D&D 5E "Why don't you just shoot it?"

[Maxperson]

I'd think it cute, maybe creepy, and if it got annoying, crush them as a whole.

One ant (read: character) chanting it repeatedlt? Not worth more than a passing notice.

Especially if I've a guy throwing fire at me

I'll raise you 4 more ants (read: party of PCs) and I'll bet you'd still feel the same way.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Whether or not you addressed it in the next paragraph, you still altered my argument and then argued against it. That's a classical Strawman.

Not even close. Classic strawman involves not addressing the argument at all, but addressing an entirely different argument under the guise of addressing the first argument. What I did was a variant of an improper transition.

It's not a BS argument. Dragons, while they may be prone to enjoy compliments, are not prone to losing it when insulted. They are more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone else in the party, with MAYBE the exception of an old elf.

This is actually refuted by the Monster Manual. Here's the Int and Wis scores of the various dragon breeds, using only the Ancient age category:

Black: 16 Int, 14 Wis (Wyrmings are at human average on both)
Blue: 18 Int, 17 Wis
Green: 20 Int, 17 Wis
Red: 18 Int, 15 Wis
White: 10 Int, 13 Wis (the Wyrmling has an Int of 5, showing that they really are quite stupid even by human standards)
Brass: 16 Int, 15 Wis
Bronze: 18 Int, 17 Wis
Copper: 20 Int, 17 Wis
Gold: 18 Int, 17 Wis
Silver: 18 Int, 15 Wis

Of the dragons, only the Copper and Green have Int scores that are outside of what a PC could start the game with, and none of them have Wis scores outside of that range. And of them, every single one has an Int score that a human wizard could easily exceed by the time they are of level to fight the dragon. Same with Wis scores.

Sure, and I'll wait for you to cite one that is several hundred years old.

Pick a pantheon. Any pantheon. You'll find a god, supposedly hundreds of years old at minimum, who has a temper slightly more explosive than shaken nitroglycerin. Examples that are hundreds of years old litter human mythology to the point it's pretty much a dead horse topic.

That's objectively false. Age mellows/alters temperament. That's a well known fact.

That's a well-known myth. Age only mellows or alters temperament if people let it. Once again, take a look back at the people I cited. The specific names. Age did not mellow those people. And history is littered with hundreds of examples of people who were not mellowed by age; quite a few of them actually got worse when they grew older.

Seriously, I can point out leaders who are the opposite of what you say. People so famous everyone knows who they are.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Absolutely. It's an ant. Why would that bother me?

Because ants attack five million people every year.

Which there has never been. Not once has there been an animal that is a threat to humanity. A threat to some individuals, sure. Humanity Never. Also, eliminating a threat doesn't mean distraction or anger. You can eliminate threats with calm indifference.

"Calm indifference" doesn't describe "it killed someone, so we must hunt it down and kill it so it doesn't kill others." And that's the exact logic used most of the time.

And, yeah, there have been animals that were threats to humanity. None recently, but about ten thousand years ago it was a different story...

 

[Maxperson]

This is actually refuted by the Monster Manual. Here's the Int and Wis scores of the various dragon breeds, using only the Ancient age category:

Black: 16 Int, 14 Wis (Wyrmings are at human average on both)
Blue: 18 Int, 17 Wis
Green: 20 Int, 17 Wis
Red: 18 Int, 15 Wis
White: 10 Int, 13 Wis (the Wyrmling has an Int of 5, showing that they really are quite stupid even by human standards)
Brass: 16 Int, 15 Wis
Bronze: 18 Int, 17 Wis
Copper: 20 Int, 17 Wis
Gold: 18 Int, 17 Wis
Silver: 18 Int, 15 Wis

That isn't really a refutation, you know. So only white dragons aren't geniuses at ancient, and you failed to address my statement about knowledge entirely. So you refuted the portion about being smarter than an elf, which really doesn't matter to my argument, but didn't address the age and knowledge portion at all.

Pick a pantheon. Any pantheon. You'll find a god, supposedly hundreds of years old at minimum, who has a temper slightly more explosive than shaken nitroglycerin. Examples that are hundreds of years old litter human mythology to the point it's pretty much a dead horse topic.

In real world mythology, in which the gods were modeled after humans, sure. We're discussing D&D, though, not the real world.

That's a well-known myth. Age only mellows or alters temperament if people let it. Once again, take a look back at the people I cited. The specific names. Age did not mellow those people. And history is littered with hundreds of examples of people who were not mellowed by age; quite a few of them actually got worse when they grew older.

Sure, a very small percentage don't change. The vast majority do, though.

http://ask.metafilter.com/276519/Personality-changes-with-age-Maslow

Seriously, I can point out leaders who are the opposite of what you say. People so famous everyone knows who they are.

Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule. Go ahead and point out those exceptions.

 

[Maxperson]

Because ants attack five million people every year.

Yep. So what. I've been bitten by ants before. I killed the offenders without fear, malice, or care or any sort and moved on leaving their smashed corpses behind me.

 

[Blue]

I see this argument all the time. "Oh, you can't reach an enemy in melee, why don't you have a bow?"

It annoys me because yes, you can use a bow to attack enemies at long range, but if you're a melee character, this might not be as easy or effective as it sounds.

A big part of D&D is overcoming adversity. You will not always be in your comfort zone or your effectiveness zone, yet you still need to be able to respond. If you've ever played a caster who's low on slots with an unknown number of encounters still ahead before you can get a long rest, you know that adaptability and creativity are important when you are thrust into a situation where your go-to plan isn't available. And it shouldn't be available all the time.

First of all, let's talk action economy. I can drop a weapon and use my free 'interact with an object' action to equip a ranged weapon. Of course, now my main weapon is on the ground, let's hope I'm not forced to move, or an enemy can't mess with it. If I use two weapons or a shield (since it appears that shields are held in 5e, not strapped to one's arm), then I have two items on the ground, which means I'd have to use an action to pick up both of them later.

Bows are not the only ranged weapons. There are a number of thrown weapons which have the advantage of being one-handed. Which means you can hold a two-handed weapon (if you're that and not sword & board) in your off-hand and attack. Poof, no action economy issues. If you need mroe range a hand crossbow can do it while still having the same action economy, though you might have to drop the hand crossbow if you get an opportunity to close and melee. Carry more than one.

Now we move onto effectiveness. A Dexterity-based character won't lose any chance to hit, but a Strength-based one might. This might not be more than a few points, but it could be. Since it's impossible to have a consensus on how much of an issue this might be, all I can do is point to the extremes.

This isn't really correct, because you are using a ranged weapon because you can't close to melee. So melee damage is zero - you will always be more effective then zero.

If you are using a thrown weapon, it uses your STR, so it's just as effective.

And again, even if it's DEX based, if your option is DEX attack or nothing, a DEX attack is more effective in 100% of the cases.

YES, you are not nearly as good as a dedicated archer. YES, that's an intentional part of the system. You are not ineffective, and you also can think about how to get around the problem. Are there other enemies to close with? Something the foe wants to protect? Maybe next time you find items put dibs in on the boots of flying instead of the plate +1.

The point I want to make though, is that the ability to attack with a bow as a melee character can be a severe disadvantage, and greatly reduce the impact your character can have on a combat. Yes, having a bow can still allow you to participate in the combat, but it shouldn't be treated as an option that never seriously limits what a character can do in an encounter.

And I've seen people treat it in that exact manner far too many times; "Oh fighting a dragon, why don't you have a bow lol".

This is true - you need to set expectations with your party. But also rely on them. If you're not good with a bow, maybe you should have asked the wizard to prepare a Fly spell for you in case you hit flying enemies. Overcoming obstacles is part of the game, and it's up to you to make it happen

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

That isn't really a refutation, you know. So only white dragons aren't geniuses at ancient, and you failed to address my statement about knowledge entirely. So you refuted the portion about being smarter than an elf, which really doesn't matter to my argument, but didn't address the age and knowledge portion at all.

Intelligent measures, among other things, mental acuity and information recall (according to the PHB). That and the fact that 3-18 are considered the human norm range covers knowledge; dragons are really no more knowledgeable than a really smart human.

As for age: One look at the white dragon's scores shows you that age doesn't automatically translate to massive intelligence. And if you've ever dealt with elderly humans enough, especially the less pleasant ones, you would know that age doesn't necessarily translate at all to wisdom.

What matters is what they've done in life. Someone who is twenty and spent their life in the Marines going from overseas base to overseas base is going to have a far better idea of the world than someone who's forty and never left their home state. As noted by the Monster Manual, most dragons are rather reclusive creatures by human standards, tending to have territory they maintain without interacting with the outside world as much. So, while they are far older, they don't experience as much of the world as the typical adventurer does. Which is reflected in the fact that, for the most part, their Int and Wis scores are good for a first-level character and easily exceeded by a PC with a few levels under their belt.

In real world mythology, in which the gods were modeled after humans, sure. We're discussing D&D, though, not the real world.

DnD, which is written by humans, has the state range based on humans, and tends to write most things from a human perspective.

