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

[RangerWickett]

Whether Hercules is magical or not is a matter of semantics. He doesn't cast spells, and he doesn't have any items that are any more important than random crap he could get off the street. He's a guy who hits things. That makes him a fighter. Fighters should be able to hurt anything in the game through their skill and bad-assitude, without requiring any special gear or any wizard friends.

Now, how well they hurt things might depend on having magic. Wizards sometimes face beholders and golems; fighters sometimes have to face ghosts. But if a wizard can telekinesis an object at a golem and let physics do the rest, we should have some ways for fighters to hurt magical critters.

I dunno, have you seen Supernatural? Salt keeps ghosts at bay. And any old schmoe can say some holy words to exorcise off a demon, without requiring levels in cleric. Maybe there should be some mundane recourse for the magical. It's not ideal, but it can give you an out.

And George wasn't a saint until after he killed the dragon, died, had some miracles, and was canonized.

 

[steeldragons]

According to things here, in Andorra, St. George (and yes, obviously he wasn't a Saint until after he died) but he would, in D&D game terms, inarguably be considered a "Paladin." I believe one of his "miracles" that earned him sainthood, was the slaying of the dragon. He had divine help or, if you prefer, was so pure/righteous/perfect in his faith/however you want to phrase it, he was able to (get this!) SMITE the dragon with his lance.

Hercules, doesn't even really require a response. He's demi-god Ryan. You know that. Call him a "fighter", sure those are his levels. But he's a DEMI-GOD fighter. I have to say I'm rather surprised you'd even put that forward.

Bard's arrow was, again through a D&D game window, OBVIOUSLY either an arrow of dragon-slaying or +1 or +3 enchanted. Something that had been passed down father-to-son for a few generations and always been recovered? That's not a just a "lucky shot with an old arrow"...that's enchanted...or at the very absolute least considered "masterwork" or adamantium tipped or something. Or, again if you prefer, perhaps it is enchanted with luck. Thus the fact that the single d6 +magic arrow, PUT IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE (because he's an epic level fighter with his bow, perhaps?), could slay the dragon.

I'm just saying, if you want dragons to be the kinds of terrifying and difficult foes that, it seems we all agree we want...making them immune to non-magic weapons would go a long way to doing that.

Due respect, Ryan, you keep moving the bullseye. We had a 14th level halfling thief who killed it (with a SLING!) in three rounds. Then it's about being an epic level fighter. Now we're at saints and demi-gods. We all want dragons who are frightful and terrible powers who can shred through most adventuring parties (forget about individuals). In what ways is that possible without simply continuing to add/raise numbers? "Mo' numbuhs is mo' bettuh" seems to be the ever-present answer to "make it more powerful"...which I consider to be not only be lazy but poor design...and we know what lives down that path.

I've still not heard what is so hard or terrible about saying (however else you want to structure the game and/or rare you make magic items/weapons/etc...) "When dealing with dragons, here's the [default D&D] deal..."

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

There's something wrong with the idea that one 14th level character can solo an encounter meant for 4 14th level characters (as the XP chart would say the dragon is). It's a play balance thing.

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

I'd be objecting more.

Why not go the "phased" route and just apply it to ALL damage?

Because it makes dragons ridiculous. Dragons shouldn't need this sort of help. Large, smart, arrogant, and deadly should be enough. Why on earth do you want dragons to phase?

Now you're being exclusionary. There's clear and unambiguous precedent for D&D dragons to have keen senses. One could argue that this is one of the salient qualities of D&D dragons for some players.

I for one would argue that the headline monster for Dungeons and Dragons should be absolutely recognisable to non D&D players and shouldn't rely on D&D tropes to understand what it does.

If someone wants to define their D&D dragons as D&D dragons have been long defined, as having keen senses,

[Citation Needed]

The 4e Dragon is just good with senses and can see in the dark. The keen senses of the 3e dragons amount to low light vision and being able to see far. 2e I'll grant. And letting dragons see straight through invisibility is something I agree with (and giving them a keen sense of smell is good for the fear factor).

And really, what do we gain from such a consideration during play? Oh, I guess the rogue's player gets to do the same exact tactics against the dragon that they do against every other monster in the book. How exciting to do the same thing you've been doing. How dynamic.

Nonsense. If the rogue tries that the rogue is dead. Dragons are big and tough enough that if the rogue tries a coup de grace on the dragon the dragon wakes and turns the rogue into lunch. Let sleeping dragons lie! The dragon is fast, smart, mean, and should be able to see straight through invisibility - and knows every inch of its cave.

