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

[Klaus]

Simply attacking-for-damage to wittle down hit points is boring. It's just a back-and-forth game of "I attack, I hit, I deal X damage". It may be okay for mooks, since those fights are speedbumps in the adventure.

What makes a fight memorable are the attacks that alter the fight. Knocking the target prone, unbalancing it so an ally can exploit an opening, knocking down part of the terrain on top of the enemy, luring the enemy into a corridor too narrow for it to fight effectively. All of these help make the fight memorable, because you are forcing the players to think of what their PCs are doing, how to make the character's contribution "fit" with those of the other PCs. On the monster side, these effects also force the PCs to react to them and compensate for them (instead of just subtracting HP from the sheet).

 

[RangerWickett]

Then again, Wizards seems to want D&DN to be quick to play, old school style, with simple rules. In which case, eh, sure, it's just hit points. No conditions, no tripping, just hit points, because that's simple.

I don't personally see that as an enticing game design aesthetic. By contrast, I say make combat less fiddly by having overarching rules for all the weird stuff PCs and monsters do, then explicitly encourage them to do those weird things. Don't have a special ability that says "once per encounter you can attack two guys, and if you hit them both you deal extra damage and knock them prone." Just have rules for attacking multiple people, rules for how much damage a cool trick should do, and rules to adjudicate how easy it should be to apply conditions.

I don't think it's necessary to give every dragon its own suite of special moves like "bite and clamp," "buffet away with wind," or "bite, set on fire, then spit at another PC." Just a) make those sorts of maneuvers easy to adjudicate, b) have sample maneuvers in the Monster Manual, and c) explicitly call out common maneuvers for dragons to use in the dragon entry.

 

[the Jester]

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?

Dude... really... why start edition warring? Come on.

Besides, 4e is the first edition that explicitly made every monster NOT just a big bag of hit points. Kobolds are shifty; gnolls are savage; orcs are relentless; and the game gives them mechanics to back it up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Fast combats are great except when you want a dramatic combat, but if dramatic combats become the norm then a combat with a dragon is no longer exceptional.

Most combats should be fast combats, but it should be possible to have a longer combat against a more significant foe. One size does not fit all.

What makes a fight memorable are the attacks that alter the fight. Knocking the target prone, unbalancing it so an ally can exploit an opening, knocking down part of the terrain on top of the enemy, luring the enemy into a corridor too narrow for it to fight effectively. All of these help make the fight memorable, because you are forcing the players to think of what their PCs are doing, how to make the character's contribution "fit" with those of the other PCs. On the monster side, these effects also force the PCs to react to them and compensate for them (instead of just subtracting HP from the sheet).

Those aren't hard to do (especially with easy ability checks and abstract combat), but this is part of why I was so categorical above.

Okay, we have the Red Dragon, and by default, we assume that the Red Dragon cannot get hit with any damage.

Then, we give PC's ways to overcome that. Say, they can make a DEX check against the dragon to hit a soft spot. Or maybe cold damage actually gets through. We don't need one way to do it, and every combat could be different.

Then, we give the dragon ways to react. My most recent column proposed the idea of "Destiny" as a way to keep combat with significant monsters dynamic, and that works for this: each time the dragon's Destiny gets depleted, some event is triggered -- a breath recharge, perhaps, or some opportunity for the PC's to make a dent.

This is all pretty far afield of standard D&D stuff, but it IS pretty fun.

 

[LostSoul]

RW, that is exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see.

 

[Stormonu]

Just for chuckles, these are the stats for a "Ancient Red Dragon" in my own system (54 Fantasy). 1 point in an ability/score is about 2 points in D&D; each "Wound" is about equal to 5 hp in D&D (so this things has about 170 hp).

Do you see this as something that'd be too complicated to run, just about right or too simple if it was converted to D&D? (Def = defense, the roll to hit it; Res = resistance, the roll to damage it; Resolve is like a saving throw vs. Will or Fort; in each case attacker and defender draw playing cards to add to the values listed)

