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

[mlund]

The underlying problem I see is the Rogue being able to double martial damage dice output with Sneak Attack. I'm not in the "Rogues should rampantly out-damage Fighters when they use Sneak Attack and do the same damage the rest of the time," camp. One of the reasons is that it leads to absurdities like 74 point non-critical sling-stone attacks.

That said, Solo monsters should not lend themselves to the otherwise quick-and-dirty fight meme of DNDNext. From my perspective it's OK for solos to be a little "grindy" in terms of HP and defenses since they don't take as much time moving around as 4-5 standard monsters would. Solo encounters should be less "swingy" than they are under the current iteration of the rules. Maybe that means more HP. Maybe that means damage resistance. I'm sure they'll come up with something, given feedback.

- Marty Lund

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Except Mearls has stated that unlike your personal opinion/experience, there are in fact more and more people participating in the playtest. Besides, I am willing to bet that if they get it right, a lot of people will return, even if they have been playing another game. After all, 2 years hardly equals forever for us roleplayers.

Of course Mearls is going to say that. Do you honestly think he is going to tell you that the numbers have dropped? Also, I can tell you for a fact that I know a lot of people who signed up in the beginning who continue to do the survey's but don't play test any more. Also, I know a lot of people who have signed up, downloaded the packet but haven't playtested it. Many many people can sign, and have, signed up just to take a look at the playtest without bothering to play test it so just because someone downloads the packet doesn't mean they like the game.

Also, the biggest problem is they are actually putting out this material and it seems like they aren't even playtesting it before it's put out. The staff at Wizards are supposed to be professional game designers but it takes someone from an internet gaming forum running a test battle to show that it's not working? Jesus Christ, that's like writing a term paper without ever going back a reading it and handing it off to someone else to read for you and tell you what you did wrong. It would make more sense if you corrected your own errors and then send it on to someone else for a second pair of eyes to clean up what you might have missed.

If this is what's coming out of Wizards then I fear for the brand to be honest.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A friend made up a 14th level halfling rogue (76 hp, AC 17, +7 to-hit) to run in The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb. As a test, I had him fight a red dragon, which is listed as a level 14 monster (174 hp, AC 15, +7 to-hit). His only magic item was +1 mithril chain.

He sneaks up. Easily beats the dragon's Wisdom check to notice him.

He attacks with a sling, and between halfling luck and ace in the hole is guaranteed to hit. Sneak attack ends up at, I think, 1d6+3+2x(6d6+15). He does something like 74 damage.

Roll initiative. The rogue uses his skill dice to add 1d10, and easily beats the dragon.

He makes a normal sling attack, then runs to cover. Hits for another 40-ish damage. (114 dmg vs. 174 hp)

The dragon flies after the halfling, claw/claw/bites. Only hits with the bite, doing 33 damage. (33 dmg vs. 76 hp)

The halfling provokes an opportunity attack to run, and gets to add his skill die to his AC. The dragon misses. The halfling slings the dragon again and manages to get into a narrow space, where the dragon will have to squeeze if it wants to attack him. The sling does another 40-ish damage, and the dragon is nearly dead.

The dragon breathes fire into the narrow space where the halfling is trying to hide, but hey, evasion. Halfling takes no damage.

The halfling walks up with a short sword and stabs the dragon to death.


That was pathetic.

Interesting report. I'd agree that the dragon seems a little underpowered for its level. (I think +9 to hit, 19 AC, and +9 from Keen Senses might be closer to the right ballpark. Additional hps and reactions are probably also in order, as its xp value seems to indicate that it's meant to be the equivalent of a solo).

That said, it seems to me that the halfling did have a bit of luck. I'm guessing he resisted the dragon's frightful presence, otherwise the dragon would have had two more opportunities to notice him (once as he's leaving his sniper's nest and a second when he returns to it to try again) which would have negated the rogue's sneak attack. Even with his current stats, the dragon would hit the halfling on a 10+, and he'd only have to roll marginally above average with his three attacks to kill the halfling outright.

While I think the dragon definitely needs some more TLC, it seems to me that at least some of this playtest should be attributed to the player rolling well and the DM rolling poorly. Which will inevitably happen from time to time. I don't think you'd see the same results if you tried it one or two more times.

 

[mach1.9pants]

So was the dragon in the last packet? Has it been updated in this packet? I skipped the last one. It does mention at the front that some monster stats have been updated.

Still I am personally not worried by this stuff, at the moment. I hope the math will get sorted but that shouldn't be hard to do. It is more the feel and style they are going for which I like. But I agree with some of the other posters that solo monsters (and dragons should be solos) need extra actions and stuff to make them viable, like in later 4E

 

[GX.Sigma]

Now on the rogue: Without saying that its dmg output is too high/too low/just right (I have yet to form an opinion), I will note that it's interesting how, as a community, we seem to have flip-flopped between "the rogue's damage is too low" and "the rogue's damage is too high" with the last two playtest packets. I hope there's a sweet spot somewhere.