Dragons with keen senses are more interesting as "big encounters" in the same way that dragons with impenetrable defenses are more interesting in the same scenario: they force the players to think laterally to overcome the challenge by neutralizing their most obvious strengths. Rogues can't sneak. Fighters can't hit. Mages can't land magic. Clerics can't heal fast enough.

I couldn't disagree more. Dragons are the time the expert treasure hunters should have a chance to shine - but to do so in fear and trembling. Taking them on head on should be one of those times not all the PCs come back.

Sure, dragons don't NEED to have them, necessarily. But to say that dragons SHOULDN'T have them as a rule is to fly in the face of good design and previously supported gameplay. Same with the argument that dragons should be "normal" monsters. D&D has plenty of big noisy normal dire lizards that breathe fire characters can fight as normal characters of level X. Dragons, as the vanguards for one of the game's titular threats, probably should not be big fire-breathing lizards.

You mean "There are a lot of dragon knock-offs" so dragons shouldn't behave the way you'd expect"?

This depends entirely on the assumed divergence from the norm of a 14th level rogue in an individual's game.

No. It depends what 14th level means. If the wizard has defined spells at 14th level the rogue should be someone as effective as someone with those spells.

14th level might be awesome and legendary, but it might also be just-a-cut-above, or slightly-better. Superhero-genre on high-level play is not a desirable outcome for every game.

Why not? Isn't level meant to be a measure of power these days? Then what is it meant to mean?

That said, I'm sympathetic the the idea that a high-level rogue is a mythic badass, but then that 14th level dragon should also be a mythic badass, a villain every bit the equal of that rogue. In fact, to make it an interesting encounter, that dragon should probably be the BETTER of that rogue, so that there is an uphill struggle. Death-by-two-rocks-and-a-hunk-of-metal while flailing mostly ineffectually is not a fight worthy of being called a "dragon-slaying" in my book. It's not a fight worthy of the awesome of that titular threat.

Indeed. That dragon needs beefing up.

Dude, did you honestly just argue that a dude with SAINT as a title, and the CHILD OF A GOD are low-magic paragons of badass normal?

Um... St George wasn't a Saint at the time. And this world has saints and is low magic. Objection denied.

I mean, if you like a mythic game of saints and godlings, more power to you, but lets not imagine that these are creatures who are non-magical. They exist at the very APEX of magical thinking.

And let's not pretend that level 14 D&D is by default anything approaching mundane. The wizard has Greater Teleport and Plane Shift by then.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whether Hercules is magical or not is a matter of semantics. He doesn't cast spells, and he doesn't have any items that are any more important than random crap he could get off the street. He's a guy who hits things. That makes him a fighter. Fighters should be able to hurt anything in the game through their skill and bad-assitude, without requiring any special gear or any wizard friends.

I'm pretty sure I'm sympathetic to the end point of this line of thinking, but I think saying Hercules is mundane is stretching quite far. He is the child of a god. He is literally MADE of the world of the unseen and omnipotent. There are a lot of examples of actual badass normals in myth, so I think your overall point stands OK, for a mythic-style game. But a lot of games hit 14th level and aren't playing superhero godlings. Mandating a game-style change like that is problematic for the game. 14th-level rogues don't HAVE to be mythical bandit kings.

As a corollary:

And George wasn't a saint until after he killed the dragon, died, had some miracles, and was canonized.

Um... St George wasn't a Saint at the time. And this world has saints and is low magic. Objection denied.

Learn how saints work and get back to me on that.

Now, how well they hurt things might depend on having magic. Wizards sometimes face beholders and golems; fighters sometimes have to face ghosts. But if a wizard can telekinesis an object at a golem and let physics do the rest, we should have some ways for fighters to hurt magical critters.

I dunno, have you seen Supernatural? Salt keeps ghosts at bay. And any old schmoe can say some holy words to exorcise off a demon, without requiring levels in cleric. Maybe there should be some mundane recourse for the magical. It's not ideal, but it can give you an out.

For me, this is kind of a game-play issue. If what works against every other monster works against dragons, dragons work just like every other monster, and aren't awesome battles of legend. It's fine, but I don't think it results in gameplay that's quite as good as dragons being big centerpiece threats. A Wizard SHOULDN'T be able to telekinesis a golem if that golem is going to be the big centerpiece fight of the game, and dragons should be, IMO, that big centerpiece fight.

I'm generally for mundane magical (salt SHOULD stop vampires!), and I think that requiring magic to fight dragons as a default is problematic (as I pointed out above), but if you're going to cite evidence for mundane heroes beating the snot of out dragons, don't give me saints and godlings.

Because it makes dragons ridiculous. Dragons shouldn't need this sort of help. Large, smart, arrogant, and deadly should be enough. Why on earth do you want dragons to phase?

Because fiero.

