, because PCs should get XP for knowing that the dragon will kill off the NPCs, and hence, yelling for them to get off the roof. If the PCs know that the dragon is super deadly here in this skill challenge, how come they do not know that he is super deadly before even entering the town?


And wait a second. It's doing this with a breath weapon? And soldiers are only getting injured?

Why doesn't one of those super soldiers go take on the half dragon?

 

[Cyberen]

Re : the blue dragon
The mission is akward, but in a deeper way than just a skill challenge being forced upon the PCs. The whole business of a dragon attacking the keep is ridiculous. Attacking the keep is pointless : if you want to plunder the village, you shouldn't bother with the keep, besides preventing the defenders to leave and counter attack. Also, attacking the keep is dangerous, even for an adult blue dragon, under the rules of bounded accuracy. Moreover, this setup only showcases the ineptia of stretching a game mechanic perfectly suited to tactical combat (the recharge of the breath weapon, both balanced and tense) onto a time span where it becomes ridiculous (infinite pew pew breath weapon). RAW, the dragon is something of a glass cannon if it has to fight all night long : it reigns supreme 1 round out of 3, but it can't survive a confrontation with a platoon of archers entranched in the keep. Thus, the scenario presented doesn't make any sense, and should be tweaked into a necessary exit (a rescue party where the PCs march along a squad of guards) under the threat of the dragon flying above.
Of course, the dragon has been summoned to this raid exactly for this reason : deterring any counter attack by heavily armored defenders, but he is not very happy with it. Makes more sense, imho.
It also dovetails nicely with Cyanwrath being pissed off with the lack ofaction and challenge, and trying to quench its bloodlust with tactically inept cruelty (Sophie's choice, essentially). It is definitely an interesting, if dire situation and should provide for interesting play.
By the way, D&D PCs are not assumed to be heroes, but "adventurers" (dungeon delvers ?). This word has sometimes an unsavory feel IRL, and the same could be true in game. Whether they are paladins or desperados is up to the players.

 

[Iosue]

It's not metagaing knowledge to say, "We're inexperienced adventurers with limited martial skill and none of the truly potent magical spells, so we don't have a chance against the dragon.".

No, it's not. But that's not what you said. You said, "First level PCs should really not go anywhere near a blue dragon or a town filled with bad guys." That's metagaming.

Inexperienced adventurers not engaging in a straight-up fight with a dragon is not the problem. Inexperienced adventurers totally throwing in the towel and not doing anything because there's a dragon overhead and first level characters don't have the hitpoints to withstand its breath weapon, yeah, that strikes me as metagaming.

Just like in the real world, people in this world would grow up with stories about the toughest predators around. People who grow up in some parts of the world know exactly how dangerous a lion is or a poisonous snake or whatever. Just like in the real world, inexperienced fighters would know about the skill set of and stories about experienced fighters.

Are you claiming that you play a game of Dungeons and Dragons, and the PCs are not expected to know that Dragons are practically the epitome of monsters?

As I've said repeatedly, PCs are not expected to want to fight a dragon head on, but neither are they expected to completely avoid danger. Nor are they expected to think "dragon = impossible to defeat".

Now this sounds like a contradiction.

Because the authors wrote that it is expected to NOT attack the dragon in one module and TO attack the dragon in another module, the players are supposed to somehow know which to do in each case.

Say what?

That really sounds like metagaming knowledge.

No contradiction. Neither module expects the PCs to fight the dragons toe-to-toe and defeat them by killing them. Both provide opportunities for the PCs to attack indirectly and drive the dragons off by doing a certain amount of damage.

Neither module expects the players to "know what to do". They give them a problem and expect them to figure out a way to solve it.

And actually, I think you are misremembering. There is nothing on page 32/33 about the PCs not being expected to attack the green dragon. There is only a blurb on him running away at half hit points. There is also a PC background expectation where the one PC is encouraged to attack the dragon. And on page 32, Reidoth specifically asks the PCs to drive off the dragon. On page 31, he warns the PCs of all of the threats in the ruined town (not just the dragon) and suggests that they leave before they get killed.

The module does not encourage the players to "attack" the dragon. It consistently says, "chase off" and "drive off", with one instance of "slay or drive off" in the Folk Hero's Personal Goal (which is entitled "Drive Off the Dragon"). The module includes one way this can be accomplished (reduce to half hit points). It also includes Cultists who just happen to want to recruit the dragon to their cause. Nor does it suggest that the dragon attacks on sight, and it speaks Common, so negotiation is on the table.

The module encourages the PCs to attack the dragon which is basically suicidal because a single breath weapon should either kill or knock out most third level PCs in round one. Does it really make sense for the dragon to not use his breath weapon in a fight?

Does it really make sense for PCs to approach the dragon so that they get hit full on with a breath weapon right off the bat? I mean, it's not exactly like they stumble across it without meaning to. Reidoth tells them about it and the Folk Hero knows where it is. Why are the PCs making a suicidal frontal charge, instead of planning ahead, approaching stealthily, and laying traps for the dragon? Or any number of possible strategies?

In both of these modules, the PCs are expected to attack the dragon. In the first module, the game designers attempt to mitigate the number of TPKs at gaming tables by having the dragon run away, regardless of whether that makes sense. For example, say that there is one PC left standing and the dragon gets to half hit points, why wouldn't he just finish off the last PC? That way, he doesn't have to give up his lair and his treasure (and might gain treasure from the dead PCs).

Maybe he does. Maybe he runs anyway for any number of reasons (maybe without even fighting the PCs!). There's nothing hard coded here. The module provides some characterization, that's it.

