D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

I would have gone with damage reduction (ala heavy armour mastery feat) or damage threshold. I don't see the reason why a dragon should be immune to non mag weapons

I don't see a reason they shouldn't be. Either option works for me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't see a reason they shouldn't be. Either option works for me.

A dragon is "natural" it is not ethereal (like undead), it isn't from another plane of existence (fiends) and it isn't held together by magic. If giants don't need magic weapons to be hurt I don't see why dragons would. I would love to know what logic you have for dragons needing magical weapons.

 

[Maxperson]

I would have gone with damage reduction (ala heavy armour mastery feat) or damage threshold. I don't see the reason why a dragon should be immune to non-mag weapons.

In fact I do do that for my own campaign.

I really liked what 3e did. Young dragons had no reduction. Young adults had reduction of 5, so it was possible for weapons to still hurt them with those rolls of 20. However, once they reached mature adult and hit that DR 10, a roll of 20 from a typical ranged non-magical weapon would do nothing. And even greatswords would be unlikely to do much. Once it hit DR 15, non-magical weapons are done. But that happened at the very old age category, which is fine by me.

I think that very old(or older) huge green dragon with 362 hit points, an AC of 36, and centuries of age should take adventurers and powerful NPCs to fight.

 

[ECMO3]

Yes, they are proficient with the weapon listed. No, that does not limit them to ONLY proficiency with that weapon. It just means that the book isn't going to give them a weapon that they aren't proficient with.

Well there is no rule saying they are proficient with all simple weapons either.

They also don't get proficiency with improvised weaopons, and niether do PCs. I think a commoner would be a lot better at swinging a chair than effectively employing a dagger.

Your argument would mean that an NPC knight would not be proficient with maces, morning stars, daggers, long swords, short swords, and on and on. What knight have you ever heard of who is only proficient with greatswords and heavy crossbows?

This is exactly true RAW and I would not have them use their proficiency bonus with a greatsword or heavy crossbow and I don't use in it the game I DM if I am using a statblock RAW. If I don't like it I will make up my own statblock.

Also as an aside, RAW a knight would have disadvantage using a heavy crossbow.

Edit: Plus you are cherry picking from the MM in any case.

I am using the commoner statblock. To the best of my knowlege there is only one commoner statblock in the monster manual.

"You can equip monsters with additional gear and trinkets however you like, using the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook for inspiration"

Sure. But that is not the standard commoner.

I think too if you are trying to make a point about how weak a Dragon is when facing a horde of commoners, giving them any weapon not in their statblock is a bit disingenuous, let alone giving them proficiency with said weapon. That is cherry picking IMO.

What about commoners with Oathbows and arrows of Dragonslaying .... or modern firearms? You can equip them with what you want as you said, and you can make them proficient in that, but the default commoner is not.

"Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment."

So since the PHB says commoners are proficient with simple weapons, crossbows work out juuuuust fine.

It does not say they are proficient with them. Go reread your quote. It says commoners use them and PCs are proficient with them.

Commoners use improvised weapons too, and they are a lot easier for someone to use effectively than dagger, and it is safe to say commoners are not proficient in improvised weapons since this requires a feat even on the part of a PC.

Keep in mind lack of proficiency does not stop NPCs from using other weapons, they just don't get their proficiency bonus with it, which makes complete sense to me, especially considering the level of expertise needed to employ some simple weapons.

We had this actually happen recently with a prisoner freed in a dungeon. It was a gladiator and he did not have proficiency with the weapons they took off the bad guys. He still used them of course.

That's dumb.

There are lots of dumb rules.

If we are talking about what makes sense - Giving commoners who rarely ever train with a weapon proficiency with javelins, daggers, light crossbows or slings makes no sense given the extensive training required to use one of those weapons effectively IRL. Giving them proficiency in clubs, spears, light hammers and sickles makes sense.

 

[Maxperson]

A dragon is "natural" it is not ethereal (like undead), it isn't from another plane of existence (fiends) and it isn't held together by magic. If giants don't need magic weapons to be hurt I don't see why dragons would. I would love to know what logic you have for dragons needing magical weapons.

They are not extraplanar, but most assuredly not in the same way as giants. Their scales are legendary in their thickness and ability to ward off damage from weapons. There's a reason why people make armor from them. Plus, while they are not extraplanar, they are still a magical/supernatural creature with innate magical ability. The ability to breathe fire(or whatever element) hot enough to melt stone and metal, isn't a natural one.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I really liked what 3e did. Young dragons had no reduction. Young adults had reduction of 5, so it was possible for weapons to still hurt them with those rolls of 20. However, once they reached mature adult and hit that DR 10, a roll of 20 from a typical ranged non-magical weapon would do nothing. And even greatswords would be unlikely to do much. Once it hit DR 15, non-magical weapons are done. But that happened at the very old age category, which is fine by me.

I think that very old(or older) huge green dragon with 362 hit points, an AC of 36, and centuries of age should take adventurers and powerful NPCs to fight.

Agree. Quite often I use weight, reach, resistance, immunity, supernatural abilities etc from 3x to modify 5e monsters. We already have touch attacks for ethereal (bypassing normal armour/shields) and halving magical armour/shields AC benefit).

 

[Cadence]

That's dumb.