I for one would argue that the headline monster for Dungeons and Dragons should be absolutely recognisable to non D&D players and shouldn't rely on D&D tropes to understand what it does.

Keen senses don''t make a dragon unrecognizable.

[Citation Needed]

You already noted 2e (aka: the Era of Dragonlance). Throw in 1e, too. And don't forget that dragons in both 2e and 3e were spellcasters, and thus able to augment their perception in various ways (3e red dragons especially had access to certain divination spells). It's not a marginal concept.

You mean "There are a lot of dragon knock-offs" so dragons shouldn't behave the way you'd expect"?

No one gets to play gatekeeper on what is a "real" dragon and what is a "knock off." There's no authoritative bible canon on what makes for a fitting dragon. D&D dragons should be designed for the requirements of a simple D&D game which, IMO, includes them being big threats rather than normal monsters.

No. It depends what 14th level means. If the wizard has defined spells at 14th level the rogue should be someone as effective as someone with those spells.

No one said otherwise. But whether those 14th level effects are like unto a mythic demideity or whether they are just kind of impressive normal feats is not something that needs to be set in stone and assumed for all players.

And let's not pretend that level 14 D&D is by default anything approaching mundane. The wizard has Greater Teleport and Plane Shift by then.

14th level D&D needn't be that epic. It's not that epic in 4e, and it's not that epic in E6 and not every DM likes that epic feel. Let's not pretend there is only one correct way to play, only one correct dragon to fight, and only one correct way to view a 14th-level rogue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm pretty sure I'm sympathetic to the end point of this line of thinking, but I think saying Hercules is mundane is stretching quite far. He is the child of a god. He is literally MADE of the world of the unseen and omnipotent. There are a lot of examples of actual badass normals in myth, so I think your overall point stands OK, for a mythic-style game. But a lot of games hit 14th level and aren't playing superhero godlings. Mandating a game-style change like that is problematic for the game. 14th-level rogues don't HAVE to be mythical bandit kings.

No they don't. You can add yet another definition to the word "level" and change the game. You can introduce any of a thousand different hypotheticals. But these hypotheticals have nothing to do with D&D Next until someone puts them into D&D Next.

D&D Next as it stands gives certain characters explicit power based on their level. Those characters are spellcasters. When you go back to spells strictly given out as treasure and never part of the advancement of characters then tiers become part of the treasure to hand out. D&D does not do this - so at least some of the classes have tiers not as treasure but as advancement. Making your link somewhat less relevant than a link to GURPS rules.

14th level rogues in the current version of D&D Next have to be mythical bandit kings or levels do not make sense.

Learn how saints work and get back to me on that.

You can only be declared a saint after death. And saints are something that exist in the real world.

For me, this is kind of a game-play issue. If what works against every other monster works against dragons, dragons work just like every other monster, and aren't awesome battles of legend.

For me, Dragons are the most awesome monsters going. There's no way to simply punk them and they all need to be treated with care. A gimmick monster like a real (i.e. not 3.5) golem is a gimmick monster and that gimmick makes the fight. Dragons need no gimmicks. And there is no easy way to beat them. The reason you can ambush them if you get dragons right is that you must ambush them to stand a chance.

Because fiero.

A reply that's wicked through and through?

No one gets to play gatekeeper on what is a "real" dragon and what is a "knock off."

But you have been doing just exactly this. You have been saying dragons should get various properties like exceptional senses that are not part of the core concept. You object that the rogue shouldn't be able to sneak up on the dragon. You are trying to play gatekeeper.

And I disagree. A wyvern in a lot of mythology is a knock-off dragon.

No one said otherwise. But whether those 14th level effects are like unto a mythic demideity or whether they are just kind of impressive normal feats is not something that needs to be set in stone and assumed for all players.

Then we can stop setting spells in stone? If level equates to spell then level equates to power. Greater Teleport is way beyond "impressive normal feats". Your entire argument would only make sense if spells had no defined power levels and were simple relative.

14th level D&D needn't be that epic. It's not that epic in 4e, and it's not that epic in E6 and not every DM likes that epic feel. Let's not pretend there is only one correct way to play, only one correct dragon to fight, and only one correct way to view a 14th-level rogue.

In 4e and in e6 the 14th level wizard doesn't have greater teleport and plane shift. If the rogue can't keep up with the wizard then the rogue's level should be capped at the last point at which they can. And we are talking about the December playtest packet of D&D Next. A game in which the level 14 wizard does have greater teleport, plane shift, and invisibility. So a 14th level rogue should be as awesome as someone with greater teleport, plane shift, and invisibility.

