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

[Maxperson]

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

Not to any great degree. It's used for random knowledge checks, but not for any sort of established knowledge. The 10 int PC is going to have added the same amount of knowledge as the 20 int PC by the time the campaign ends.

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.

Awesome. It still establishes that age gives lots of knowledge.

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).

Wisdom is not knowledge, but rather good judgment and willpower.

From PHB page 178.

"Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

Yep! Not knowledge at all.

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,

I never said it did. Stick with my arguments please.

having a great age does not automatically mean a dragon in DnD will have more experience or knowledge than the party does.

Yes it does. It just won't necessarily be in the same categories.

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.

Eh, no. I'm quite literally talking generally, not specifically. I quoted from the general section about dragons. There was a dragon or two where specific beat general, yes, but most of them didn't change those general behaviors I quoted.

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."

Nothing in that section has any meaning with regard to dragons and how they would react to insults.

"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."

Yep. That only strengthens my position. You don't get offended by an inferior twit trying to insult you. You rule them with an iron first.......or eat them.

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.

It doesn't have to respond immediately, nor does it respond stupidly just because the PC was a gnat that tried to be insulting.

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."

When angered is the key there. It doesn't say that it's going to be angered by a gnat that attempts to insult it. If that gnat had the temerity to steal some of its horde, though...

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.

Proof that it doesn't apply? Not even close.

"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."

Some, not most, and it still doesn't take into consideration all the encounters out in the wilds that WILL happen over centuries. Those dragons will still have tremendous experience and knowledge.

"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."

Might, and I never claimed perfection.

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.

Again, never claimed perfection. We are also far afield from insults. You should try to stay on topic.

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?

Nope. That's an incorrect assumption on your part.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

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.

"AoO melee combatant." That tells me everything I need to know.

Basically, you had someone who relied on overspecialization that works most of the time, but ended up crippled in a situation where it wasn't as useful.

As for impugning RP skills: I have details provided by you. And the details you provided are... that one guy challenged the dragon and another tossed spells. And that the dragons ignored them because that's all they did. The grounds I have to impugn such RPing comes entirely from the information you have given; every time I have asked a question to allow you to provide me with more information, you have mostly ignored it. So if you don't like the fact I'm saying "he lacked creativity in what he did," then maybe you should provide me with some example of actual creativity in what he did.

A well-RPed character can still make the most boring decisions possible in a fight; it is part of the character to act that way. Saying that actions taken lacks creativity is not automatically impugning someone's RPing ability unless their RPing ability is so poor that barely exists to begin with, in which case I can offer them lessons to improve their ability.

I've pointed out numerous ways to distract a dragon. And your best answer is to try a poor attempt at guilt tripping (I'm related to people who are much better at it than you are), try to defend running a build that almost amounts to overspecialization, and then defend the very lack of creativity I am criticizing as though it is the only type of action available... despite the numerous other options my questions have pointed out.

You want options? I've presented many in this thread, quite a few for distracting dragons and even one for getting around the flying problem. Many of them are unconventional. You want to present an account from years ago involving a rule system that isn't current, all the while not giving anything close to enough detail to make it sound like anything other than exactly what I have described it as, then you should be prepared for people to criticize it. Especially on a topic where we're discussing that problem.

Want to fight a dragon? Fine. Distract it while the fighter climbs the walls. Spells not working? Insult it, threaten to destroy its horde, threaten to turn it into a mount, take your pants off and helicopter spin a certain piece of anatomy while yelling how you're going to beat it into submission with that, toss barrels full of ale at the dragons... Do something bizarre. Bizarre not working? Toss the wall climber at the dragon.

None of that working? Ask your party wizard why they don't have Fly prepared to cast on everyone, or at least scrolls of the spell. It was 3E; there was no excuse for not being prepared, given how that edition handed out magic items like trolls driving a Snickers truck to a Weight Watcher's convention.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Not to any great degree. It's used for random knowledge checks, but not for any sort of established knowledge. The 10 int PC is going to have added the same amount of knowledge as the 20 int PC by the time the campaign ends.

It's used as a measure of baseline knowledge. That's why the attribute bonus applies to any Intelligence-based knowledge checks; even if an 10-int PC has added the same amount of knowledge as a 20-Int, they still are disadavantaged because they had a lower knowledge level to begin with and won't generally succeed as well.

Awesome. It still establishes that age gives lots of knowledge.