The problem with the Rogue's damage last packet was that he was usually worse than the fighter (no ED to damage), and sometimes the same as the fighter (normal ED to damage).
This time, he's usually the same as the fighter (normal MDD to damage), and sometimes better than the fighter (double MDD to damage).

The solution seems clear: make him usually worse than the fighter, and sometimes better than the fighter.

 

[the Jester]

Of course Mearls is going to say that. Do you honestly think he is going to tell you that the numbers have dropped?

I've never seen Mearls be anything but scrupulously honest, so I hope you aren't calling him a liar.

If the numbers dropped, I'd expect him to say nothing at all.

 

[Stormonu]

Chalk me up as a fan of Fort/Ref/Will, each informed by one of two abilities (Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Cha). I know the desire to return to "roll a saving throw" is great, but sometimes you have to cut out your favorite part of something for the rest to "click" into place.

IMHO, the rogue should be doing something like 10% of the dragon's total hp per round, on average. On a successful Sneak Attack, the rogue should be taking something like 25% of the total (an assassin rogue, with an optimized attack that can't be repeated in a single fight, should be able to take out sbout 66% of a dragon's total hp). Conversely, the dragon should be taking out 25% of the rogue's hp with a single attack, or 50% with a seldomly-used breath weapon.

Thinking of these figures as percentages would then guides through the actual damage calculation.

Actually, I'd rather see four adventurers (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard Cleric) doing no more than about 20% of the dragon's HP a round, with the dragon returning about 15% of the party's total hit point in return each round. I'd like to see an unsaved breath weapon doing about 50%-75% of one PC's HP in damage, but probably only usable as one big blast once a combat.

That would mean that a single rogue's damage output per round would be about 5% of the dragon's HP per round. That would have been about 8 hp of damage a round, if the dragon kept it's 174 hp total. [Wow - each party member doing just 8 hp of damage a round could kill a 174 hp dragon in ~6 rounds - that's ... amazing] Adding in a big "whump" of sneak attack damage, and the dragon should've probably had about 30 hp more for each time the rogue could have used his sneak attack.

 

[beej]

[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION]: Agreed. Perhaps a reduction to the rogue's rate of MDD acquisition in relation to the fighter could work.

On topic: I do think that the rogue's damage needs to be reevaluated, especially as it pertans to the fighter. I also think that the dragon could use some buffs in the manner that I mentioned earlier.

As I think about this topic more, though, I'm starting to be of the opinion that at 14th level, the halfling rogue does deserve to be awesome. It should, IMO, be able to take down hill giants and trolls and mind flayers in much the same way that its 4th level counterpart can take down kobolds. So while I think the damage is a bit too much, I also think that it's close to the mark.

I also feel like while it should scare a 14th level rogue, a red dragon shouldn't scare a 14th level rogue that much. It should scare it in the same way that a 1st level rogue is scared of an orog. It could kill you, but if you play your cards right you'd kill it first.

So, without getting to playtest it yet, IMO the dragon is a little weak and the rogue a little strong, but the tweaks to them probably shouldn't be too drastic.

That said, I would love to see the dragon get a crush attack.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He sneaks up. Easily beats the dragon's Wisdom check to notice him.

That shouldn't happen in D&D. Dragons should be nigh-impossible to sneak up on.

He attacks with a sling, and between halfling luck and ace in the hole is guaranteed to hit.

That also shouldn't happen in D&D. Dragons should have hide no normal blade can pierce, let alone a rock.

(33 dmg vs. 76 hp)

That seems about right. Maybe a bit on the low side, but it did only hit with one attack.

The halfling provokes an opportunity attack to run, and gets to add his skill die to his AC. The dragon misses. The halfling slings the dragon again and manages to get into a narrow space, where the dragon will have to squeeze if it wants to attack him.

Okay, rogues are slippery, I'm good with this. Tight spaces make a lot of sense in a dragon fight.

The sling does another 40-ish damage, and the dragon is nearly dead.

I'm having trouble distinguishing David from Goliath at this point.

The dragon breathes fire into the narrow space where the halfling is trying to hide, but hey, evasion. Halfling takes no damage.

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. Lame lame lame. That halfling should be toast.

The halfling walks up with a short sword and stabs the dragon to death.

D&D dragons should be MUCH more difficult to hit than this.

That was pathetic.

Yeah, sounds it. That halfling sounds less like a rogue and more like some sort of over-the-top action superhero, punching out dragons with a few rocks and a pointy stick and only taking one hit that didn't even cause the rogue to pause and react.

Sounds like we may have a problem with the dragon not having the robust, boss-like defenses it should have, coupled with perhaps an issue with Evasion. The latter issue may be fixed by tweaking the effect a bit (personally, I think if they're in the area of effect, they should take damage, so perhaps Evasion lets them move X feet, and if that puts them out of the area of effect, then they take no damage).

The former issue might need some more deliberate attention. A "Draconic Senses" ability that means that a dragon is automatically aware of any creature within X feet, and a higher natural armor bonus might be enough.

 

[stckhj90]

We shouldn't need to throw a dozen dragons at a party just to make them sweat.