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

[Joe Liker]

The match against Cyanwrath was never meant to be "fun." It was meant to trigger an emotional response -- anger, even hate, and a desire for revenge against the Cult of the Dragon. I haven't seen much to indicate that it isn't doing that.

What it triggered in me was annoyance at the designer because the whole encounter is just so blatantly manipulative, especially in retrospect.

My party hasn't reached the second meeting with Cyanwrath yet, but when we do, I won't be mad. This campaign has lost all ability to affect me emotionally beyond furthering my annoyance at the designer. So on that fateful (and by "fateful," I mean "hamfistedly pre-ordained") second meeting, I will probably not care too much about fighting him or whatever. I'm far more likely to sit back and make snarky comments about how we shouldn't even bother because he obviously has plot immunity.

 

[pedro2112]

There's no change. Only a crit triggers 2 failed death saves. A regular hit only triggers one.

Yes, it is a change. If a creature is at zero hp and unconscious, then any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Therefore, if Cyanwrath hits you to zero and you drop, then the module specifically states he gives you another blow while you are done. But instead of using the rules of the game, in this particular instance it is changed and the hit is not considered a crit.

 

[Iosue]

Yes, it is a change. If a creature is at zero hp and unconscious, then any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Therefore, if Cyanwrath hits you to zero and you drop, then the module specifically states he gives you another blow while you are done. But instead of using the rules of the game, in this particular instance it is changed and the hit is not considered a crit.

Ah, I see the confusion. The adventure accounted for the Death Saving Throw rules (p. 76 of Basic Rules), but didn't account for the Unconscious condition in Appendix A.

At this point, I'm more inclined to see this as an editing mistake due to the adventure being written while the rules were still in flux, rather than the writer's changing the rules to baby the PCs. Perhaps Huscarl (Steve Winter) can confirm this?

 

[Prism]

What it triggered in me was annoyance at the designer because the whole encounter is just so blatantly manipulative, especially in retrospect.

I think it comes down to a preferred style of play. This encounter is either no win from one point of view or always win from another. Our group is pretty used to this style. One of our DMs in particular often presents us with no win scenarios so we are used to this situation and don't mind it at all. As long as it doesn't remove choice which I don't believe this does. Its the DMs job to attempt to manipulate you as that what the bad guys would try and do

He challenges someone to a fight. You can assume he is very tough. You can decide to fight him or not much like many other encounters. If you lose you might die or be knocked unconscious. Its a no win scenario because if one of your characters doesn't lose then a guard does - I have no problem with that. We have faced far worse no win scenarios in our time.

Some people have question why he doesn't kill the character he drops. I would ask does your PC attack dropped enemies every time? I know my characters never do. Who knows if one of the goblins eventually recovers from the party mashing they got and harbours revengeful thoughts against a party they never meet again

 

[KarinsDad]

I think it comes down to a preferred style of play. This encounter is either no win from one point of view or always win from another.

How is it ever a win?

The NPC dies. Loss.

The PC gets knocked unconscious. Loss.

The PC dies. Loss.

THe NPC dies. Oh no wait, that cannot happen. Even when the PCs kill him, he is either not dead, or saved, or replaced with a clone.

It seems like lose lose to me. It seems like heavy handed DM (actually designer) manipulation.

And yes, I get the whole "the villagers are saved". Woo hoo! The PCs are heroes (or at least after the one PC wakes up, if he wakes up). It just seems like a hollow victory.

Ah, I see the confusion. The adventure accounted for the Death Saving Throw rules (p. 76 of Basic Rules), but didn't account for the Unconscious condition in Appendix A.

At this point, I'm more inclined to see this as an editing mistake due to the adventure being written while the rules were still in flux, rather than the writer's changing the rules to baby the PCs.

Yeah, I've heard that there are quite a few "editing mistakes".

Yes, it is a change. If a creature is at zero hp and unconscious, then any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Therefore, if Cyanwrath hits you to zero and you drop, then the module specifically states he gives you another blow while you are done. But instead of using the rules of the game, in this particular instance it is changed and the hit is not considered a crit.

The question is, where are the other PCs at this point? Are the PCs on the parapets? Are they on the ground? How far away is the duel? People have posted different ranges for the duel.

Even if the other PCs can get close after the fight, what happens if there is no PC with the Spare the Dying, hence, no longer range stabilization? Or has a Heal potion? Or misses the DC 10 Medicine check to stabilize?

Playing the rules as written in the PHB, or even as per the module, could fairly easily result in a dead PC depending on the situation and dice rolls.

Yes, the DM can hand wave that away. But he shouldn't have to.

 

[Prism]

How is it ever a win?

The NPC dies. Loss.

The PC gets knocked unconscious. Loss.

The PC dies. Loss.