IQ isn't a measure of knowledge. It's a measure of capacity to learn. Someone who hasn't learned much over their life is assumed to have a low capacity to learn to begin with.

I admit I used a trap statement there, so you can call me on that.

Wisdom is not knowledge, but rather good judgment and willpower.

From PHB page 178.

"Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."

Yep! Not knowledge at all.

Strawman argument. I never argued that Wisdom is knowledge. I did point out that Wisdom in the game and wisdom as you are discussing it are not the same thing, and pointing out how you have repeatedly ignored that the stats do not measure what you have wanted them to measure... unless, of course, it is to your advantage.

I never said it did. Stick with my arguments please.

Another strawman. I never claimed you said that; that was an example.

Plus, you outright said, and I quote,

"It still establishes that age gives lots of knowledge."
"Age does translate into much greater knowledge, though."
"Age is one of the main factors for knowledge."
"They are more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone else in the party, with MAYBE the exception of an old elf."

I have been arguing that age does not automatically translate to knowledge, while you have been arguing the opposite. Please stick to your own argument.

Yes it does. It just won't necessarily be in the same categories.

Then why don't most of the dragons have knowledge skills?

Check their stat blocks; none of the chromatic dragons have a skill that indicates any actual knowledge. The only metallic dragons that do are brass and silver. Why, if age translates into knowledge, do only two out of ten species of dragon have any knowledge skills?

It's right there in the stat blocks. Despite their great age, even most ancient gold dragons don't have enough knowledge to even have the history skill.

Eh, no. I'm quite literally talking generally, not specifically. I quoted from the general section about dragons. There was a dragon or two where specific beat general, yes, but most of them didn't change those general behaviors I quoted.

Quite a few of them do vary. Read their individual entries. That section was a general summary of the groups as a whole, not specifics about how each dragon acts.

Nothing in that section has any meaning with regard to dragons and how they would react to insults.

It does give you an opening for how to insult them, though.

Yep. That only strengthens my position. You don't get offended by an inferior twit trying to insult you. You rule them with an iron first.......or eat them.

Then why do people in real life who have that same sense of superiority get offended by inferior twits insulting them? Jobs, Tovald, Putin... The list goes on and on.

It doesn't have to respond immediately, nor does it respond stupidly just because the PC was a gnat that tried to be insulting.

Depends on the dragon. From the entries, it makes it quite clear a number of them would respond immediately.

When angered is the key there. It doesn't say that it's going to be angered by a gnat that attempts to insult it. If that gnat had the temerity to steal some of its horde, though...

Why would red dragons be noted for their rage if they didn't rage often? Basic logic there. And the most basic source of rage? Some gnat daring to insult it.

Proof that it doesn't apply? Not even close.

Far more proof than you've presented.

Some, not most, and it still doesn't take into consideration all the encounters out in the wilds that WILL happen over centuries. Those dragons will still have tremendous experience and knowledge.

Tremendous amounts of experience and knowledge not reflected by either the fluff text or their stat blocks. There's no evidence they have that tremendous amount of experience or knowledge in general. Some individuals do, but they're exceptions, not rules.

Might, and I never claimed perfection.

Again, never claimed perfection. We are also far afield from insults. You should try to stay on topic.

No, you just claimed something you can't show any evidence for at all. And, you're the one who started this drift; I'm just showing you how you are taking things out of context to provide an impression that isn't real.

Nope. That's an incorrect assumption on your part.

Prove it. Show me some evidence it is. So far, there isn't any.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Not fire ants....those little (badword)s!

 

[Chuck Ocenasek]

James, you have known the type of characters I like to play for many years: melee beat sticks. With the fun of those type of characters comes the drawback that I know in certain instances I will be ineffective. As a result I have to plan accordingly and stock up on javelin or crossbows and bolts.

As for the whole thing of taunting dragons I have played with a ton of Organized Play DMs who would state that such a action has no effect and allow a player to waste their turns. It is one thing to come up with a cool idea, but another thing if your DM lets you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"AoO melee combatant." That tells me everything I need to know.

Basically, you had someone who relied on overspecialization that works most of the time, but ended up crippled in a situation where it wasn't as useful.

Ooojhh- big reading skill check fail. The AoO melee combatant was my character- the one who did most of the ass kicking.

