They should have higher damage. Low damage means low risk and a boring fight where you just wait for enough rounds to go by for the enemy to die. Thats why it's popular to lower their HP and increase their damage.
Why do dragons do so little damage?
They should have higher damage. Low damage means low risk and a boring fight where you just wait for enough rounds to go by for the enemy to die. Thats why it's popular to lower their HP and increase their damage.
Flipguarder
First Post
imo low damage and complex powerful encounter modification ability, such as the black dragon has, with flight and darkness ability. These things make the fight more epic. Dying in two hits to something thats already a tough fight without large damage seems unfair. Id imagine after fighting that I would think it was a much higher level than it is. Dragons are solo monsters, that doesnt mean they should be stronger than any thing else their level.
mach1.9pants
Hero
Sorry for the threadnap
And in 3E, some dragons had magical spells that were not just damage. Invisibility, Shield, Dimension Door.
4E dragons are just another type of brute (not brute role, but brute monster). Nothing special about them. Just another encounter.
DracoSuave
First Post
Brown dragons, yo. Now -that- is a lurker.
Now, let's look at the dire bear and the black dragon.
Dire bear has +15 to hit, two attacks. Black Dragon is +16 to hit, but often has combat advantage for +18 to hit. But here's the secret:
Black Dragons should be biting, not clawing.
The bite does 1d8+4 + 5 ongoing acid. That actually comes out to 1d8+14 equivalent damage on average. Then throw in the tail slash for when he gets missed, and that's a fair chunk of damage.
Of course, terrain plays into each battle as well. A monster's stat block is not the sum total of a 4e-designed encounter by the book.
1d8+12.26 by my count. You get the automatic 5, and then a 45% chance to deal another 5, which is 2.25, then another 45% chance to do the 5 again, which is 1.01 average damage (the average extra damage past this point is marginal).
DracoSuave
First Post
The actual calculation is:
dx, where x is the ongoing damage, and d is a co-efficient based on the chance to save:
d=1+(1-p)d where p is the chance to save. 1 is the first hit of damage. You have a 1-p chance of continuing it, and that continuation will mean d damage (because previous events do not affect future events)
d=1+d-pd
0=1-pd
pd=1
d=1/p
So the damage = x divided by the chance to save. (isn't exactly 50%, but really, for eyeballing damage it's approximate enough and doesn't involve a calculator)
dx, where x is the ongoing damage, and d is a co-efficient based on the chance to save:
d=1+(1-p)d where p is the chance to save. 1 is the first hit of damage. You have a 1-p chance of continuing it, and that continuation will mean d damage (because previous events do not affect future events)
d=1+d-pd
0=1-pd
pd=1
d=1/p
So the damage = x divided by the chance to save. (isn't exactly 50%, but really, for eyeballing damage it's approximate enough and doesn't involve a calculator)
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
You both commit the mistake of making approximations that aren't accurate.
Stalker0 has the right idea, but unwisely discounts damage beyond a certain point that isn't marginal at all. (The extra damage continues to add up beyond 12.26 up until ~13)
DracoSuave uses an exact formula, but then claims the difference between 45% and 50% can be ignored (I don't think the difference between 4+9 and 4+10 should be ignored, especially not when you're nitpicking)
Ongoing 5 with a 55% save chance ends up giving +9,0909... damage on average.
Adding the +4; "about +13" it is.
Not "about +12". And not "about +14".
