Why would a swarm be dealing more damage per member of the swarm than an individual of that creature type does on its own?
When I was at school we were playing indoor rounders (similar to baseball). I managed to hit it at a group of catchers who all went for it at once...and managed to knock the ball out of each other's grasp...repeatedly, until it hit the ground. By the time one of them picked it up, I'd completed a home run.
Sometimes, being in a group is not multiplicative of power. For lower intelligence or less cooperative beings, I can imagine them being in a swarm would lower the output of the individual (but still increase the overall power).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why would a swarm be dealing more damage per member of the swarm than an individual of that creature type does on its own?
When I was at school we were playing indoor rounders (similar to baseball). I managed to hit it at a group of catchers who all went for it at once...and managed to knock the ball out of each other's grasp...repeatedly, until it hit the ground. By the time one of them picked it up, I'd completed a home run.
Sometimes, being in a group is not multiplicative of power. For lower intelligence or less cooperative beings, I can imagine them being in a swarm would lower the output of the individual (but still increase the overall power).
Yeah, every member of the swarm is not able to bite/sting/claw simultaneously. A swarm of fifty rats is more dangerous than fifty individual rats, but if fifty individual rats can potentially deal fifty damage in a single round, a swarm of fifty rats shouldn't be potentially dealing three hundred.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've run three campaigns over the last 5 years, each lasting over a year, and I'm just kicking off with my 4th, about 4mos in.
The most dangerous monsters in all of them are the player's characters. They are the most dangerous, unpredictable, persistent, off the cuff bundles of dangerous joy. They have always been the bane of the world. Unleashing great hell on the unsuspecting villages, cities, and townsfolk in general. Unleashing long laid to rest creatures to summoning new ones.
And while I believe they are the most dangerous. They are also the most fun.
I've run three campaigns over the last 5 years, each lasting over a year, and I'm just kicking off with my 4th, about 4mos in.
The most dangerous monsters in all of them are the player's characters. They are the most dangerous, unpredictable, persistent, off the cuff bundles of dangerous joy. They have always been the bane of the world. Unleashing great hell on the unsuspecting villages, cities, and townsfolk in general. Unleashing long laid to rest creatures to summoning new ones.
And while I believe they are the most dangerous. They are also the most fun.
You left out the best part, they're also the ones most likely to cause the deaths of PCs.
The aspects of Bahamut and Tiamat from FToD are each equivalent to two CR 30 monsters. Or a tarrasque with a bunch of magic items, like a massive headband of intellect around its horn, and 20 class levels in wizard.
Bad players. Players who act in bad faith and/or disrespect other members of the group or attempt to disrupt play intentionally for the lulz. I had the displeasure of playing a couple of sessions with two such knuckleheads, they ended destroying/breaking up the group. No D&D monster worse than that, that I can think of.
If you want to kill the party, then any high CR monster is your best bet - and if you want to be sure, bring several.
If you're after ones which are dangerous to run, IE have a high chance of inadvertently killing characters in what should have been a fair fight, at higher levels, the answer to me would be Shadows. They are low CR, so a "balanced" "deadly" fight against 3 level 15 adventurers is 48 shadows. Good luck not running a TPK from that. For 3 level 20 characters, a "Hard" encounter would be 95 Shadows. (For context, each hit from a Shadow reduced the targets Strength by 1d4 until they rest. If they drop to 0, then they die - not death saves, just death. And it spawns a new shadow a few hours later.)
If you're after "which monster would win in a fight against other monsters", probably Tiamat.
Danger is circumstantial, as others are illustrating.
Any kind of intelligent shapeshifter with half-decent charisma could absolutely destroy a party of adventurers without even raising a sword, but that's not "fun" for the group outside of classic villain arcs.
If we assume a "Matrix-style" clean room on the Material Plane for classic 6 on 1 combat, then it will generally depend on the strengths of the party, but anything that can fly fast, and has a long range attack could pose a serious challenge.
Case in point: The Aspect of Bahamut has Change Shape, 120ft fly, and a 300ft cone of radiant damage. It could effectively stay outside of spell range except to torch the ground whenever its breath recharges.
If engaged in a mass combat situation, it can use its alternate resurrection breath weapon to potentially keep 10's of thousands of friendly allies alive as needed.
I mean... at these tiers of power, the only way a party of adventurers ever stands a chance of winning is if the plot requires it.
