Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Then you expectations are vastly out of line with the traditional reality of D&D. Unless you have high tier monsters functionally immune to armies of low level rubes one of the fundamental fantasy plot-lines does not work. When the kingdom is under siege by a goddamn dragon the kings armies better be powerless against the beast, otherwise why is he contracting out to a random band of murder hobos?

The fact that a D&D edition does not cover the full range of D&D should be a dealbreaker end of story.

Traditionally high level PC have been completely bonkers, dethroning a god/ascending to god hood/both is in the associated fiction a legitimate goal for high level wizards. In older editions the gods had stats that were within punching range of a PC and you could totally kill them and take their stuff. In 3e a 20th level character is assumed to be able to take down an arbitrarily number of monsters that themselves can take down an arbitrarily number of 1st level orc warriors.

Everything you're complaining about is bunk for one reason: 5E shares a lot of strong, strong, STRONG similarities to every edition of D&D pre-3E, despite having a lot of 3E-isms in it like how it handles multiclassing. 3.5 is actually the odd man out as far as the stories it's suited for telling, and it certainly is not the roots of the franchise's narrative identity.

The fact of the matter is that, on a point by point basis, 5E probably incorporates, appeals, and emulates the most out of the most D&D editions as any other release ever has. That it cannot give you the exact, narrow Exalted-esque focus of 3.5 is not a problem with 5E, but 3E's incompatibility with the rest of D&D's history. Aside from 4E, it's the worst about this, and the things it brought to the table (like fuck you chain-gated solar simulacrum godhood) was bad for the game.
 
When the kingdom is under siege by a goddamn dragon the kings armies better be powerless against the beast, otherwise why is he contracting out to a random band of murder hobos?

Concentration of force and the nature of levying an army in medieval feudal societies. That you can get a thousand levies in one place doesn't mean you can get them into the dragon's lair, or keep them alive during strafing attacks/whatever (That dragon isn't going to play nice with you), or even locate the dragon's lair without help.

Like, the thing with the Pit Fiend? It can just fly around and explode peasants at its own discretion if it wants to and there's jack shit they can do about it. It's only 'weak' to peasants and low level warriors if it fights in a way that disadvantages it.

The fact that a D&D edition does not cover the full range of D&D should be a dealbreaker end of story.

3.5 didn't simulate a single DnD setting except for Eberron, and it only simulated Eberron if you kept things at the level range Eberron works at.

Also, that's a dumb argument. It shouldn't be a dealbreaker, as deciding to change the scope of the game to fit the settings you're building the game around is an entirely legitimate move.

Traditionally high level PC have been completely bonkers, dethroning a god/ascending to god hood/both is in the associated fiction a legitimate goal for high level wizards. In older editions the gods had stats that were within punching range of a PC and you could totally kill them and take their stuff. In 3e a 20th level character is assumed to be able to take down an arbitrarily number of monsters that themselves can take down an arbitrarily number of 1st level orc warriors.

A) We don't have the expanded material yet, it may well still be a legitimate goal

B) That isn't actually a criticism of the current edition, it's just you complaining that things are different now.

C) There's evidently stuff like that in the DMG?
 
Last edited:
Then you expectations are vastly out of line with the traditional reality of D&D. Unless you have high tier monsters functionally immune to armies of low level rubes one of the fundamental fantasy plot-lines does not work. When the kingdom is under siege by a goddamn dragon the kings armies better be powerless against the beast, otherwise why is he contracting out to a random band of murder hobos?

Generally because medieval era armies lack access to Fly spells so a dragon is, in fact, functionally immune to armies. An Ancient Red Dragon does 91 damage to a 90ft cone from 90ft in the air. That's going to do stuff like destroy entire towns, murder entire armies of soldiers and so on. Even if the army has bows, there is no way they can do enough damage to the Dragon before it can fly away and lick its wounds for a day and then return and bar-b-que another division of your army.

Yeah, sure, a Dragon isn't going to drop from the sky and shrug off an entire army. But that's cool. Otherwise why hasn't the dragon already done that.

