Why do dragons do so little damage?

[Flipguarder]

This whole argument seems moot to me. Arguing that an adult large dragon and a dire bear should have equal damage is like saying a honda civic and a semi truck should have the same horsepower. There are other factors in a fight. 400 hp is going to go much farther on a civic than a semi. Likewise a flying, partially controlling creature is going to do much more with less damage then a dire bear who does twice the damage.

 

[keterys]

One thing to consider with solos (and thusly dragons) is you want its damage to compare roughly to a full group of normal enemies.

So, if a normal combat lasts 6 rounds, 1 round against 5 enemies, 2 against 4, 1 against 3, 1 against 2, and 1 against 1 (or 19 attacks equivalent), frex, and a solo fight lasts 9 rounds, 2 of which the solo loses entirely to debuffs of assorted means, then its 7 rounds of attacks need to be roughly equivalent to the 19 from the other.

Breath Weapons, ongoing damage, auras, and reactive attacks all contribute a lot to that, but a dragon's damage should probably still be roughly inline with twice that of a normal creature (note that the dire bear does at least double normal damage).

 

[Flipguarder]

I don't understand why you assume the following things

1. There is a average damage per encounter that is supposed to be there.
2. Solo monsters are alone in combat.
3. The number of monsters that "should" be alive per round in a normal encounter.
4. How long each combat is "supposed" to take.
5. That solos should do close to as much damage as a normal encounter on their own.
6. That solos (lvl 11 solo is what we are discussing) automatically lose two rounds to random debuffs.
7. Your last statement just seems to assume that his "utility" doesn't make up for the extra damage without giving any reason why.

In my experience damage per encounter can range extensively without losing the pressure on the pcs. Solos should almost never be alone unless you want to make the fight easy. Combats vary equally extensively to damage due to environmental situations and pc strategy.

I threw a young black dragon at my pcs and they still think it was their most difficult fight. It wasn't about the damage, it was about getting past its wierd defenses.

 

[interwyrm]

I don't understand why you assume the following things
1. There is a average damage per encounter that is supposed to be there.
2. Solo monsters are alone in combat.
3. The number of monsters that "should" be alive per round in a normal encounter.
4. How long each combat is "supposed" to take.
5. That solos should do close to as much damage as a normal encounter on their own.
6. That solos (lvl 11 solo is what we are discussing) automatically lose two rounds to random debuffs.
7. Your last statement just seems to assume that his "utility" doesn't make up for the extra damage without giving any reason why.

1. There are guidelines in the DMG for damage that different monster types should do at a given level. The damage output of a monster is part of what contributes to its level.
2. No one is assuming this. What we are assuming is that a solo takes the place of 5 standard monsters of equivalent level.
4. There are guidelines for how long an encounter should take - specifically for the defenses and hp of a monster at a specific level.
5. If a solo is not matching the damage output of 5 standard monsters of the same type and level, then it is not going to be very challenging.
6. I don't think this is an unfair assumption.

As for the black dragon, it seems to me that it plays more like a soldier than a lurker. The reason I say this is that soldiers typically have highly accurate lower damage attacks and higher defenses, leading to a longer fight.

That's fine, but the monster is supposed to be a lurker. Reducing its defenses to compensate for the "always on" aura and giving it a sneak attack would probably go a long way towards making it play more like a lurker appropriate for the level.

 

[keterys]

I don't understand why you assume the following things

1. There is a average damage per encounter that is supposed to be there.
2. Solo monsters are alone in combat.
3. The number of monsters that "should" be alive per round in a normal encounter.
4. How long each combat is "supposed" to take.
5. That solos should do close to as much damage as a normal encounter on their own.
6. That solos (lvl 11 solo is what we are discussing) automatically lose two rounds to random debuffs.
7. Your last statement just seems to assume that his "utility" doesn't make up for the extra damage without giving any reason why.

