D&D 5E Lvl 14 rogue vs. (lvl 14) red dragon

[WarlockLord]

Can I ask some of the posters here a few questions about their responses to this scenario?

Why does the halfling need to be nerfed, exactly? Is there something wrong with the idea that a mythic hero is strong enough to blast through dragonhide with a sling?

Would people be objecting as much to the outcome if a wizard did it? Instead of evasion, it was a magical force field and lightning bolts, say. Would we be nerfing the forcefield instead of evasion?

I really don't have a problem with short fights like this. Mythic hero uses terrain and tactics and wins. Is the problem that the fight was boring, or that the halfing won? I'm seeing some of each and trying to understand the problem here.

 

[RangerWickett]

For me, it's because the fight was boring. A battle with a grandiose huge dragon was as involved as a typical battle with a rabid dog would be at low level.

 

[B.T.]

Would people be objecting as much to the outcome if a wizard did it?

Depends on your assumptions of the game world. Is a level 14 monster the equivalent to a level 14 PC?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Can I ask some of the posters here a few questions about their responses to this scenario?

Why does the halfling need to be nerfed, exactly? Is there something wrong with the idea that a mythic hero is strong enough to blast through dragonhide with a sling?

Would people be objecting as much to the outcome if a wizard did it? Instead of evasion, it was a magical force field and lightning bolts, say. Would we be nerfing the forcefield instead of evasion?

I really don't have a problem with short fights like this. Mythic hero uses terrain and tactics and wins. Is the problem that the fight was boring, or that the halfing won? I'm seeing some of each and trying to understand the problem here.

Because it's supposed to be a team game and because dragons are supposed to be a challenge to more than one PC. We aren't talking about a baby wyrmling, we are talking about a full out dragon. You one shot low level goblins, you don't single handedly take out a dragon of equivalent level. Now of you want D&D to be a solo game then fair enough but it's not.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Can I ask some of the posters here a few questions about their responses to this scenario?

Why does the halfling need to be nerfed, exactly? Is there something wrong with the idea that a mythic hero is strong enough to blast through dragonhide with a sling?

The problem isn't "blasting through" dragonhide. if the thief couldn't do that, they couldn't do any damage at all to the dragon. The problem is taking away a quarter of the dragon's hit point with one tiny sling bullet.

Would people be objecting as much to the outcome if a wizard did it? Instead of evasion, it was a magical force field and lightning bolts, say. Would we be nerfing the forcefield instead of evasion?

Are people suggesting nerfing evasion? I haven't seen anyone say that in the thread.

I really don't have a problem with short fights like this. Mythic hero uses terrain and tactics and wins. Is the problem that the fight was boring, or that the halfing won? I'm seeing some of each and trying to understand the problem here.

The problem was the boredom. A fight with a dragon should be epic (this is why 4e had solos, why doesn't D&DN at least copy the good parts of 4e?). An entire party should be challenged by a dragon. Instead, we saw a virtual single-stroke battle.

In addition, from a game balance perspective, it didn't work. The dragon could only hit one defense, and Dex-using classes end up having the highest AC in the game. So a dragon that can't hit a thief might insta-kill a wizard, whose AC starts terrible and doesn't get any better. Not good either. (The dragon's ability to kill a thief in three hits, which it can do in one round, is also not cool in a system where healing is so weak.) Furthermore, the dragon is supposed to have enough hit points to withstand a beating from a party for at least a few rounds. (A dragon that is outmatched should have enough hit points to at least attempt to escape... and if it's being outmatched by a single PC, there's a problem.)

I didn't see a whole lot of "tactics" being used there, beyond Power Attack style tactics (only boosting AC).

 

[Stalker0]

The problem was the boredom. A fight with a dragon should be epic (this is why 4e had solos, why doesn't D&DN at least copy the good parts of 4e?). An entire party should be challenged by a dragon. Instead, we saw a virtual single-stroke battle.

This is why I think we should start with the dragon design instead of focusing on the rogue right now. As others have mentioned, even 4 players doing a mere 8 points of damage each could have taken out the dragon in 6 rounds or so, or 3 rounds at twice that. So its not as simple as "the rogue does too much damage".

While 4e's solo monster mechanic took a while to get some polish (the latter dragons were MUCH better than the originals), the later solos were much better designed, and started to lead to some of the "epic" concepts we look for in these kinds of fights. I think some of those design principals can be reintroduced to 5e monsters.

 

[Remathilis]

Smaug died offscreen to an NPC. The GM didn't even have to roll.

Don'tcha hate when the DMPC shows up and steals all your glory?

 

[Klaus]

I was thinking a bit more about this the other day (the other day being yesterday). Let's assume a few variants:

X = damage a character deals on any given level.
Y = hit points of a creature of a creature of the character's level.
Z = hit points of a creature that is 10 levels lower than the character.

Ideally, a character would, on average, remove 10% of the hit points of a creature of equal level. This means that a 4 PC party would remove 40% of a creature's hit points in a round, if they all hit. Which means that a creature lasts about 4 to 5 rounds, factoring in the eventual misses. So 10 X = Y.