If you don't like characters being that awesome don't play at that high level. If you don't think wizards should be that awesome petition to have wizards power level capped. That's unless you want the rogue to be the wizard's bumbling sidekick. Or you want the rogue to be capped at level 7 - so the massive power difference is actually reflected by the game rather than fooling people through false labelling.

Because things stand, level 13 means "The level when wizards get Greater Teleport and Plane Shift" amongst other things.

 

[Stalker0]

14th level rogues in the current version of D&D Next have to be mythical bandit kings or levels do not make sense.

There is some truth to this.

A 14th level rogue lives and fights in a world of 14th level magical spells and 14th level monsters, and most of the time comes out ahead. So either 14th level is not that epic (in which case higher levels magics would need to be toned down), or a 14th level anything is something special.

People are using the hercules example. To me, the fact that hercules is a demigod is semantics from a dnd sense. He is a high level fighter. How his "high level fighter" abilities are explained by his demi-god blood, but on paper he is still a high level fighter. Ultimately, it all boils down to what high level means. At some point, all characters are going to become mythic badasses if they gain enough levels. Explain it by wuxia power, supernatural augmentation, or just plain old fashioned "he's just THAT good", but that explanation has to get rolled out at some point.

 

[Gargoyle]

Haven't read all the responses, but it seems to me from reading the original post that if you substituted the word dragon with something like "fire giant" people wouldn't have nearly as much problem with the halfling winning so easily.

 

[RangerWickett]

Good point.

In general, though, I don't think 5e yet has demonstrated much ability to have long dramatic battles. Damage is too high, and tactics don't really matter.

 

[the Jester]

[Citation Needed]

You asked for it! I'll snip unnecessary details for brevity, but even so.

All dragons see equally well in daylight or darkness (infravision 60'). They have excellent sight, smell and hearing. Because of these keen senses, all dragons are able to detect hidden or invisible creatures...

Dragon Senses: All dragons have excellent senses of sight, smell and hearing. Their enhanced senses enable them to detect all invisible objects and creatures (including creatures or items hidden in darkness or fog)... All dragons possess a natural clairaudience ability with respect to their lairs...

DRAGON SENSES: ...Like any predatory creature, a dragon has acute senses. These remarkable senses become even better as a dragon grows and ages, mostly because a dragon's mind becomes ever more perceptive as the centuries pass....

VISION: Dragons have vision superbly adapted to hunting. They enjoy excellent depth perception, which allows them to judge distances with great accuracy, and they have outstanding peripheral vision as well. Dragons can perceive motion and detail at least twice as well as a human in daylight, and their eyes adapt quickly to harsh light and glare. A dragon can stare at the sun on a clear summer day and suffer no loss of vision.... In fact, dragons see exceedingly well in dim light. In moonlight, dragnos see as well as they can in sunlight. In even dimmer light, a dragon sees four times as far as a human can under similar conditions. Dragons can even see with no light at all...

SCENT: A dragon's sense of smell is nearly as well-developed as its vision.... A dragon's ability to sense the presence of other creatures by scent makes it difficult to catch a dragon unawares, and hiding from a dragon is nearly impossible once a dragon is close enough to pick up the quarry's scent.

HEARING: ...Even the youngest of dragons, however, has sharper hearing than a typical human, thanks to its ability to recognize important sounds for what they are and to filter out background noise and focus on significant sounds.

BLINDSENSE: One outstanding example of a dragon's sensory prowess is its blindsense- the ability to "see" things that are invisible or completely obscured. By using its nose and ears, and also by noticing subtle clues such as air currents and vibrations, a dragon can sense everything in its immediate vicinity, even with its eyes closed, when shrouded in magical darkness, or when swathed in impenetrable fog...

TASTE: A dragon's sense of taste is highly discriminating. Dragons can note the slightest variation in the taste of water or food...

4e barely comments on dragon senses at all. Nonetheless, there you have three editions' worth of praise for the acuity of dragon senses (excepting their tactile sense, which is very poor).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In 4e, it's very hard to get a bonus to Stealth (in order to keep invisibility balanced; the crazy +20 to +40 bonuses you got for being invisible in 3.x broke that - I don't even like those powers that give you +4 Stealth), so dragons don't really need special senses like their 3.x blindsense.

An invisible rogue (using an item, say) would be a challenge for a dragon to hit, but no longer an auto-loss.

Haven't read all the responses, but it seems to me from reading the original post that if you substituted the word dragon with something like "fire giant" people wouldn't have nearly as much problem with the halfling winning so easily.

True. A giant is not a "solo" and is basically a giant mook. While I understand D&DN wants to simply use lower-level monsters as minions, I don't think it works the other way around. A 14th-level dragon is not built to solo 9th-level PCs, other than having more hit points than a 9th-level creature.