1. You need a certain amount of damage per fight or there is no actual threat. There may be perceived threat, but that doesn't work on a fair number of people (although perceived without actual threat _does_ work on a fair number of people too...)
2. I don't think anyone is assuming that, though by the RAW it should be a possible option.
3. Those were off the cuff numbers, but the important difference between a solo and a regular group of 5 creatures is that you steadily decrease the damage output of the 5 by killing them off. You can't just make a solo have 5x the damage of a normal creature, because it will retain that damage for 100% of the fight, instead of losing it steadily.
4. Combat lengths vary drastically from group to group - for example one group I know with 4 strikers in it tends to average about 3 rounds at heroic tier, while I know at least one poster on these forums who averages over 10.
5. If solos don't do as much damage as a normal encounter, then they're not threatening. There are many who'd actually suspect they should deal more than a normal encounter, but the motive there doesn't seem very mathematically pure.
6. It might lose any number of rounds, but between massive attack penalties, daze, mark, immobilize, knockout, what have you... it's very likely to waste more effective rounds than a group of 5.
7. What 'utility' are we discussing? I assumed that it would survive longer than a normal group of 5 creatures by 3 rounds / 50%, via defensive abilities, heightened defenses, flight, fear, etc...

It's very important to realize that a fight that goes for a long time against a creature that is hard to hurt, but that in turn can't appreciably hurt the group is almost invariably boring, at least to those who can realize it.

I mean 'So, guys, I know it's going to take 10 more rounds to kill this guy, but at the rate he's damaging us, he'll drop the paladin in the 50th round, so... whee' isn't exactly optimal play

I threw a young black dragon at my pcs and they still think it was their most difficult fight. It wasn't about the damage, it was about getting past its wierd defenses.

Black dragons have immense defenses... which leads to long fights with lots of at-wills, but not necessarily any true fear or excitement. It _can_ have those, sure, but it can also have a group that no one has gone bloodied in, no one expects to, too.

I actually really don't like the design of the black dragon, since it's mostly a denial fight.

 

[Flipguarder]

I actually really don't like the design of the black dragon, since it's mostly a denial fight.

Thats my whole point, its a really long fight due to such high defense. Ergo, damage per round can be lower for this monster than a dire bear.

It just seems to me everyone is focusing on the 4d8+6 the bear can do and ignoring every other thing that goes into monster balancing.

 

[insanogeddon]

full circle

The game sets itself up as BALANCE being its fame claim. Dragons don't fit into is own guide lines. Thats the issue.

Yes you can dodge about the issue with changing the comparison to a black dragon instead of what it began with (this really just shows up another flaw so is self defeating) or we can claim 'the DM should fiddle with things and design encounters so it works' .. but hey thats what every other editions answer was, the same answer (people said they hate) was NOT meant to cut it.

If thats the answer it highlights the original posters point.. poor design on dragons.

Now their just same ole same ole minldly irritating random encounters that need to be balanced the same old ways yet have lost the majesty and magic of the dragons of old: ability to cast arcane AND divine spells, polymorph, spell abilities etc.

Further in 4ed flight and manuverability can be got past by most any class or race combo party as they either have equivocal movement/anti-movement powers/range powers/lock down powers.

 

[keterys]

Thats my whole point, its a really long fight due to such high defense. Ergo, damage per round can be lower for this monster than a dire bear.

It just seems to me everyone is focusing on the 4d8+6 the bear can do and ignoring every other thing that goes into monster balancing.

Ah - no, that's why I was talking about the damage needing to spread over the number of rounds and such.

That said, changing a fight from, say, X rounds at Y damage per round to 3X rounds at Y/3 damage per round is not necessarily a recipe for more fun.

 

[SlyFlourish]

As written, dragons just don't work that well for me. Here are three things that make them work better:

1. Reduce HP to 3/4.

2. Increase damage output by +1/2 level on attacks.

3. Stuns = loss of standard action; daze = loss of minor action; cannot be knocked prone

That should make for a much more fun battle.

As far as the black dragon, the real broken bit is the darkness cloud. I'd just remove the "sustain minor" part. That lets him fly around and get occasional CAs but it won't give him the +5 defenses all the time. That just makes him too annoying.

 

[keterys]

I did up a black dragon for an adventure I ran recently who did bursts of blinding darkness as a minor action until bloodied, and once bloodied it added blinding onto its breath weapon. I found it a lot more interesting than the static/sustain darkness myself... if you just took away the sustain, though, and left the existing cloud as a standard, its use would be an awful lot more limited.

Maybe if you gave it some kind of special attack it could only do while in the darkness.