But Bahamut and Tiamat stats aren't D&D canon, correct?
Danger is circumstantial, as others are illustrating.
Any kind of intelligent shapeshifter with half-decent charisma could absolutely destroy a party of adventurers without even raising a sword, but that's not "fun" for the group outside of classic villain arcs.
If we assume a "Matrix-style" clean room on the Material Plane for classic 6 on 1 combat, then it will generally depend on the strengths of the party, but anything that can fly fast, and has a long range attack could pose a serious challenge.
Case in point: The Aspect of Bahamut has Change Shape, 120ft fly, and a 300ft cone of radiant damage. It could effectively stay outside of spell range except to torch the ground whenever its breath recharges.
If engaged in a mass combat situation, it can use its alternate resurrection breath weapon to potentially keep 10's of thousands of friendly allies alive as needed.
I mean... at these tiers of power, the only way a party of adventurers ever stands a chance of winning is if the plot requires it.
But Bahamut and Tiamat stats aren't D&D canon, correct?
Tiamat was statted out in Tyranny of Dragons, and both had Aspects that were statted out in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. And of course they were given stats in previous editions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Measured how? If it's a question of 'if these two monsters fight, which one wins?' until just one monster remains, I have no idea. Solars were pretty hard to compete with, back in the day. Arrows of 'oh, it seems you die!'
Anyways, this is my metric: The most dangerous monster is the one that has killed the most player characters. By that metric, I nominate rats or goblins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Measured how? If it's a question of 'if these two monsters fight, which one wins?' until just one monster remains, I have no idea. Solars were pretty hard to compete with, back in the day. Arrows of 'oh, it seems you die!'
Anyways, this is my metric: The most dangerous monster is the one that has killed the most player characters. By that metric, I nominate rats or goblins.
Solars are still terrifying. They have a legendary action where if you fail an almost impossible Con save, you're blinded for 1 minute with no repeat saves.
The problem with monsters like a tarrasque or Tiamat, etc is that they are obvious. The party goes "hey its XXXXXXX, prepare to fight". Some of the most dangerous monsters are the ones the party never sees coming or sees coming but doesn't understand the danger til its too late. A nasty sneaky DM can make what seems like a low CR monster into a major danger with a little misdirection.
The problem with monsters like a tarrasque or Tiamat, etc is that they are obvious. The party goes "hey its XXXXXXX, prepare to fight". Some of the most dangerous monsters are the ones the party never sees coming or sees coming but doesn't understand the danger til its too late. A nasty sneaky DM can make what seems like a low CR monster into a major danger with a little misdirection.
The Tarrasque is trying too hard. Tia, though, even more so than any lesser dragon, should not simply be 'there.' These are exceedingly powerful hyper intelligent beings.
So much also depends on how geared the party is, their level, and how spent they are before encountering said monster. People often look at this monster or that and say "oh yeah any party will wipe the floor with them" but fail to take into account any preceding encounters. In a vacuum, a buffed, heavy magic item wearing party will slaughter most monsters. But that's not how most encounters work.
This is usually why people sometimes say low level monsters are the scariest because even a lowly goblin can get a few lucky hits in and down 3/4 of the party with no way to revive themselves. At later levels though, monsters get much smarter usually, and more difficult to take down, with legendary actions perhaps, lair actions maybe, resistances and even immunities and also usually don't come without backup of their own.
Take the fabled lich for example. No lich is ever going to just let a band of adventurers walk up to it and start wailing away. No, they're going to have to make it through the lich's lair, filled with traps and sentries and environmental effects to wear them down, heavily tilting the battle in the lich's favor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I was at school we were playing indoor rounders (similar to baseball). I managed to hit it at a group of catchers who all went for it at once...and managed to knock the ball out of each other's grasp...repeatedly, until it hit the ground. By the time one of them picked it up, I'd completed a home run.
Sometimes, being in a group is not multiplicative of power. For lower intelligence or less cooperative beings, I can imagine them being in a swarm would lower the output of the individual (but still increase the overall power).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, every member of the swarm is not able to bite/sting/claw simultaneously. A swarm of fifty rats is more dangerous than fifty individual rats, but if fifty individual rats can potentially deal fifty damage in a single round, a swarm of fifty rats shouldn't be potentially dealing three hundred.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've run three campaigns over the last 5 years, each lasting over a year, and I'm just kicking off with my 4th, about 4mos in.