I hadn't looked in depth at the changes between 2014 and 2024 yet. Googling around, I kind of liked this rejoinder.

For ancient Red, going from 2014 to 2024:
39 fewer hit points
4 CHR higher
Worth 13,000 more XP in lair
1 more out of lair, 2 more in legendary resistance
Smoothed bite and claw into kind of average of two
Removed tail as an option
Removed frightful presence
Add spell casting (command w/ 2 targets, detect magic, scorching ray w/ 5; targets at will; fireball and scrying 1/day
1 more legendary action in lair replacing detect, tail attack, and costs 2 wing attack with command spell, scorching ray, and pounce.

 

[AnotherGuy]

They are not extraplanar, but most assuredly not in the same way as giants. Their scales are legendary in their thickness and ability to ward off damage from weapons. There's a reason why people make armor from them. Plus, while they are not extraplanar, they are still a magical/supernatural creature with innate magical ability. The ability to breathe fire(or whatever element) hot enough to melt stone and metal, isn't a natural one.

Behir - created as weapons vs dragons, lightning breath, decent natural armour
Umber Hulk - carapace excellent natural armour
Bulette - excellent natural armour
...Etc
We will have to agree to disagree as I feel I'd have to change all the above monsters for logical parity. Some of them don't even have resistance vs normal weapons. Anyways.

Although we agree with 3.x's take.

 

[AlViking]

The number keeps shifting because we haven't bothered to do the math again. We know that 1) the math does check out with commoners, and 2) that isn't the point.

The point is that all it takes is a village to hit 1000 commoners, which can generate the number needed to kill the dragon mathematically. Not even a town or city. A village! Should a dragon have to be so deyathly afraid of attacking villages that it is forced to alter its tactics to account for the village commoners so it doesn't die? I very strongly believe that should be a no.

Even white dragons should have no fear of a village and be able to take it out if it attacks.

If you have an issue with the scenario see my detailed options above. I just don't see an issue if the dragon acts like the 16 intelligence monster it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Well there is no rule saying they are proficient with all simple weapons either.

They also don't get proficiency with improvised weaopons, and niether do PCs. I think a commoner would be a lot better at swinging a chair than effectively employing a dagger.

Do you not believe the PHB rule because I didn't attach a page number to it? I can provide the page number if you need me to. It says very clearly that commoners are proficient with most simple weapons.

This is exactly true RAW and I would not have them use their proficiency bonus with a greatsword or heavy crossbow and I don't use in it the game I DM if I am using a statblock RAW. If I don't like it I will make up my own statblock.

It's not true by RAW at all. If you want to call the MM RAW, then RAW says that monsters are proficient with whatever the DM decides. End of story. Nowhere does it limit then to only their stat block.

I am using the commoner statblock. To the best of my knowlege there is only one commoner statblock in the monster manual.

Whereas I'm using RAW. Not cherry picking what I want RAW to mean like you are.

Sure. But that is not the standard commoner.

Yes it is. The standard commoner is a commoner with whatever simple weapon the DM wants it to have. The default block doesn't indicate any kind of standard. You aren't going to walk into a city and see every commoner walking around with a club.

I think too if you are trying to make a point about how weak a Dragon is when facing a horde of commoners, giving them any weapon not in their statblock is a bit disingenuous, let alone giving them proficiency with said weapon. That is cherry picking IMO.

Eh, no. Simple weapons are what commoners are proficient with, per PHB RAW. There is no standard commoner. Stat block =/= standard.

What about commoners with Oathbows and arrows of Dragonslaying .... or modern firearms? You can equip them with what you want as you said, and you can make them proficient in that, but the default commoner is not.

You think a D&D modern game means that a commoner can't use a modern firearm as a simple weapon?

It does not say they are proficient with them. Go reread your quote. It says commoners use them and PCs are proficient with them.

Er.. I'll quote it again with the page so you can believe me this time. 5e PHB page 146. I'll bold it and underline it for aid.

Your race, class, and feats can grant you proficiency with certain weapons or categories of weapons. The two categories are simple and martial. Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners."

I mean, you can stick your head in the sand and try to pretend that the paragraph there doesn't mean that commoners, which make up 70%-90%(depending on the society) of people, aren't part of most people if you want to.

We had this actually happen recently with a prisoner freed in a dungeon. It was a gladiator and he did not have proficiency with the weapons they took off the bad guys. He still used them of course.

I'd hate playing in the game you play in. Any game where a gladiator who is specifically trained to use pretty much every weapon, isn't proficient any weapon but the spear in his stat block, would drive me crazy. Games need to make sense.

If we are talking about what makes sense - Giving commoners who rarely ever train with a weapon proficiency with javelins, daggers, light crossbows, (short) swords or slings makes very little sense given the extensive training required to use one of those weapons effectively IRL. Giving them proficiency in clubs, hammers and sickles makes sense.

No. No you are not talking about what makes sense. What makes sense is commoners being able to use clubs, daggers, quarterstaves, light crossbows, etc. The SIMPLE weapons. Hell, crossbows in the hands of commoners was historically something feared by knights in plate. Why? Because it took almost no training to use. Just point and pull the trigger.

What you are incorrectly describing as RAW is a bunch of nonsense. It makes no sense at all.