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

[Maxperson]

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.

Your detailed options involve dragons terrified to take on a village(not a city, or even a town) directly. Dragons should not be fearful of farmers, and of your options and tactics indicate that they are.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Behir are supernatural creatures. Umberhulks are supernatural creatures. Bulettes are the one thing you mention with no supernatural component.

However, NONE of those have hides like dragons.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Good grief if Daenerys had the type of dragons as statted by 5e she wouldn't have been able to take over Mole's Town nevermind Kings Landing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I said I was fine either way..I think you're taking my stance like it's a manifesto. It is not. DR would work quite well. But honestly I think if you made the claim that dragons are inherently magical creatures by virtue of their capabilities (not just their flagrant abuse of the Square Cube Law), and therefore it makes sense magic would be required to injure them, you'd likely get some takers.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Behir are supernatural creatures. Umberhulks are supernatural creatures. Bulettes are the one thing you mention with no supernatural component.

However, NONE of those have hides like dragons.

White Dragon ANCIENT 18AC no dexterity bonus
Red Dragon ADULT 19AC no dexterity bonus

Roper 20AC dexterity penalty (AC is actually 21 then)

 

[Cadence]

Good grief if Daenerys had the type of dragons as statted by 5e she wouldn't have been able to take over Mole's Town nevermind Kings Landing.

No argument.

My guess is the goal was to make Dragons something that are used more often in "Dungeons and Dragons" instead of mostly just a high level scary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



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.



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





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.



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.




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.

To be fair, one of the greatest advantages of crossbow is that you don't need to spend a lot of time training on them.

They are complex to build and expensive, however.

 

[Maxperson]

White Dragon ANCIENT 18AC no dexterity bonus
Red Dragon ADULT 19AC no dexterity bonus

Roper 20AC dexterity penalty (AC is actually 21 then)

Which is why they need the DR. The AC doesn't match the lore because of bounded accuracy. There's no way in hell a roper should be harder to hurt than an adult or older dragon.

There is far more to defense than just AC.

You just pointed out how Daenerys wouldn't have been able to do what she did with 5e dragons. And you are right.

This is the 5e dragon lore.

"True dragons are winged reptiles of ancient lineage and fearsome power. They are known and feared for their predatory cunning and greed, with the oldest dragons accounted as some of the most powerful creatures in the world. Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."

Does that description sound like something that should be afraid of farmers with crossbows?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

A lot of commoners receive militia training at certain times, which means they are likely familiar with the standard issue weapons of their lord's military forces.

 

[Maxperson]

A lot of commoners receive militia training at certain times, which means they are likely familiar with the standard issue weapons of their lord's military forces.

Yes, but those lords didn't want to spend a lot of money on fodder, which was what commoner militias were. They were trained in simple weapons, usually spears, swords, and axes. Sometimes bows. England trained them to use longbows, which in D&D are martial weapons.