Fire Dragon, Ancient
Gargantuan Winged Quadruped (Dragon, Fire)
Str: 13♦ Dex: 5♣ Int: 9♥ Pre: 10♠
Mel: 7 Ran: 6 Mag: 6
Def: 1 (7♣) Res: 11 (20♣A4)
Resolve: 15♠ (20♠) Wounds: 34
Vision: Darksight Speed: Normal, Flight
Enhanced
Skills: Armor (Natural) (R5) 16, Athletics (+Flying) (R3)
16, Endurance (R5) 20, Evade (R5) 6, Knowledge
(Arcane) (R5) 14, Language (Common) (R3) 12,
Language (Draconic) (R5) 14, Perception (R5) 14,
Persuade (R5) 15, Spellcraft (Arcane) (R5) 11,
Weapon (Natural) (R5) M12/R11
Attack: Maw A12♦/D19♦ (+6 wounds + draw card
+ 1 (fire) wound) or Claws A16♦/D17♦ (+6
wounds) or Tail A13♣/20♣ (+7 wounds) or Fire
breath A11♥/P20♥ or Spells
Multiattack (R1): Make a tail, maw (A-2/D-2) and claw
(A-4/D-4) attack. On a hit, deal 1 + weapon wounds.
Armor Piercing (R2): Make a bite & claw attack and
ignore 1 point Armor or Armor skill when dealing
damage.
Improved Shieldbreaker (R3): With a ♦ card, ignore 2
points of Shield bonus and/or Evade skill and make a
bite & claw attack. On a hit, deal 1 wound (+weapon
wounds). Consequences: 1x/scene.
Dehabilitating Strike (R4): Once a scene or with a Jack+,
Make a bite & claw attack. On a hit target takes 2
wounds (+weapon wounds) and +5 penalty to actions
until a successful Endurance (Fortitude) check (Diff
17). Consequences: 1x/day.
Lay Out (R5): Requires King+. Make a bite & claws
attack. On a hit, target takes 3 wounds (+weapon
wounds), is disarmed, knocked prone and stunned
until successful Endurance (Fortitude) check (Diff 20).
Consequences: Dragon takes a wound. 1x/day.
Spells (+11): 0th-3rd circle – any card; 4th-6th circle –
one 1x/scene or Jack+; 7th circle – Queen+
Detect Magic (0th): Diff 11, Close, Instant; detect
presence of active spells or magic items
Legerdemain (0th): Diff 11, Personal, Persist; create
minor magical effect or trick.
Resistance (0th): Diff 11, Close, Instant; Target gains
+1 to next Armor check.
Charm Gaze (1st): Resv +1♦, Short Persist; Once per
scene (or using Jack+) target becomes trusted
ally. Consequence: 1x/scene; if target is
attacked, spell is broken.
Arcane Strike (2nd): A15♠/P16♠, Medium, Instant;
target takes 8 wounds. Ghostly creatures cannot
evade attack. Consequences: 1x/scene;
Cumulative wound to cast again
Dispel Magic (3rd): Diff = enemy spell casting
difficulty, Short, Instant; End active spell on target.
Polymorph (4th): Diff 17, Personal,
Scene; Take shape of another
creature whose Primary ability scores
do not exceed 20. Gain shape’s Strength
and Dexterity, racial abilities and natural
attack modes.
Rot (5th): A13♠/F18♠, Close, Scene; Target takes 9
wounds + draw card for wound. Target takes –3
penalty to all skill checks and cannot heal
wounds until successful Endurance (Fortitude)
check (Diff 15). Consequences: 1x/scene.
Cumulative wound to cast again.
Scry (6th): Diff 20, Extreme, Persist; View remotely
and gain +5 bonus to Perception (Spot).
Consequences: 1x/scene.
Blast Fireball (7th): A12♠/P19♠, Long, Instant; Up to
6 targets take 10 (fire) wounds + draw card for
wound. Target takes wound every other round
until it makes successful Endurance (Physical)
check (Diff 18). Consequences: Dragon takes a
wound. For each extra wound, can affect +1
target. 1x/day Cumulative wound to cast again.
Binding (8th): Resv +4♦, Close, Day; Imprison
creature of up to 6 wounds. Draw card for extra
wound to imprison. Can release to perform
service by discarding a ♠ face card. After a day,
the creature is free. Consequences: Dragon
takes a wound. For each additional wound taken,
can imprison +1 wound creature, up to 10
wounds. 1x/day.
Hail of Meteors (9th): A11♠/ P20♠, Long, Instant; Up
to five targets take 11 (fire) wounds + draw card
for extra wound. Targets take 1 wound every
other round until it makes a successful Endurance
(Physical) check (Diff 22). Consequences:
Dragon takes a wound. For each additional
wound taken +1 target. 1x/day. Cumulative
wound to use again.
Fire Breath (3x/Scene): Att +0♥/Phys +5♥,
Medium range, Persist. Deals 7 (fire) wounds up
to 5 targets. Target takes 1 (fire) wound every
other turn until successful Endurance (Physical)
check (Diff 20).
Fire Immune: An ancient fire dragon takes no
damage from fire attacks.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That looks like it has too many abilities, sort of like how 2e and 3.x fiends had "rafts" of spell-like abilities.

something like the boss monsters on the "Angry DM" site, I think, would work very well. However, that would require a lot of 4eisms that D&DN is avoiding.

 

[LightPhoenix]

It seems to me that there's no one reason why this scenario happened. Yes, the dragon is a bit static and boring, and likely underpowered. However, I think we're still only seeing the very beginnings of monster design and development. It looks to me as if they're trying to get the numbers right before adding breadth, same as they seemed to do with classes. Also, as has been noted in other threads, damage is high across the board for characters in this packet, which no doubt will be toned down. The Rogue is also undergoing adjustments in how they play, which may contribute to it as well. The set-up of the battle highly favored the Rogue as well. I'd like to see a few more test runs of the Red Dragon and other monsters at similar level as a comparison.

 

[Klaus]

Then again, Wizards seems to want D&DN to be quick to play, old school style, with simple rules. In which case, eh, sure, it's just hit points. No conditions, no tripping, just hit points, because that's simple.

I don't personally see that as an enticing game design aesthetic. By contrast, I say make combat less fiddly by having overarching rules for all the weird stuff PCs and monsters do, then explicitly encourage them to do those weird things. Don't have a special ability that says "once per encounter you can attack two guys, and if you hit them both you deal extra damage and knock them prone." Just have rules for attacking multiple people, rules for how much damage a cool trick should do, and rules to adjudicate how easy it should be to apply conditions.

I don't think it's necessary to give every dragon its own suite of special moves like "bite and clamp," "buffet away with wind," or "bite, set on fire, then spit at another PC." Just a) make those sorts of maneuvers easy to adjudicate, b) have sample maneuvers in the Monster Manual, and c) explicitly call out common maneuvers for dragons to use in the dragon entry.

I remember the old Mayfair DC Heroes RPG, which gave you several ways of altering your attack. It'd be akin to D&D letting you use Power Attack, Disarm, Trip, or those many 3.5e Ambush feats, without requiring a feat.

 

[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.