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

[MoutonRustique]

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.

While this isn't the angle I was looking for, thank you for your answer - I now understand your statement. Thanks!

 

[Hussar]

In order to stealth, you need cover do you not? Or concealment? If something has blindsight and a direct LOS to you, then you have neither cover nor concealment, and thus, you could not use Stealth. Concealment is largely ineffective against blindsight, simply because it does not rely on sight, thus, barring corner cases like stink bombing Gridlocks, concealment will never be available to someone trying to use stealth.

An invisible target in the open is perfectly clear to something with blindsight, is it not? That's certainly the intent of the rules AFAIK.

Now, if you could gain cover, then you could stealth and become hidden. Otherwise, no, stealth isn't going to work particularly well against something with blindsight.

 

[Tormyr]

In order to stealth, you need cover do you not? Or concealment? If something has blindsight and a direct LOS to you, then you have neither cover nor concealment, and thus, you could not use Stealth. Concealment is largely ineffective against blindsight, simply because it does not rely on sight, thus, barring corner cases like stink bombing Gridlocks, concealment will never be available to someone trying to use stealth.

An invisible target in the open is perfectly clear to something with blindsight, is it not? That's certainly the intent of the rules AFAIK.

Now, if you could gain cover, then you could stealth and become hidden. Otherwise, no, stealth isn't going to work particularly well against something with blindsight.

I think most people hold this view. This is different than making a blanket statement that Blindsight completely negates stealth.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think people are looking at this through too narrow of a lens. It's really this simple:

In order for the opportunity of stealth, something needs to be done that hampers or hinders the primary detection method of the target you are trying to be hidden from.

This is universally true, regardless of the type of detection mode: sight, tremorsense, blindsight, etc

It seems as if people are trying to apply a different standard to one over the others, and that's fundamentally flawed. I'm guessing it's because we use sight as our primary method of detection so we're using that as some sort of baseline.

Look at it like this. If a creature has blindsight and detects by echolocation? Your concealment is anything that disrupts that return signal. Could be a box, a bush, or anything that does that.

If it detects by smell? All you have to do is mask your odor. Hunters do this all the time.

Tremorsense? Has not anyone seen Tremors? Just don't make vibrations.

The point is, just because something has blindsight, or tremorsense, or whatever, doesn't automatically mean it detects everything. It just means instead of focusing on not being detected via visual senses like you're used to, do something else that impacts the senses the creature does have. The only ability I am aware of that prevents stealth is the rogue's blindsense, because it explicitly states that hidden creatures within 10 ft are detected.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Only Ripley and the cat survive - everyone else dies. Survival is not guaranteed for everyone in the books or movies.

In D&D, an "ordinary housecat" has always been a badass.

Great description of an intense battle, [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]. Thank you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, and while we're at it, we probably need to start using the terms correctly. Yes, it's a pet peeve of mine, probably because I'm a veteran.

Cover is a physical object that is capable of protecting your from physical attack.
Concealment is an object or area that simply provides stealth.

Therefore, you can have concealment for many types of detection (like hiding in the shadows for sight, or behind a bush for echolocation (blindsight).

 

[the Jester]

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.

I take it you haven't actually read this thread, then, since the OP has been crystal clear that several pcs died in this fight.

 

[SkidAce]

Oh, and while we're at it, we probably need to start using the terms correctly. Yes, it's a pet peeve of mine, probably because I'm a veteran.

Cover is a physical object that is capable of protecting your from physical attack.
Concealment is an object or area that simply provides stealth.

Therefore, you can have concealment for many types of detection (like hiding in the shadows for sight, or behind a bush for echolocation (blindsight).

Yeah me too. I always wanted to "correct" folks but I never did. Thanks!

 

[pemerton]

Unless your goal is to have a scripted storyline when you play, then I stand by my assertion that comparing a D&D session to a movie or book is fundamentally flawed. Because D&D has a random element to it, you can't really say that monster X would be defeated, or hero Y would live because that's what happened in a scripted and predetermined movie or book.

This is confused. Book and scripts don't spring into the world already written. They have authors, who create them.

A D&D session is exacty like a movie or book in this way: just as books and scripts are created by episodes of authorship, so a D&D session is (perhaps among other things) an episode of authorship, in which imaginary events are imagined to occur.

There might be reasons to think that authorship during a D&D session should take place differently from authorship of a book or script (eg because it is not producing a product to be enjoyed by later audiences). But that doesn't make the comparison "fundamentally flawed".

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is confused. Book and scripts don't spring into the world already written. They have authors, who create them.

A D&D session is exacty like a movie or book in this way: just as books and scripts are created by episodes of authorship, so a D&D session is (perhaps among other things) an episode of authorship, in which imaginary events are imagined to occur.

There might be reasons to think that authorship during a D&D session should take place differently from authorship of a book or script (eg because it is not producing a product to be enjoyed by later audiences). But that doesn't make the comparison "fundamentally flawed".

a book or a movie is completely at the whim of the writer. A D&D session has a lot of random elements. I.e, regardless of what the DM or players want, the actual result can be much different