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

[KidSnide]

When doing these comparisons I also want to know what the challenge level intended is in 5e.

For example, is a 14th level monster (even a dragon) meant to be a big challenge to 14th level characters, or should the monster be a few levels higher?

Now I definately think the dragon was too easy in this fight and should be beefed up, I'm just debating how much.

Based on the DM Guide and the monster ex, the red dragon is supposed to be a Tough encounter for three 14th level characters. That a single 14th level character can solo the dragon shows a significant issue. (Keeping in mind that fully rested PCs will typically defeat a tough encounter.)

I'm pretty sure there is more of an issue with the dragon than with the rogue, but the very high damage that high-level martial characters put out may also be affecting this comparison. A 14th level cleric or wizard might have a harder time taking the dragon down. I wonder how a group of four 8th level characters (supposedly the equivalent of a single 14th level character in ability to handle danger) would fare.

For what it's worth, monsters of a given level aren't all worth the same xp. But the range of values is fairly narrow, nothing like the difference between Minion, Standard, Elite and Solo in 4e.

-KS

 

[LostSoul]

Really, I'd like to see a bit more drama in its attacks. Why would a huge dragon just nip you, instead of clamping you in its teeth and swinging its head back and forth to snap your neck? Why don't its claw attacks pin a puny little human or halfling to the ground?

I am not playing out these rules, but I don't see why you couldn't just do that. The DM says, "Okay, so the dragon tries to clamp down on you with its jaws... that's an Improvised Action. A dragon can obviously do that, so that's what he does. He'll make an attack roll to see if he hits and then we'll make opposed rolls to see if he gets a good hold on you. I'll roll Str, you roll Dex."

Assuming the dragon has clamped down on the halfling, he could escape with an action like a normal grapple, or maybe try to stab it in the mouth to make it break its hold... a saving throw vs 10 + whatever on a successful attack (which should probably be against AC 12 or so).

 

[RangerWickett]

I do that sort of stuff when I run my own games. But I'm playtesting a game that Wizards is making. If LEGO gave me a set that was designed to make a house, and the house was boring, I could certainly add my other legos to make a more interesting play set. But the pieces LEGO asked me to try out are still underwhelming.

The halfling can also be creative, and when two enemies are equal, it's awesome when the more creative one wins. But right now the halfling is markedly tougher than the dragon.

 

[LostSoul]

I do that sort of stuff when I run my own games. But I'm playtesting a game that Wizards is making. If LEGO gave me a set that was designed to make a house, and the house was boring, I could certainly add my other legos to make a more interesting play set. But the pieces LEGO asked me to try out are still underwhelming.

The halfling can also be creative, and when two enemies are equal, it's awesome when the more creative one wins. But right now the halfling is markedly tougher than the dragon.

Right, but isn't "improvising" actions part of the playtest package? Isn't that the basic method of play - the player describes their action, and the DM determines how to resolve it?

 

[RangerWickett]

Rule Zero is not itself sufficient for a game.

I get what you're saying, but personally I want the game to provide more examples. You use the examples to balance the improvisation. Right now, if I look at the dragon stats and other monsters and all the various basic rules, then extrapolate from there how to resolve "it tries to bite you, hold you in its mouth, and shake you," what do I base my decision on?

Well, look at creatures that can grapple as part of an attack, like the behir or marillith. Their attacks spell out the grapple. A glabrezu has pincers, but it doesn't grapple. A giant frog has a bite attack that grapples. There's an option for giant lizards to have clamping jaws, which increases the monster's level by 1. So okay, I can make a dragon with clamping jaws, which bumps it up to level 15.

If I just want a normal dragon to grapple on a bite -- or to stomp with a claw attack to pin a creature to the ground -- or to parry an attack with its wing, or catch a sling stone in its teeth, or thwack its tail against the wall to collapse part of the cave on the halfling, . . . are there guidelines for how much damage that should do? If it can claw/claw/bite, what about clamp-bite/tail slam the cave/throw a boulder with its claw?

And hey, okay, assume I'm familiar with the earthquake spell and can guess how damaging a crushing ceiling ought to be. Cool, the game gives me the options to synthesize all these rules. But I still think that a published game owes the people buying it more interesting gameplay without requiring the players do all the work to bring the fun. (And a playtest of a game that will eventually be released ought to provide similar value.)

 

[Stalker0]

Just beefing up the dragon is obviously not the solution here, there is a fundamental problem with the system.

I would agree with you if we are hearing other reports of 14th level monsters getting their butts kicked, but until I do then I think beefing the dragon is obviously the solution.

 

[LostSoul]

I get what you're saying, but personally I want the game to provide more examples. You use the examples to balance the improvisation. Right now, if I look at the dragon stats and other monsters and all the various basic rules, then extrapolate from there how to resolve "it tries to bite you, hold you in its mouth, and shake you," what do I base my decision on?

...snip...

And hey, okay, assume I'm familiar with the earthquake spell and can guess how damaging a crushing ceiling ought to be. Cool, the game gives me the options to synthesize all these rules. But I still think that a published game owes the people buying it more interesting gameplay without requiring the players do all the work to bring the fun. (And a playtest of a game that will eventually be released ought to provide similar value.)