DDN's version of minions is that you use lower-level creatures whose hit points are so low, they'll essentially act as minions for higher level characters, without the need for variant stats. Arbitrarily, I'll say that a creature 10 levels lower than a party should be treated as a minion. So X (the damage) should equal Z (low level hp).

So X = Z. 10X = Y. Ergo, 10Z = Y.

Which leads to a creature's hit points multiplying by 10 over the course of 10 levels. If a 14th-level rogue is dealing, on average, 40 hit points of damage, then a 5th-level creature should have 40 hit points, and a 14th-level creature should have 400.

Factor in a steady, 10% increase throughout those 10 levels, and we have:

Level ---- HP --- average PC damage
14 ---- 400 --- 40
13 ---- 360
12 ---- 320
11 ---- 280
10 ---- 240
09 ---- 200 --- 20
08 ---- 160
07 ---- 120
06 ---- 80
05 ---- 40 --- 4
04 ---- 36
03 ---- 32
02 ---- 28
01 ---- 24 --- 2.4

(for levels 1 to 4, I extrapolated on levels 13 to 10).

Mostly random rambling, but it's been crossing my mind.

 

[Stalker0]

I was thinking a bit more about this the other day (the other day being yesterday). Let's assume a few variants:

X = damage a character deals on any given level.
Y = hit points of a creature of a creature of the character's level.
Z = hit points of a creature that is 10 levels lower than the character.

Ideally, a character would, on average, remove 10% of the hit points of a creature of equal level. This means that a 4 PC party would remove 40% of a creature's hit points in a round, if they all hit. Which means that a creature lasts about 4 to 5 rounds, factoring in the eventual misses. So 10 X = Y.

DDN's version of minions is that you use lower-level creatures whose hit points are so low, they'll essentially act as minions for higher level characters, without the need for variant stats. Arbitrarily, I'll say that a creature 10 levels lower than a party should be treated as a minion. So X (the damage) should equal Z (low level hp).

So X = Z. 10X = Y. Ergo, 10Z = Y.

Which leads to a creature's hit points multiplying by 10 over the course of 10 levels. If a 14th-level rogue is dealing, on average, 40 hit points of damage, then a 5th-level creature should have 40 hit points, and a 14th-level creature should have 400.

Factor in a steady, 10% increase throughout those 10 levels, and we have:

Level ---- HP --- average PC damage
14 ---- 400 --- 40
13 ---- 360
12 ---- 320
11 ---- 280
10 ---- 240
09 ---- 200 --- 20
08 ---- 160
07 ---- 120
06 ---- 80
05 ---- 40 --- 4
04 ---- 36
03 ---- 32
02 ---- 28
01 ---- 24 --- 2.4

(for levels 1 to 4, I extrapolated on levels 13 to 10).

Mostly random rambling, but it's been crossing my mind.

One compensation you may need to make. I don't believe the math is true for a "standard" creature of 14th level. I assume that in a regular fight the players will face several monsters of their level. So for a combat to last 4-5 rounds, monsters will need to die quicker than what you are supposing.

Now in the dragons' case, one of the archetypal "solo" monsters, assuming it is by itself makes a lot more sense, and your damage calculations would be more accurate.


Also, your damage model assumes a steady damage increase, which is not normally true in Dnd. Generally you have a BIG damage bonus right at the beginning (weapon + strength + initial class abilities), and then a more steady progression through later levels. For example your model assumes an average damage of 2.4 at level 1 which I think is too low. A fighter will do 4.5 (one handed weapon) + 3 (str) + 3.5 (martial damage) = 11 damage on average at 1st level. Even with a 50% attack rate that would be 5.5

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why does the halfling need to be nerfed, exactly? Is there something wrong with the idea that a mythic hero is strong enough to blast through dragonhide with a sling?

Would people be objecting as much to the outcome if a wizard did it? Instead of evasion, it was a magical force field and lightning bolts, say. Would we be nerfing the forcefield instead of evasion?

I really don't have a problem with short fights like this. Mythic hero uses terrain and tactics and wins. Is the problem that the fight was boring, or that the halfing won? I'm seeing some of each and trying to understand the problem here.

For me, it's the "boss fight" factor.

A standard D&D dragon should probably be a "boss fight." If anything deserves to be a big setpiece mutli-phase battle of strategy and rising action, it is a dragon. I want the "default" Dragon experience to be that (even in Theater-of-the-Mind combat).

This kind of fight would be perfectly fine for an orc or an ogre or even, at 14th level, a troll or certain low-level giants -- something that would appear in groups, at least. Or just something that is not supposed to be the big climax.

A dragon should probably default to being a climax. It shouldn't take two hits to down a dragon, it should take 5 rounds of the entire party, and involve lateral thinking when the default tactics are rendered invalid, and risk the death of the entire party.

I want this kind of fight as a default, I just don't want it for DRAGONS.