As for impugning RP skills: I have details provided by you. And the details you provided are... that one guy challenged the dragon and another tossed spells. And that the dragons ignored them because that's all they did. The grounds I have to impugn such RPing comes entirely from the information you have given; every time I have asked a question to allow you to provide me with more information, you have mostly ignored it. So if you don't like the fact I'm saying "he lacked creativity in what he did," then maybe you should provide me with some example of actual creativity in what he did.

And again, basic failure to understand.

The knight had no ranged weapons- the reason the story was mentioned in this thread in the first place- and his efforts to draw the dragons to him failed because the dragons succeeded in shrugging off his insults.

That's mechanics letting him down, not his RP.

When I pointed this out, you doubled down on critiquing his RP.

A well-RPed character can still make the most boring decisions possible in a fight; it is part of the character to act that way. Saying that actions taken lacks creativity is not automatically impugning someone's RPing ability unless their RPing ability is so poor that barely exists to begin with, in which case I can offer them lessons to improve their ability.

I've pointed out numerous ways to distract a dragon. And your best answer is to try a poor attempt at guilt tripping (I'm related to people who are much better at it than you are), try to defend running a build that almost amounts to overspecialization, and then defend the very lack of creativity I am criticizing as though it is the only type of action available... despite the numerous other options my questions have pointed out.

I've already addressed the fact that you somehow mistakenly believed that the knight was the one with the polearm above, AND that the build you're critiquing proved deadly effective.

(In fact, I used variations on that build several times in 3.5Ed, and it held its own against other warriors.)

So, moving on...

You want options? I've presented many in this thread, quite a few for distracting dragons and even one for getting around the flying problem. Many of them are unconventional. You want to present an account from years ago involving a rule system that isn't current, all the while not giving anything close to enough detail to make it sound like anything other than exactly what I have described it as, then you should be prepared for people to criticize it. Especially on a topic where we're discussing that problem.

And yet, with details lacking, you saw fit to jump to not one but several incorrect conclusions. Bravo!

Want to fight a dragon? Fine. Distract it while the fighter climbs the walls. Spells not working? Insult it, threaten to destroy its horde, threaten to turn it into a mount, take your pants off and helicopter spin a certain piece of anatomy while yelling how you're going to beat it into submission with that, toss barrels full of ale at the dragons... Do something bizarre. Bizarre not working? Toss the wall climber at the dragon.

I don't know why you're still faulting the knight's player. As mentioned, the knight was thorough in his taunts- he definitely entertained the room. Again, the dragons didn't...bite.

Had I tried a fastball special, that would have left the arcanist briefly engaging both dragons by himself. That would have been monumentally stupid.

None of that working? Ask your party wizard why they don't have Fly prepared to cast on everyone, or at least scrolls of the spell. It was 3E; there was no excuse for not being prepared, given how that edition handed out magic items like trolls driving a Snickers truck to a Weight Watcher's convention.

Now you're making assumptions about the one-shot & the guy that ran it.
1. there was a strict cap on magic gear, and it wasn't high. I had a good weapon and a quiver. The knight had decent armor and an OK weapon. The arcanist had some wands. We all had some potions. That was it.
2. Because the adventuring group was a trio, my PC and the arcane spellcaster were multiclassed- he had a good array of spells, but Fly wasn't one of them. With the foreknowledge we had of the game, both fireball and lightning bolt were solid choices, and that was proven in play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"AoO melee combatant." That tells me everything I need to know.

Basically, you had someone who relied on overspecialization that works most of the time, but ended up crippled in a situation where it wasn't as useful.

Ooojhh- big reading skill check fail. The AoO melee combatant was [/i]my[/i] character- the one who did most of the ass kicking.

As for impugning RP skills: I have details provided by you. And the details you provided are... that one guy challenged the dragon and another tossed spells. And that the dragons ignored them because that's all they did. The grounds I have to impugn such RPing comes entirely from the information you have given; every time I have asked a question to allow you to provide me with more information, you have mostly ignored it. So if you don't like the fact I'm saying "he lacked creativity in what he did," then maybe you should provide me with some example of actual creativity in what he did.

And again, basic failure to understand.

The knight had no ranged weapons- the reason the story was mentioned in this thread in the first place- and his efforts to draw the dragons to him failed because the dragons succeeded in shrugging off his insults.

That's mechanics letting him down, not his RP.

When I pointed this out, you doubled down on critiquing his RP.