The most dangerous monsters in all of them are the player's characters. They are the most dangerous, unpredictable, persistent, off the cuff bundles of dangerous joy. They have always been the bane of the world. Unleashing great hell on the unsuspecting villages, cities, and townsfolk in general. Unleashing long laid to rest creatures to summoning new ones.
And while I believe they are the most dangerous. They are also the most fun.
You left out the best part, they're also the ones most likely to cause the deaths of PCs.
The Hasbro, or even its little brother the Wotc?
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.
A really angry GM.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yes, it's better not to meet this monster, lol
The aspects of Bahamut and Tiamat from FToD are each equivalent to two CR 30 monsters. Or a tarrasque with a bunch of magic items, like a massive headband of intellect around its horn, and 20 class levels in wizard.
I feel as though we are overlooking Tiamat (unless I missed someone mentioning her)
Edit: I definitely did miss several mentions lol
Bad players. Players who act in bad faith and/or disrespect other members of the group or attempt to disrupt play intentionally for the lulz. I had the displeasure of playing a couple of sessions with two such knuckleheads, they ended destroying/breaking up the group. No D&D monster worse than that, that I can think of.
This depends on your goals!
If you want to kill the party, then any high CR monster is your best bet - and if you want to be sure, bring several.
If you're after ones which are dangerous to run, IE have a high chance of inadvertently killing characters in what should have been a fair fight, at higher levels, the answer to me would be Shadows. They are low CR, so a "balanced" "deadly" fight against 3 level 15 adventurers is 48 shadows. Good luck not running a TPK from that. For 3 level 20 characters, a "Hard" encounter would be 95 Shadows. (For context, each hit from a Shadow reduced the targets Strength by 1d4 until they rest. If they drop to 0, then they die - not death saves, just death. And it spawns a new shadow a few hours later.)
If you're after "which monster would win in a fight against other monsters", probably Tiamat.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Anything the players (or the character) isn't prepared to deal with.
I once had a Barbarian drown because he failed his Athletics checks to swim.
I have seen characters die because they leaped from a high point and forgot that their Featherfall ring had been stolen earlier in the session.
I can't even remember how many times the ONE person in the party with Revivify died.
In short, the most dangerous enemies in the game are the players and the dice...
Have you listened to Tales From the Stingy Dragon
But Bahamut and Tiamat stats aren't D&D canon, correct?
Tiamat was statted out in Tyranny of Dragons, and both had Aspects that were statted out in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. And of course they were given stats in previous editions.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Measured how? If it's a question of 'if these two monsters fight, which one wins?' until just one monster remains, I have no idea. Solars were pretty hard to compete with, back in the day. Arrows of 'oh, it seems you die!'
Anyways, this is my metric: The most dangerous monster is the one that has killed the most player characters. By that metric, I nominate rats or goblins.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Solars are still terrifying. They have a legendary action where if you fail an almost impossible Con save, you're blinded for 1 minute with no repeat saves.
The problem with monsters like a tarrasque or Tiamat, etc is that they are obvious. The party goes "hey its XXXXXXX, prepare to fight". Some of the most dangerous monsters are the ones the party never sees coming or sees coming but doesn't understand the danger til its too late. A nasty sneaky DM can make what seems like a low CR monster into a major danger with a little misdirection.
The Tarrasque is trying too hard. Tia, though, even more so than any lesser dragon, should not simply be 'there.' These are exceedingly powerful hyper intelligent beings.
So much also depends on how geared the party is, their level, and how spent they are before encountering said monster. People often look at this monster or that and say "oh yeah any party will wipe the floor with them" but fail to take into account any preceding encounters. In a vacuum, a buffed, heavy magic item wearing party will slaughter most monsters. But that's not how most encounters work.
This is usually why people sometimes say low level monsters are the scariest because even a lowly goblin can get a few lucky hits in and down 3/4 of the party with no way to revive themselves. At later levels though, monsters get much smarter usually, and more difficult to take down, with legendary actions perhaps, lair actions maybe, resistances and even immunities and also usually don't come without backup of their own.
Take the fabled lich for example. No lich is ever going to just let a band of adventurers walk up to it and start wailing away. No, they're going to have to make it through the lich's lair, filled with traps and sentries and environmental effects to wear them down, heavily tilting the battle in the lich's favor.