Yeah, that makes sense. I was looking at the one example in isolation - thinking that, if it's a dragon, then it should be able to act like a dragon and mechanically you'd just use contests or saving throws to deal with resolving its actions. But since they have specific mechanics in other places for taking those specific actions, you have to assume they left them out for a good reason.

Which reminds me of the "How do you disarm someone in 4th edition?" question.

I would prefer it if they made it explicit that "If you can do it, you can do it" and designed rules that allowed the DM to easily select mechanics that resolved actions. Like you say, I would prefer it if you didn't need to look up the earthquake spell to resolve a character (or dragon) collapsing the ceiling. Then you wouldn't need to include specific mechanics to allow monsters to bite and grab, or tail sweep, or wrap someone up in their wings, or whatever you can think of. You'd just describe the monster and let its actions flow from there. But it seems like they are designing the game to give players (and the DM) a list of options, and only those options, to choose for your action for the round. (In spite of shaded paragraphs about "Improvised Actions"; it pushes against the direction of the rest of the game.)

 

[the Jester]

I would prefer it if they made it explicit that "If you can do it, you can do it" and designed rules that allowed the DM to easily select mechanics that resolved actions. Like you say, I would prefer it if you didn't need to look up the earthquake spell to resolve a character (or dragon) collapsing the ceiling. Then you wouldn't need to include specific mechanics to allow monsters to bite and grab, or tail sweep, or wrap someone up in their wings, or whatever you can think of. You'd just describe the monster and let its actions flow from there. But it seems like they are designing the game to give players (and the DM) a list of options, and only those options, to choose for your action for the round. (In spite of shaded paragraphs about "Improvised Actions"; it pushes against the direction of the rest of the game.)

Wow, my impression is very much the opposite- I definitely feel like the playtest package encourages pcs to try anything they want, and at least one of the players in my game has commented that he feels that way.

Likewise, there's no reason the same principle can't apply to the dragon.

HOWEVER...

The problem with the dragon is twofold: the wuss element and the boring element. A dragon needs more to do; maybe a section at the start of the dragon stats that describes a series of common dragon tactics and how they work, similar to how the 3e MM did it (except just keep the same bonus to attacks from its bite, use the bite damage in some fraction or multiple, etc). Dragons are so fun to fight in 4e that it would be a terrible shame to go back to "claw/claw/bite or breathe, and that's it!".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I would agree with you if we are hearing other reports of 14th level monsters getting their butts kicked, but until I do then I think beefing the dragon is obviously the solution.

You could be right but why do we want to go the 4th edition route and just make them into hit point bags that you wail on until it dies?

Adding hit points and A.C. is what you do when a group does this, one PC doing it makes the situation a bit more complicated.

 

[Li Shenron]

The simplest and obvious observation on this story, is that it looks like damage output is currently too high compared to hit points, which clearly makes a fight last very short.

A second, more important observation, is that we should be careful when talking about SPEED of combat. We all wanted combats to run more smoothly, and 5e is quite good at that so far, meaning that the rules don't drag combat down, making you spend too much time counting bonuses, tracking status etc. That's great, but clearly is not enough to guarantee that combats will be exciting and memorable, this is just an obstacle for that which 5e is trying to remove or reduce.

LENGTH of combat can mean two things: how long does it take in absolute time, and how long does it take in number of turns. It's easy to imagine that a combat that takes 1 hour to resolve during which each player got 1 turn that took 15 minutes to resolve, would be very different than 1 hour during which there were 15 turns of 1 minute per character. I suppose that some balanced solution would hit a sweet spot... 1 hour for a fight against the BBEG could be a fairly reasonable upper bound (some gaming groups may not want more than half of that, however), but how should it be broken down in turns?

Furthermore, let's keep in mind that you can't just stretch a combat by increasing everybody's HP, at least not too much, because then characters who are strongly based on daily abilities would get progressively weaker than those who are based on at-wills.

Finally, I seriously hope that 5e resists the temptation of going with the wind of "everything is HP damage after all", because despite the good conceptual reasons for that, this idea carries the danger of turning a long combat into mere attrition, thus it goes against any attempt at making a battle vs BBEG more memorable just by making it longer... it also makes it tedious.

What could really be a solution here, I don't know. I can't even say how a combat should feel like to be memorable, it's easier to say how it shouldn't be. Certainly, a combat that is too short is hardly memorable (which can result also because of insta-kill, not just because of too high damage output). A combat that is spent more taking care of the rules rather than in-game decisions is not great fun except for those who actually like the math more than anything else in the game. A damage-HP drag without much tactics can make all fights feel similar.

Ultimately, I am afraid that we can only partially count on the system to help us with that, it will be very good already if it manages to avoid the problems above. But most likely, it will be always up to a good DM and good players to turn the fight into something memorable. And I actually think that the OP's example was pretty memorable... except that there were too few rounds, which means that at such high levels the current system definitely need some dialing.