Because the problem with making high level monsters immune to armies is that there is then no reason that humanity exists. Why would any sane dragon want to allow any potential humanoid settlement with its bothersome adventurers grow up? If there is literally nothing a human kingdom can do to protect itself, there would be no human kingdoms, just random bands of neolithic primitives sheltering in caves.

The fact that a D&D edition does not cover the full range of D&D should be a dealbreaker end of story.

Then I guess 3.5 is also not D&D, since it doesn't cover the full range of D&D either.

Traditionally high level PC have been completely bonkers, dethroning a god/ascending to god hood/both is in the associated fiction a legitimate goal for high level wizards. In older editions the gods had stats that were within punching range of a PC and you could totally kill them and take their stuff. In 3e a 20th level character is assumed to be able to take down an arbitrarily number of monsters that themselves can take down an arbitrarily number of 1st level orc warriors.

And as of the Dungeon Master's Guide high level PCs in 5E can continue to adventure and gain benefits like immortality and other stuff, not to mention high tier artifacts.
 
3.5 is actually the odd man out as far as the stories it's suited for telling, and it certainly is not the roots of the franchise's narrative identity
[citation needed]. Even 4e pretend that you got to do crazy things, you could theoretically get to level thirty and the have numbers in god-punching distance (but you'd committ sudoku out of boredom long before actually killing one because they're solo monsters)
Like, the thing with the Pit Fiend? It can just fly around and explode peasants at its own discretion if it wants to and there's jack shit they can do about it. It's only 'weak' to peasants and low level warriors if it fights in a way that disadvantages it.
Not if they have bows, then it takes 100-200 actions and the Fiend is dead. Your necromancers skeleton horde will be (under optimal circumstances) able to take out a Pit Fiend long before you're expected to actually fight one.
 
I'm going to quote @tzar1990 , who said it better than me, on 3.5 and High magic:

IMO, the problem with going full-on High Magic in D&D is that the developers have to cater to the existing fanbase, and a significant portion of the fanbase wants hack-and-slash adventure in Medieval europe. This means the devs are caught between a few bad choices: Come up with a setting that is high-magic and makes sense, but lose the generic setting many people associate the game with. Go high-magic and traditional setting, but have a world that falls apart when you poke it with any of the more interesting spells (the 3.5 route). Or develop a setting with lower power levels so that you can have a world that makes sense according to the capabilities of its inhabitants.

The other issue, of course, is the question of balance. If you have wizards capable of awesome high magic, you need to design the game so everyone plays some kind of wizard, abandon balance or design it so that the non-magical classes are capable of keeping up with the magic-users. Unfortunately, people are both attached to the classic non-magical classes (fighters, rogues) and determined to keep them down-to-earth in their capabilites (see many DMs reactions to the Book of Nine Swords). And abandoning balance and just letting the party have drastically differing capabilities is pretty frustrating for the people who get the short end of the stick.

Ideally, I'd like to play in a high-magic setting designed from the ground up to take into account the presence of said magic, and provide the non-magical classes with Extraordinary powers allowing them to keep up (i.e. Fighters can throw their weapon so hard it hits everyone in a line, force enemies to make will saves against fear before entering their threatened area, or even get the equivalent of an exalted Perfect Attack). But that's not something that many D&D fans seem willing to accept.

And that's why 5e *is* explicitly toned down not only mechanically but also in fluff. It's consistent design, even if it does mean you no longer get the High magic grandeur of AD&D 2 or 3.5.


3.5 is actually the odd man out as far as the stories it's suited for telling, and it certainly is not the roots of the franchise's narrative identity.

AD&D 2 was just as crazy bonkers as 3.5. It just wasn't as obvious because there were less people dissecting every detail of it over the internet.
 
Last edited:
Not if they have bows, then it takes 100-200 actions and the Fiend is dead. Your necromancers skeleton horde will be (under optimal circumstances) able to take out a Pit Fiend long before you're expected to actually fight one.