In the second module, the dragon is not really supposed to attack the PCs (especially with his breath weapon). But the dragon has no qualms about attacking NPCs. Does that really sound logical? No. It's a plot point that is written in one specific way so that a specific thing does not happen (i.e. the PCs dying).

The dragon isn't attacking PCs or NPCs. It's the Dante Hicks of dragons. It's simply strafing the tower with lightning. It doesn't know PCs from NPCs. Why would it suddenly pick out the specific characters from the dozens of men firing arrows at it? The encounter is set up like a skill challenge (prevent 10 soldiers from dying), but that doesn't mean the characters or the DM can't change the stakes.

Your entire premise about it being ok to attack a dragon is based on the fact that you know that the author of the module in both cases tries to mitigate a TPK.

No, my entire premise about it being ok to attack the dragon is based on the fact that I expect the players to mitigate a TPK.

PCs shouldn't know this, but they should know that they don't really stand a chance against a dragon.

They don't know jack until they try.

But you are justifying your POV by claiming that PCs should not know that Dragons are one of the deadliest threats known to a campaign world society.

Hey, something I never said! Would you mind cutting that crap out?

Yes, because PCs should get XP for knowing that the dragon will kill off the NPCs, and hence, yelling for them to get off the roof. If the PCs know that the dragon is super deadly here in this skill challenge, how come they do not know that he is super deadly before even entering the town?

See, there you go again. Did I ever say PCs didn't know dragon's were deadly? No. So what did I say? I'll quote it for you.

Characters don't know that they are first level. They don't even know that they can't fight a dragon, or drive it off. Sure, it's dangerous, but people seeking adventure put themselves in danger all the time. Firefighters, police officers, soldiers, skydivers, etc. The 0-level militia men defending the village aren't taking into account their ability within the game to fight a dragon or an invading force.

A character may certainly understand that dragons are big and bad, and do everything they can to avoid having to go toe-to-toe with them. That doesn't mean they decide to do nothing when a town is being attacked by a dragon. They can treat the dragon like a natural disaster, and simply try to save as many regular folks as they can. They can try to find a way to drive the dragon off without engaging it directly. They can look for force equalizers.

Every adventure involves adventurers walking into situations that normal people avoid if they can. A dragon attacking a town is no different. How the characters respond to that is entirely up to them. Dragon over town != PCs must fight dragon to the death. They can go with no intention to fight the dragon, but just to help people. They can go because they see humanoid bad guys who are more their size. They can go because being in some kind of shelter is safer from a dragon on the wing than being out on the open road. They can go because, hey, a dragon attacking a town is a good chance to do some looting of their own! And heck, they can go just because they're adventurers and there's adventure in that thar town.

So does the idea of going into a burning building. Nevertheless, people do it. And generally they do it in a way to mitigate the danger. And not just firefighters, either.

Please argue with what I say, not what you want me to be saying, or we can end the discussion right here.

And wait a second. It's doing this with a breath weapon? And soldiers are only getting injured?

Why doesn't one of those super soldiers go take on the half dragon?

Because abstracted combat is a useful tool in encounter design.

 

[Desalus]

In our session of this adventure, we ran down inside the keep instead of fighting the dragon. The DM was dumbfounded and didnt know what to do. Not sure if the adventure gives the DM insight on common what if scenarios. He had the Mayor guy keep yelling at us to fight the dragon! His men were dying! One of us ran to try to get the guards to get inside the keep, but the guards died and that player gave up. After a bunch of prodding, I cast a cantrip at it and missed on a pretty good roll and then I gave up, thinking it wasnt possible. The DM basically broke and just said all you have to do is deal some damage guys ... come on. Instead of moving the game along. Does the adventure give the DM any idea if the common run away option occurs? I can think of many things to do if the players did this to move it along, but a new DM might do what this DM did and think they are suppose to do this and railroad you into it.

Nope, as far as I remember the authors don't give any hint as to what the DM is supposed to do if the players never attack the dragon. An easy way for the DM to resolve that issue is to just say that the Dragon easily killed all of the soldiers and then flew away. Of course that means the players would completely fail the encounter and earn no XP (as is written), even though running away from the dragon is the logical thing for characters to do.

 

[Desalus]

See, there you go again. Did I ever say PCs didn't know dragon's were deadly? No. So what did I say? I'll quote it for you.

Directly above this you said that "They don't know jack until they try." in regard to KarinsDad saying this:

PCs shouldn't know this, but they should know that they don't really stand a chance against a dragon.

Seems like you are saying that they shouldn't know anything about the difficulty of defeating a dragon until they try defeating it. Which is quite preposterous in my opinion. Everybody in the realm is going to know that dragons are some of the most deadly monsters alive. If the characters saw 20 soldiers ineffectively defending against a full grown dragon, would a character's first thought honestly be, "We can do better than 20 soldiers!"? Any character with average wisdom or intelligence would know that the situation is hopeless and encourage the soldiers to run for their lives.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope, as far as I remember the authors don't give any hint as to what the DM is supposed to do if the players never attack the dragon. An easy way for the DM to resolve that issue is to just say that the Dragon easily killed all of the soldiers and then flew away. Of course that means the players would completely fail the encounter and earn no XP (as is written), even though running away from the dragon is the logical thing for characters to do.

It's only what, a 50XP encounter? PCs hiding from the dragon and letting it do just that isn't a game breaker at all. It would probably only result in the town looking at the PCs with disdain a bit, but that's about it.