D&D 5E Observations and opinions after 8 levels and a dragon fight

[Unwise]

I like the fact that there are threads saying the dragons are too easy and thread saying that they are too hard, the only thing that rings true in all the threads. Win or lose 5e dragon fights are pretty much summed as: Brutal

 

[MonsterEnvy]

You sure? In my copy of the adventure Auranthur is simply an adult white dragon, where do you get the sorcerer info?

Warder

Because that's what he has always been in the past. It is brought up in the adventure he has much more magical power and knowledge then the average dragon. I would give him a boost to charisma and Int and give him the Dragon Spellcasting variant.

 

[Rhenny]

Tension in the battle does not always mean that the party is close to TPK or that the combat lasts x rounds. In 5e, I think the tension is raised by the fear that something bad can happen at nearly any time. For example, there is still a 33% chance that the dragon's breath will recharge the round after he's already used it. That threat is always there. If that happens, the difficulty of the encounter is magnified. As a player, I'm going to be tense fighting the dragon, and if possible, I'll try to avoid the fight (unless it is my quest to slay the dragon).

In addition, I think some people just want combats to last longer in some situations because that's what they are used to, and that's what they feel makes the combat more tense. That's not wrong. It just may not be possible with the default setting of 5e. Longer combats can easily be achieved by adding hit points (max hp for unique specimens) or granting resistance to physical damage, etc.

In my experience, I've been finding that as a player and a DM, I've been acting much more "in character" in combat because I fear that at any time, something bad might happen, even if it never does. This fear makes foes/villains act more like "real" creatures. If they get hurt too much, they try to run or negotiate or trick. The same goes for players.

 

[Werebat]

A misconception has developed over the past while about what it means to be a hero. I frequent many forums, and have for years, and a trend I see from some people is that in order to be considered a hero in D&D, you have to have cool powers, kick everything's ass, and if you do die: you have to have their permission and it has to be scripted and setup in such a cool way that it has to be an ever lasting badass moment that will be brought up at the table for years to come.

Yes -- people who believe this seriously need to play some Blood Bowl, right away.

 

[occam]

No house rule. It's pretty simple. It perceives as though seeing without sight. Pretty easy to understand. You can't stealth if it sees you. That means things like invisibility don't work against it because invisibility only blocks sight. Hiding only stops you from being seen as in sight. If the dragon perceives like sight without sight, what would you as a DM say blocked it's ability to see you while stealthing? Hiding behind a rock doesn't work because it doesn't need sight to perceive you. Normally you hide or stealth by blocking sight. How do you block dragon senses that don't need sight, yet perceive as well as sight?

By being very quiet? The skill is called Stealth, after all, not Hide in Shadows.

The rule for blindsight, which you quoted, doesn't say anything about perceiving "as though seeing", or "like sight", or "as well as sight". It just says the creature perceives "without relying on sight". In many cases, blindsight is desribed as being due to enhanced hearing, in which case it could be defeated by being sufficiently quiet, or behind a wall. It depends on how the DM rules it, but it doesn't automatically negate stealth.

Not that the rogue being able to hide would've made a lot of difference in this encounter. Sounds like most of the PCs were basically doomed as soon as they stepped into the dragon's lair.

 

[Derren]

Not that the rogue being able to hide would've made a lot of difference in this encounter. Sounds like most of the PCs were basically doomed as soon as they stepped into the dragon's lair.

Doomed? Why?
A totally unprepared and ill equipped party managed to beat (but not kill) a legendary creature way above their level while half of them were completely ineffective with no casulties.
I wouldn't call that doomed.

And for some reason people see this as indication that dragons are strong in this edition while it actually shows that they are rather weak as they are not able to deal with essentially a half party below their CR.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Tension in the battle does not always mean that the party is close to TPK or that the combat lasts x rounds. In 5e, I think the tension is raised by the fear that something bad can happen at nearly any time. For example, there is still a 33% chance that the dragon's breath will recharge the round after he's already used it. That threat is always there. If that happens, the difficulty of the encounter is magnified. As a player, I'm going to be tense fighting the dragon, and if possible, I'll try to avoid the fight (unless it is my quest to slay the dragon).

In addition, I think some people just want combats to last longer in some situations because that's what they are used to, and that's what they feel makes the combat more tense. That's not wrong. It just may not be possible with the default setting of 5e. Longer combats can easily be achieved by adding hit points (max hp for unique specimens) or granting resistance to physical damage, etc.

In my experience, I've been finding that as a player and a DM, I've been acting much more "in character" in combat because I fear that at any time, something bad might happen, even if it never does. This fear makes foes/villains act more like "real" creatures. If they get hurt too much, they try to run or negotiate or trick. The same goes for players.

There is that fear - but I've found myself unable to act "in character" (for my critters as a DM) as there is no time to judge a situation : round one - "That guy is fairly strong... I'll have to watch out for..." round two - "... blarrrgghhh *spurting sound of arterial blood*..."

Any creature targeted by players can't be "in-world smart" during a battle - it has a maximum of 6 seconds to judge if it should run away right now or try and attack a (possibly) second time. If boxing matches lasted as long as D&D skirmishes between 8+ opponents, we'd have 50 fight events!

I understand 3 round combats are desirable from a play-experience (time per person per round, and etc) perspective, but I'm having trouble figuring out how my critters are supposed to think. It's an adjustment I'm having trouble with.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Doomed? Why?
A totally unprepared and ill equipped party managed to beat (but not kill) a legendary creature way above their level while half of them were completely ineffective with no casulties.
I wouldn't call that doomed.

And for some reason people see this as indication that dragons are strong in this edition while it actually shows that they are rather weak as they are not able to deal with essentially a half party below their CR.

I don't understand this thought process - this doesn't make dragons strong or weak. It only shows that CR isn't a hard and fast metric.

If you want strong dragons, have your weakest dragons be of the CR 15+ kind. This is easier than ever with bounded accuracy.

I just... I don't understand how this relates to dragons... if a dragon with a CR of 5 is stronger than another creature of CR 5, that doesn't make dragons "strong", it makes CR busted with regards to dragons.

Or am I missing something?

I'm not meaning to single you out, but I've seen this sentiment many times (in different shapes and forms) and it baffles me every time. I was simply hoping someone could enlightened me.

 

[Paladin interrogator]

I have only played 1st and 5th editions and have been impressed with the amount of detail the game has developed. I'm a big fan of the concentration limitation of some spells. It only makes sense.

I love that paladins can be chaotic good now as well. Perhaps its a personal limitation but I just couldn't play a Lawful good character so I never tried my hand at this character until now. As the OP stated, paladins are a mighty class and I have thoroughly enjoyed playing mine.

 

[Derren]

I just... I don't understand how this relates to dragons... if a dragon with a CR of 5 is stronger than another creature of CR 5, that doesn't make dragons "strong", it makes CR busted with regards to dragons.

It relates to dragons because the OP makes the general statement "Dragons are very strong in 5E" based on a dragon fight on the very end of the deadly encounter guidelines with a much lower level party where half the PCs not even doing anything because they lack equipment and still losing without any PC fatality.
So why are dragons "very strong in 5E" based on this extremely bad performance?

There is also the thread about legendary monsters as solos http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=393085 which comes to similar conclusions that dragons are rather weak when compared to same CR monsters.