A well-RPed character can still make the most boring decisions possible in a fight; it is part of the character to act that way. Saying that actions taken lacks creativity is not automatically impugning someone's RPing ability unless their RPing ability is so poor that barely exists to begin with, in which case I can offer them lessons to improve their ability.

I've pointed out numerous ways to distract a dragon. And your best answer is to try a poor attempt at guilt tripping (I'm related to people who are much better at it than you are), try to defend running a build that almost amounts to overspecialization, and then defend the very lack of creativity I am criticizing as though it is the only type of action available... despite the numerous other options my questions have pointed out.

I've already addressed the fact that you somehow mistakenly believed that the knight was the one with the polearm above, AND that the build you're critiquing proved deadly effective.

(In fact, I used variations on that build several times in 3.5Ed, and it held its own against other warriors.)

So, moving on...

You want options? I've presented many in this thread, quite a few for distracting dragons and even one for getting around the flying problem. Many of them are unconventional. You want to present an account from years ago involving a rule system that isn't current, all the while not giving anything close to enough detail to make it sound like anything other than exactly what I have described it as, then you should be prepared for people to criticize it. Especially on a topic where we're discussing that problem.

And yet, with details lacking, you saw fit to jump to not one but several incorrect conclusions. Bravo!

Want to fight a dragon? Fine. Distract it while the fighter climbs the walls. Spells not working? Insult it, threaten to destroy its horde, threaten to turn it into a mount, take your pants off and helicopter spin a certain piece of anatomy while yelling how you're going to beat it into submission with that, toss barrels full of ale at the dragons... Do something bizarre. Bizarre not working? Toss the wall climber at the dragon.

I don't know why you're still faulting the knight's player. As mentioned, the knight was thorough in his taunts- he definitely entertained the room. Again, the dragons didn't...bite.

Had I tried a fastball special, that would have left the arcanist briefly engaging both dragons by himself. That would have been monumentally stupid.

None of that working? Ask your party wizard why they don't have Fly prepared to cast on everyone, or at least scrolls of the spell. It was 3E; there was no excuse for not being prepared, given how that edition handed out magic items like trolls driving a Snickers truck to a Weight Watcher's convention.

Now you're making assumptions about the one-shot & the guy that ran it.
1. there was a strict cap on magic gear, and it wasn't high. I had a good weapon and a quiver. The knight had decent armor and an OK weapon. The arcanist had some wands. We all had some potions. That was it.
2. Because the adventuring group was a trio, my PC and the arcane spellcaster were multiclassed- he had a good array of spells, but Fly wasn't one of them. With the foreknowledge we had of the game, both fireball and lightning bolt were solid choices, and that was proven in play.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Ooojhh- big reading skill check fail. The AoO melee combatant was [/i]my[/i] character- the one who did most of the ass kicking.

It helps if the details are not piecemeal and scattered. And if I don't almost have to join the Inquisition just to get a friggin' answer.

I don't like lugging around comfy chairs!

And again, basic failure to understand.

The knight had no ranged weapons- the reason the story was mentioned in this thread in the first place- and his efforts to draw the dragons to him failed because the dragons succeeded in shrugging off his insults.

That's mechanics letting him down, not his RP.

When I pointed this out, you doubled down on critiquing his RP.

Because insulting something until it attacks you doesn't require mechanics, even in 3E. There is no d20 roll to tell a dragon that you're going to melt its hoard down and smelt the gold into a riding saddle for it. Or accusing it of being completely not worth your time or even not fit to beat into submission.

So, once again, lack of creativity...

I've already addressed the fact that you somehow mistakenly believed that the knight was the one with the polearm above, AND that the build you're critiquing proved deadly effective.

(In fact, I used variations on that build several times in 3.5Ed, and it held its own against other warriors.)

So, moving on...

Which, again, has what to do with the lack of creativity in trying to provoke the dragon? Overall, you're picking up on the details that have absolutely no importance to what I said about creativity as though they make any difference.

And yet, with details lacking, you saw fit to jump to not one but several incorrect conclusions. Bravo!

And yet, of those conclusions, only one was actually wrong; everything you've said since has supported the lack of creativity and even gone as far as to suggest a lack of proper preparation. It does bring up a question why, even if it was a one-shot, the group wasn't prepared with some of the more essential utility spells.