Bows have a 150ft range, equal to a Fireball. They do 1d8 damage (average 4.5). The Pit Field can Fireball the army of archers and fly back 60ft. It is now 210 ft away. The army moves forward 30 ft (max move) and opens fire. The Pit Fiend is 180 ft away so it is beyond short range so they fire with Disadvantage. The Fiend can easily Kite the army in this way. There to-hit is +3 so they hit on a 16 or higher, ie .25, but on disadvantage that is .25 * ,25 or 0.625. 0.625 x 4.5/2 (resistance) = 0.15 damage per archer per action.

300 hp / 0.15 = 20,000 actions.

Then, when the Fiend is down to 1/3 hit points guess what happens? It flies away.

And the next day, it returns with full hitppoints and you've lost... what, a third of your army? People don't grow back overnight.
 
Last edited:
To answer the dragon question in-character:

Boy, I've heard you and your kind time and again - 'If only the king hadn't been too weak to act,' 'The army should have been better organized,' 'if I'd been there I'd have taken up a longbow and helped bring it down.' You see the scarred scales in the king's halls, or the broken fangs, and think that it was some mighty dumb beast that was simply put down.

We didn't even know what we were facing at first - half a dozen towns, all isolated, ceased sending tax and news to the capitol. When we arrived, we found nothing but ash and the scent of brimstone - they'd been burned until even the castle stones had shattered. Trade caravans disappeared, and neighboring nations closed their borders, fearing what lurked in our lands. Whispers flew fast - some swore that the destruction could only be due to demons, while others claimed that only devils were so methodical, or that Efreet slavers were taking whole towns and burning them to hide their tracks.

Eventually, though, it missed a few survivors, and they brought the news: Dragon. Word spread quickly, and people panicked. Farmers abandoned their fields and fled behind city walls. Nobles hid themselves in great underground vaults, or else fled the nation. Food grew scarce, and trade failed entirely.

The king and his advisors took action - cartographers and astrologers surveyed the path of destruction, and found a pattern of sorts. While the targets seemed to share few similarities, when a wizard brought a record of the weather, it seemed the dragon was striking areas on the verge of drought, that they might burn faster and hotter. Even better, they seemed to locate its lair - a dead volcano in the southern mountains. The army was dispatched, every longbowman trained and readied, sent to areas the diviners found would soon be droughted.

The dragon didn't come - oh, of course there were skirmishes, sightings, even noble doomed defenses - but it never quite stuck where we thought it would. It would forgo the rich town for the poor and unguarded neighbor, or burn a valueless mill instead of the trading post we were guarding. And when we sought it out, we found that its lair was terrible to reach - landslides and earthquakes buried scouts, and all streams and rivers grew poisoned and sulfurous. We didn't surrender, though - our generals prepared for the terrible journey, willing to accept casualties if it meant forcing the wyrm out of its lair and towards our longbows

And then the wind shifted - blowing from the south, across mountain, forest and field, towards the capitol. That morning, the city woke to smoke - the yew forests, the rich farmland and even the rocky grasslands to its south were all burning. At first, we feared wildfire. And then came the roars.

Imagine it - smoke so thick and dense you couldn't see more than a hundred yards, and growing thicker as the wooden shacks of the poor district burned like kindling. Your captains, shouting contradictory orders, desperately trying to establish some logic to the events. Screams in the distance when the dragon would drop from the sky amidst any cluster of order, set the men to terror, the rush once more into the sky as it rained fire upon them. The fear spread with the fire, and soon there was no army protecting the city, just a crowd of terrified men and women firing uselessly into the sky, trying fruitlessly to slow the spread of flames, or simply hiding and weeping.

That is what a dragon attack is - not a beast descending clearly from a blue sky, but terror and flames cloaked in fog and smoke. That is why your army of longbowmen accomplished nothing against it. And that is why, when Ragna the Red and her mercenary band killed it in its lair, we forgave her her banditry and bestowed upon her knighthood - because she accomplished what we could not have done.

tl;dr if the dragon is fighting you on an open field where your army can fire on it, something has clearly gone wrong - it has no incentive to do that, and every incentive to be a terrifying hit-and-run raider.
 