Sure, a very small percentage don't change. The vast majority do, though.

http://ask.metafilter.com/276519/Personality-changes-with-age-Maslow

Your source is a nonscholarly discussion where what you say is refuted by some people within the discussion, including the most comprehensive answer saying that it's most likely the very thing you're discussing is a symptom of neurological disorder and not actual growth as a person.

You've refuted your own argument for me. I'm honestly at a loss as to what to say here. I'm...

Congrats. You managed to flabbergast me. I owe my GM twenty bucks now. i thought I had him in a true sucker's bet.

Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule. Go ahead and point out those exceptions.

Washington, Putin, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Genghis Khan, more British kings than I thought reasonable (I could pretty much put "the entire history of the British monarchy" here and it wouldn't be that far from the truth), Emperor Nero, um... Basically, pick up a history book, pick a leader or famous person at random, and flip to it. If not them, it'll be one of the next two you come up with. Seriously, there's a reason why this shows up so often in mythology.

Yep. So what. I've been bitten by ants before. I killed the offenders without fear, malice, or care or any sort and moved on leaving their smashed corpses behind me.

... you know that's not normal, right? I don't know any people I would meet in a dark alley who react that way. Most people tend to at least panic.

 

[Maxperson]

Intelligent measures, among other things, mental acuity and information recall (according to the PHB). That and the fact that 3-18 are considered the human norm range covers knowledge; dragons are really no more knowledgeable than a really smart human.

Intelligence isn't a full measure of knowledge, but then you knew that. You can have two equally intelligent people, and one can know much more than the other. Age is one of the main factors for knowledge.

As for age: One look at the white dragon's scores shows you that age doesn't automatically translate to massive intelligence. And if you've ever dealt with elderly humans enough, especially the less pleasant ones, you would know that age doesn't necessarily translate at all to wisdom.

Age does translate into much greater knowledge, though.

What matters is what they've done in life. Someone who is twenty and spent their life in the Marines going from overseas base to overseas base is going to have a far better idea of the world than someone who's forty and never left their home state.

And yet still won't have as much knowledge as the 50 year old professor who never left his home town.

As noted by the Monster Manual, most dragons are rather reclusive creatures by human standards, tending to have territory they maintain without interacting with the outside world as much. So, while they are far older, they don't experience as much of the world as the typical adventurer does. Which is reflected in the fact that, for the most part, their Int and Wis scores are good for a first-level character and easily exceeded by a PC with a few levels under their belt.

By the time they are ancient, they've encountered, talked to, and beaten more adventurers than the party will face in it's entire existence. Even if they don't leave, people come to them, and they do leave. They plunder towns, caravans, and more.


As for the MM, here is what it says about chromatic dragons. Insulting one isn't going to do jack.

"Trying to humble a chromatic dragon is like trying to convince the wind to stop blowing. To these creatures, humanoids are animals, fit to serve as prey or beasts of burden, and wholly unworthy of respect."

Here is what it says about metallic dragons.

"Metallic dragons covet treasure as do their evil chromatic kin, but they aren't driven as much by greed in their pursuit of wealth. Rather, metallic dragons are and collect, taking unclaimed relics and storing them in their lairs. A metallic dragon's treasure hoard is filled with items that reflect its persona, tell its history, and preserve its memories."

And.

"When a dragon learns how to disguise itself, it might immerse itself in other cultures for a time. Some dragons are too shy or paranoid to stray far from their lairs and their treasure hoards, but bolder dragons love to wander city streets in humanoid form, taking in the local culture and cuisine, and amusing themselves by observing how the smaller races live."

And.

"Metallic dragons have long memories, and they form opinions of humanoids based on previous contact with related humanoids. "

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're right. You shouldn't let your Gluteus Maximus attempt oratory. Because so far, all I'm hearing is, "we put in a basic effort with no real attempt at being creative, and it didn't work." Gee, no wonder it didn't work.

I mean, really, did he tell the dragons they were less than his dung? Insult their mothers? Imply their hoards are too small? Threaten to leave them alive and make them watch as he destroyed their treasure? Whip off his pants and say his, ahem, was bigger than their's? Start singing about the joys of cooking and eating a dragon's corpse? Offer to make one of them his mount if they settle down and behave?

And, challenge them... Did he throw things at them? Offer to duel them? Threaten to cook and eat their young in front of them? Offer them a chance to surrender before he was forced to beat them into submission with his weak hand? Laugh at their attempts at attacking and imply they are pitiful gnats that should feel grateful the PCs deign to pretend they are worth fighting? Pull out his, ahem, and say that was all he needed to beat such obviously weak lizards into submission?

Or did he just shout something like, "Come down here and fight me!" and watch them ignore him?