I don't know why you're still faulting the knight's player. As mentioned, the knight was thorough in his taunts- he definitely entertained the room. Again, the dragons didn't...bite.

Then why can't you provide any detail on how he taunted? What did he actually say when he taunted the dragon?

You like to claim he was thorough, yet have this strange inability to give anything resembling a detail beyond that he rolled for it... leaving no conclusion except a complete lack of creativity in his efforts to get the dragon's attention since there are absolutely no details to suggest otherwise.

Does bolding it make it more likely I'll get an answer? If you can't remember, just admit that.

Had I tried a fastball special, that would have left the arcanist briefly engaging both dragons by himself. That would have been monumentally stupid.

You mean, as monumentally stupid as one character being completely useless due to a lack of ranged weapons or ability to keep up with the airborne creature?

Now you're making assumptions about the one-shot & the guy that ran it.
1. there was a strict cap on magic gear, and it wasn't high. I had a good weapon and a quiver. The knight had decent armor and an OK weapon. The arcanist had some wands. We all had some potions. That was it.
2. Because the adventuring group was a trio, my PC and the arcane spellcaster were multiclassed- he had a good array of spells, but Fly wasn't one of them. With the foreknowledge we had of the game, both fireball and lightning bolt were solid choices, and that was proven in play.

Details! See, it helps if you provide these.

So, why wasn't Fly one of the wands? It was low-enough level back then to be a wand, and not at all expensive for a wand. I can understand if the cap was just that low, though. But Fly itself, even back then, was a well-known utility spell considered essential by most players.

Seriously, with Fly, many of the party could have melee'd the dragon while it was in the air. Given how many flying enemies were present in that edition and how it was one of the ones that heavily encouraged a certain tactical thinking, I do question why no one thought to bring it along. Damaging spells are nice, but they don't make up for the lack of melee support if you're up against an airborne creature. 5E it makes a bit more sense, due to how 5E limits magic, but 3E? I question the reasoning why.

 

[Maxperson]

It's used as a measure of baseline knowledge. That's why the attribute bonus applies to any Intelligence-based knowledge checks; even if an 10-int PC has added the same amount of knowledge as a 20-Int, they still are disadavantaged because they had a lower knowledge level to begin with and won't generally succeed as well.

Doesn't matter. We aren't discussing a 10 int(other than a white dragon). We are discussing 16-20 int. However, even if it was a 10 int, the dragon still smashes the PCs in the nads as far as a knowledge comparison. The dragon has had centuries more time to learn than the PCs, so it will have tons more of it.

IQ isn't a measure of knowledge. It's a measure of capacity to learn. Someone who hasn't learned much over their life is assumed to have a low capacity to learn to begin with.

I admit I used a trap statement there, so you can call me on that.

The "trap" was weak and ineffective. IQ wasn't the point, so I ignored that portion of your statement completely. The key is that age brings more knowledge, and dragons have FAR more age than the PCs.

I never argued that Wisdom is knowledge. I did point out that Wisdom in the game and wisdom as you are discussing it are not the same thing

Um, considering that I'm discussing wisdom as discernment and will power, how the game uses it is exactly how I am using it.

"It still establishes that age gives lots of knowledge."
"Age does translate into much greater knowledge, though."
"Age is one of the main factors for knowledge."

All true.

Then why don't most of the dragons have knowledge skills?

Check their stat blocks; none of the chromatic dragons have a skill that indicates any actual knowledge. The only metallic dragons that do are brass and silver. Why, if age translates into knowledge, do only two out of ten species of dragon have any knowledge skills?

You ever hear of this thing called game balance?

Why would red dragons be noted for their rage if they didn't rage often?

Because even if it rages once a decade, it's going to level towns and raze the countryside. Such a legendary rage will be noteworthy.

 

[Caliban]

Isn't this issue (not having a decent ranged attack) what fellow party members with the Fly spell are for? Or Potions of Flying? Or Winged Boots?

Being a melee oriented character in a fight against a flying, ranged opponent is going to suck. That's just the way it is.

Either suck it up, get help (someone casting fly on you, teleporting you, etc), find a way to get a decent ranged attack (magical throwing weapon, multi-classing), or get a magic item that helps you close the gap.

Or retreat and try to re-engage on your own terms - luring it into a cave, ambushing it in it's lair, and so on.

And sometimes you just have to accept your character isn't the one best suited to fighting that particular opponent and do your best to support the party members who can.