Not if they have bows, then it takes 100-200 actions and the Fiend is dead. Your necromancers skeleton horde will be (under optimal circumstances) able to take out a Pit Fiend long before you're expected to actually fight one.

Right, so in absolutely optimal circumstances against a completely braindead enemy a few hundred people with flawless discipline and morale in formation can kill a Pit Fiend with no support.

How is this a problem? Like, how does this actually obstruct the functioning of the heroic fantasy genre, where raising an army and using that army is generally important and that army can do important things and a shitload of orcs showing up in your face is an actual threat, even if you're a mighty warrior or wizard?
 
Last edited:
[citation needed]. Even 4e pretend that you got to do crazy things, you could theoretically get to level thirty and the have numbers in god-punching distance (but you'd committ sudoku out of boredom long before actually killing one because they're solo monsters)

"This thing you said about 3E's divergence from previous editions is invalid because the edition that came after it also did the thing, so nyeh!"

Not if they have bows, then it takes 100-200 actions and the Fiend is dead. Your necromancers skeleton horde will be (under optimal circumstances) able to take out a Pit Fiend long before you're expected to actually fight one.

Pit Fiend goes outside of arrow range lulz.

AD&D 2 was just as crazy bonkers as 3.5. It just wasn't as obvious because there were less people dissecting every detail of it over the internet.

Not QUITE so much. I mean it was crazy bonkers, yes, not EPIC LEVELS bonkers. Nor did it assume you would be decked to the nines in millions of GP's worth of magic items baked right into the math.
 
tl;dr if the dragon is fighting you on an open field where your army can fire on it, something has clearly gone wrong - it has no incentive to do that, and every incentive to be a terrifying hit-and-run raider.

Exactly.

5E is the edition where your DM can turn to you on session 1 with your cadre of 1st level characters and say:

"The premise is simple. A red dragon is terrorizing the nation. You four young heroes, unwilling to bend knee, have gathered together to destroy it where others can not. You will have to gather the arms and experience needed, seek out its lair, fight past its minions and dispatch the beast before your homeland is reduced to ash and bleached bones. If you succeed, the accolades from your people will be beyond compare, not to mention enough treasure to live like kings. You start in a tavern. What next?"
 
Exactly.

5E is the edition where your DM can turn to you on session 1 with your cadre of 1st level characters and say:

"The premise is simple. A red dragon is terrorizing the nation. You four young heroes, unwilling to bend knee, have gathered together to destroy it where others can not. You will have to gather the arms and experience needed, seek out its lair, fight past its minions and dispatch the beast before your homeland is reduced to ash and bleached bones. If you succeed, the accolades from your people will be beyond compare, not to mention enough treasure to live like kings. You start in a tavern. What next?"
By the way, I just want to point out that's an strong and interesting premise for a campaign.

Dragons being the nigh unstoppable king shit apex predator of the entire world adds to things, doesn't take away.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

5E is the edition where your DM can turn to you on session 1 with your cadre of 1st level characters and say:

"The premise is simple. A red dragon is terrorizing the nation. You four young heroes, unwilling to bend knee, have gathered together to destroy it where others can not. You will have to gather the arms and experience needed, seek out its lair, fight past its minions and dispatch the beast before your homeland is reduced to ash and bleached bones. If you succeed, the accolades from your people will be beyond compare, not to mention enough treasure to live like kings. You start in a tavern. What next?"
Why the hell can't you do that in 3.5?
 
Why the hell can't you do that in 3.5?

You can, it's just you can kill him at lower level, especially if you optimize.

Well, that is, if you run it narratively. If you run it in paranoia combat mode...

A) the dragon has access to divinations spells that can identify future threats and murders your party before they reach high enough level to credibly threaten Her.

or

B) The party sneaks into it's lair and murders it with Shivering Touch at like level 5, skipping the epic quest line.
 
Why the hell can't you do that in 3.5?

You can, but it's really hard.

Because as a level one you and your supposed army can't actually touch the dragon. The odds are so stacked in it's favor barring plot based power ups you can't do anything to it. It'd be like the dwarves and Bilbo actually trying to kill Smaug. Could they do it? Maybe...one times in a few hundred thousand.
 