You weren't there:

1) you have no grounds to impugn the roleplying skills of the guy plying the knight. He roleplayed his class challenges quite well- he had several people in the room busting up- but the dragons made their saves.
2) you may not recall how difficult it is to build and effectively run an AoO melee combatant, especially against opponents who can fly.
3) slinging fireballs & lightning bolts is what it is.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Intelligence isn't a full measure of knowledge, but then you knew that. You can have two equally intelligent people, and one can know much more than the other. Age is one of the main factors for knowledge.

That's real life. The game doesn't function that way. Within DnD, the Intelligence stat actually does measure your knowledge to a degree.

Also, age is one of the main factors, but having a high age and a low knowledge actually works against you in IQ tests, as you'll score lowly for your IQ if you have that combination.

Also, note the generally low Wisdom scores for something that old. In order for your argument to hold any water, those Wisdom scores would need to be higher (ignoring, as you are, what the game text shows of what the scores actually measure).

Age does translate into much greater knowledge, though.

Age is the potential for having gained knowledge at some point. But just as being seventy years old doesn't automatically make someone in real life a computer expert, having a great age does not automatically mean a dragon in DnD will have more experience or knowledge than the party does.

And yet still won't have as much knowledge as the 50 year old professor who never left his home town.

For knowledge of the rest of the world? He might. It depends on what the professor teaches, how recent his education is, if he bothered to keep up on furthering education...

There's a massive number of factors involved in knowledge. Age is just a minor one.

By the time they are ancient, they've encountered, talked to, and beaten more adventurers than the party will face in it's entire existence. Even if they don't leave, people come to them, and they do leave. They plunder towns, caravans, and more.

Depends on the dragon. Even the MM notes that different species of dragons act differently, and that different members of the same species are not going to act the same. So, really, you're talking about a very specific dragon or very specific dragon personality and not even the majority of dragons.

As for the MM, here is what it says about chromatic dragons. Insulting one isn't going to do jack.

"Trying to humble a chromatic dragon is like trying to convince the wind to stop blowing. To these creatures, humanoids are animals, fit to serve as prey or beasts of burden, and wholly unworthy of respect."

You misunderstand the meaning of the word "humble." "Humble" is basically to actually reduce someone's worth. Not to imply that it is beneath you as an insult.

Here's what else it says about chromatics:

"Chromatic dragons lust after treasure, and this greed colors their every scheme and plot. They believe that the world's wealth belongs to them by right, and a chromatic dragon seizes that wealth without regard for the humanoids and other creatures that have "stolen" it."

"Chromatic dragons are united by their sense of superiority, believing themselves the most
powerful and worthy of all mortal creatures. When they interact with other creatures, it is only to further their
own interests. They believe in their innate right to rule, and this belief is the cornerstone of every chromatic dragon's personality and worldview."

So, basically, threaten its horde or suggest it is lesser than you, and you are insulting the creature in a way it has to respond.

Plus, take a look at this text from the red dragon entry:

"Red dragons fly into destructive rages and act on impulse when angered. They are so ferocious and vengeful that they are regarded as the archetypical evil dragon by many cultures."

So, in other words, dragons can be angered, and some actually have quite short tempers and extremely poor impulse control when ticked off. All of that wisdom you talk about that comes with age? Here's proof it doesn't apply.

Here is what it says about metallic dragons.

"Metallic dragons covet treasure as do their evil chromatic kin, but they aren't driven as much by greed in their pursuit of wealth. Rather, metallic dragons are and collect, taking unclaimed relics and storing them in their lairs. A metallic dragon's treasure hoard is filled with items that reflect its persona, tell its history, and preserve its memories."

And.

"When a dragon learns how to disguise itself, it might immerse itself in other cultures for a time. Some dragons are too shy or paranoid to stray far from their lairs and their treasure hoards, but bolder dragons love to wander city streets in humanoid form, taking in the local culture and cuisine, and amusing themselves by observing how the smaller races live."

And.

"Metallic dragons have long memories, and they form opinions of humanoids based on previous contact with related humanoids. "

And here's more of what it says:

"Some metallic dragons prefer to s tay as far away from civilization as possible so as to not attract enemies. However, this means that they are often far out of touch with current events."

Remember what I said about long lives and inexperience?

"A gold dragon might never suspect duplicity from a cunning villain, assuming that the villain is of the same mind and heart as a good and virtuous grandmother. On the other hand, the dragon might resent a noble paladin whose ancestor stole a silver statue from the dragon's hoard three centuries before."

In other words, a gold dragon isn't really that wise as far as the differences between people across generations, but can actually be played as a total fool by someone with a virtuous ancestor who is evil.

Notice how it is that these texts make it clear that dragons are not all that wise once you stop removing the text that disagrees with your theory?