THe NPC dies. Oh no wait, that cannot happen. Even when the PCs kill him, he is either not dead, or saved, or replaced with a clone.

It seems like lose lose to me. It seems like heavy handed DM (actually designer) manipulation.

.

I agree with you. For me its a no win situation. Others have posted to this thread that since its actually very unlikely that a character dies they see this as a 'always win' situation since there is a perception of no real threat and you actually get what you want from the encounter which is saving the family whichever way it turns out. When we played it didn't feel lacking in threat. Our fighter was one save away from death when my character managed to reach him and roll a medicine check successfully.

As I said I have no problem with and actually appreciate these kind of lose - lose encounters as long as eventually there is long term success for the party.

The only slight problem I have with the encounter is the part that as a player I am currently unaware of since we didn't defeat him - that the adventure suggests to use a replacement half dragon. If a party somehow managed to kill the guy then I'm sure our DM would have made the follow up encounter different rather than simply replacing him. As this is so unlikely and certainly didn't happen in our game I'm not worried

 

[Kaychsea]

So on that fateful (and by "fateful," I mean "hamfistedly pre-ordained") second meeting,

Because who would have thought that a trusted senior member of the cult would be left behind to carry out an important task while the boss gets on with things? How very dare they stretch your credibility to such a degree!

I'm far more likely to sit back and make snarky comments about how we shouldn't even bother because he obviously has plot immunity.

And at my table that would get you a bit of a talk. Just because there are bits you don't like doesn't mean anyone else should get urine flavoured chips.

 

[Kaychsea]

Yeah, I've heard that there are quite a few "editing mistakes".

Given that Winter has said that the rules had not been set in stone while they were developing the adventure is it so hard to imagine that the auto-crit on a nearby unconscious character wasn't in the rules they had to work with at the time? Given the whinging on the thread about the lack of material for the game how much worse would it be if we'd had to wait another four to six weeks to get the flagship campaign?

And if that is such a game breaker, having Cyanwrath spitting on the fallen character while his friends race to save him will give a similar feel for his contempt and arrogance without wasting a death save.

 

[Iosue]

Given that Winter has said that the rules had not been set in stone while they were developing the adventure is it so hard to imagine that the auto-crit on a nearby unconscious character wasn't in the rules they had to work with at the time?

FWIW, I just checked the latest public playtest packet and there each time a creature with 0 hp takes damage, it suffers a death roll failure. Critical hits do not cause two failures. Nor does the Unconscious condition give automatic critical hits. Which means between October and whenever Hoard was finished, there were two minor rule changes, either of which the HotDQ writers could have missed. So yeah, I'm going to call this an editing failure.

 

[TiaxTheMighty]

The first encounter in Lost Mines of Phandelver had NPCs who could attack, move, and hide all in a single round. And because of this, there were TPKs or partial TPKs in that first encounter. There was even a thread here on EnWorld where a group decided to never play 5E again because of it.


The harm is that PCs die and players might get annoyed enough to not even play the game anymore. Is that what we want with 5E?

Uh, yea actually. The reason we roll dice is because the threat of/the chance of death is what makes it fun. If you have players that are annoyed every time they lose a fight, or don't feel like a badass just because they were out badassed by an NPC, they might be playing the wrong game. I mean no offense but if a player can't separate their PCs humiliation from their own, then, well, they clearly need to evaluate themselves to determine whether or not they lack the fortitude needed engage in a role playing game. It's not an uncommon problem. There have been quite a few actors who have had trouble making the disconnect from the experiences of their characters and it was not good for their mental health. I've seen it quite a few times over the years as well with D&D players.

Some of my most memorable encounters in D&D were against villains that were so beyond us that we had very little chance of total victory. Sometimes we thwarted them, other times we were forced to retreat with our tails between our legs. This made our characters hate him more.

Some BBEGs are memorable because they are diabolical, some because they are slippery and cunning enough to push the PCs buttons, and others are memorable simply because they seem to be so absurdly terrifyingly powerful. This Half-Dragon simply sounds like the Honorable Brute whose weakness is his hubris. These are all different types of villains with different paths available to them to achieve their memorable BBEG status.

You seem like the type of player who doesn't enjoy that last type of villain and that's fine but I wouldn't call the module badly designed. I actually get more annoyed when a villain seems omniscient because he outmaneuvers me than when he bests me in combat/forces me to retreat. I'm not sure what it says in the module but this guy doesn't seem like he's unwilling to accept a surrender which could definitely reduce the chances of a PC death. If you want to run a game where you stroll through most encounters as mega badass PCs on easy mode who never suffer humiliation, defeat, surrender etc... that's perfectly fine and it's a playstyle preference. However, I hope to god the modules that we pay money for are aren't designed to be so easy.