Why the hell can't you do that in 3.5?

Because fighting a CR 22 Great Wyrm Red Dragon would be suicide for anything less than an appropriately kitted party of probably Level 20 adventures, whereas in 5E you could risk a confrontation on level 17. If the party has any of the following advantages this would decrease the difficulty in their favor: the party surprises the enemy, the party is able to confine its movement, the party is able to attain cover and so on. You could, with cleverness, probably knock that encounter down to a very difficult but winnable fight at level 14 or so.

Then add in magic items, which are explicitly not included in the encounter by level stuff. If the party has access to a bunch of +3 weapons and armor they are swinging like four or five levels above their weight class, and similar concession for stuff like Legendary weapons or artifacts, magical boons and blessing from the gods and so on and so forth.

In other words, the game in 5E becomes much more about Risk and Reward, especially if you have the Dragon be an active threat to the kingdom. How much time do you spend gathering resources and XP for the confrontation versus allowing the dragon to run rampant on the countryside? Can you be open about your quest and risk word of it getting back to the dragon? If the dragon does learn of your quest he's going to take measures against you. An ambush by a CR 22 Dragon in 3.5 is basically a total party wipe, but in 5E its something you could survive and run away from (running away is totally a thing in 5e).

By collapsing the power curve you actually open the story possibilities, not close them. In a system with a much more stratified level advancement with a much more rigid wealth by level you end up closing off a lot of encounters because they are either ridiculously easy for a high level party or ridiculously lethal for a low level one.
 
I read the statement as the party wold level up to fight it. Because you still don't stand a chance against anything older than an adult dragon at 1st level in 5e. Yet WoTC put two dragons in level adventures already!
 
You CAN handle dragons at 1st level in 5E...it's just very, very, very fucking hard and your best bet is to work up an army; but the bounded accuracy mechanic means that level differences don't negate threats, however trivial.
 
By the way, I just want to point out that's an strong and interesting premise for a campaign.

Dragons being the nigh unstoppable king shit apex predator of the entire world adds to things, doesn't take away.
No shit. When you slice off upper tier of the game it means that there are less stories that you game can tell, because you're removing things not adding them. People are all like Smaug can totally still wage guerrilla warfare on the kingdom but that's complete bullshit.If you want a game where you start as mere mortals and then stay as mere mortals forever that's pretty much every fantasy heartbreaker ever. Hell you can do that with 3e or Pathfinder and not have to deal with 5e's terrible rules.

Insane scaling is the one thing that makes D&D unique, the one thing it has ever done well is model a progression where you go from fighting a giant rat in a dirt farmers basement to fighting a demon lord in his abyssal throne room. Take that away and all you have is a generic fantasy heartbreaker, and in 5e case one that's only half-baked.
 
Last edited:
No shit. When you slice off upper tier of the game it means that there are less stories that you game can tell, because you're removing things not adding them. People are all like Smaug can totally still wage guerrilla warfare on the kingdom but that's complete bullshit.If you want a game where you start as mere mortals and then stay as mere mortals forever that's pretty much every fantasy heartbreaker ever. Hell you can do that with 3e or Pathfinder and not have to deal with 5e's terrible rules.

Insane scaling is the one thing that makes D&D unique, the one thing it has ever done well is model a progression where you go from fighting a giant rat in a dirt farmers basement to fighting a demon lord in his abyssal throne room. Take that away and all you have is a generic fantasy heartbreaker, and in 5e case one that's only half-baked.
Uh, I wasn't agreeing with you.

And I do believe we've pretty well established that 5ed is fully baked, even if it doesn't do the exact same thing 3.5ed does. The high end enemies are still there, even if the PCs don't turn into demigods when they reach high levels.

I'm not really sure what you're driving at when decrying D&D as 'generic fantasy'. D&D is, like, the generic heroic fantasy gameline. Archetypical, even. It's a good shtick, one the gameline is a powerhouse of fame in, and making sure that 5ed can do it well is a valid design move.
 
Last edited:
Also, @Mistborn what "Terrible rules"?
Can you explain this?
5e doesn't really have rules, it has rules-flavored word salad. Once you leave the combat engine which is merely kind of lame, and ask 5e to do almost anything else it just gives up. In 3e there as a fairly large list of scenarios where you could just declare an action that then the rules would spit out a predefined set of outcomes. That almost never happens in 5e where the answer to almost every question is "ask your DM".

What little rules there are a so punishing you're better off having the GM handwave it. Starting PCs fail at easy tasks often and sometimes they even fail at easy tasks within their supposed specialty. Then you only gain 4-7 (or maybe 10 if you're really lucky) more pluses over your entire adventuring career, and that really sucks when the RNG is 20 numbers long.
 
Wow, someone's looking at 3.5 with rose tinted Nostalgia glasses.

Yes, 3.5's crazy scaling could be a lot of fun. More often, it was a lot of frustration.

High, mid, and low levels (the exact boundaries may vary with class) were fundamentally different gaming experiences, and it's hard to build characters that are viable at all levels. The things that work well at low levels often don't work at all in the mid levels. Which means 3.5 play involved picking a preferred power/level scaling and sticking to it, unless you had a really good, adaptable, not-jerky/whiny gaming group.

You had to have high mechanics competency to keep the game together. All it took was one person the in party deciding to be the powergamer or the whiny-load to blow things up.

Even without a powergamer, if you allowed players to actually use the full range of powers and spells, the game generally melted down as soon as players got high enough level to access spells that were paradigm changing. Even Frank and K, the quintessential 3.5 grognards, basically treated level 20 capstone abilities as jokes when they did homebrew, since they fully expected the game to have become unplayable by level 17.

Now, even with all those problems, I never found any 4e or 5e content half as fun and interesting in concept as the 3.5 Binder or Totemist. The problem is actually getting to play a 3.5 character without stepping on other people's toes or running into very bad scaling of the CR system and having very little to choose from between "too easy" and "TPK"
 
Wow, someone's looking at 3.5 with rose tinted Nostalgia glasses.

Yes, 3.5's crazy scaling could be a lot of fun. More often, it was a lot of frustration.

High, mid, and low levels (the exact boundaries may vary with class) were fundamentally different gaming experiences, and it's hard to build characters that are viable at all levels. The things that work well at low levels often don't work at all in the mid levels. Which means 3.5 play involved picking a preferred power/level scaling and sticking to it, unless you had a really good, adaptable, not-jerky/whiny gaming group.

You had to have high mechanics competency to keep the game together. All it took was one person the in party deciding to be the powergamer or the whiny-load to blow things up.

Even without a powergamer, if you allowed players to actually use the full range of powers and spells, the game generally melted down as soon as players got high enough level to access spells that were paradigm changing. Even Frank and K, the quintessential 3.5 grognards, basically treated level 20 capstone abilities as jokes when they did homebrew, since they fully expected the game to have become unplayable by level 17.

Now, even with all those problems, I never found any 4e or 5e content half as fun and interesting in concept as the 3.5 Binder or Totemist. The problem is actually getting to play a 3.5 character without stepping on other people's toes or running into very bad scaling of the CR system and having very little to choose from between "too easy" and "TPK"
Definitely right. One of the best, and one of the few truly long-running, 3.5 games I was ever in was fully focused on the levels 5 to 8. You started out at level 5, and you gained a level after 15 sessions of play.
Since we were based at a college, and we alternated what games were run each week session (three game slots per session, three to four games running per slot, so 18 to 24 ongoing for the group as a whole, though you could only play three each week), 15 sessions worked out to a full school year of play.
If a freshman started playing and never missed a game session, he would hit level nine usually at the last session of his fourth year.
We really got to know our character's abilities, we were capable but not world-stompers and we got very good at leveraging teamwork and strategy to its full extant.
This game may have been an extreme case, but it let us focus on the kinds of games we wanted to play, while avoiding the mechanical problems of higher levels.
We had other D&D games that did not follow these advancement rules, but they came and went. Only this one really lasted.
 
Back
Top