I have a question about the half-dragon's firebreath.
In the Monster Manual they say that "the half-dragon has the breath weapon of its dragon half. The half-dragon's size determines how this action functions".
In the template they applied a red dragon to a human veteran, size medium, which should give a breath weapon of a red dragon wyrmling.
The text of the breath weapon for the veteran and wyrmling however is almost identical.
Red Dragon Wyrmling: Fire Breath (Recharge 5-6). The dragon exhales fire in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 13Dexterity saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Veteran: Fire Breath (Recharge 5-6). The dragon exhales fire in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 15Dexterity saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
It should, but it's also important to understand why. The stat block is incorrect, in several places, and we'll explore that.
The red dragon wyrmling has a Constitution score of 17 (+3) and is CR 4; meaning it's Proficiency Bonus is +2. Since the DC for such abilities is calculated as 8 + Proficiency Bonus + Constitution modifier, the math becomes 8 + 2 + 3 = 13. The veteran has a Constitution of 14 (+2), but it's been elevated to CR 5; meaning its proficiency bonus is +3. And, as we know, 8 + 3 + 2 = 13. So, yes, the DC for the Breath Weapon is wrong. And you're right that it should also be 13.
But it's not the only thing that's wrong. None of the weapon attacks have been adjusted to account for the increased Proficiency Bonus. That said, I'm having trouble figuring out how the half-red dragon veteran is CR 5. By their own rules, the CR should not be recalculated. It should still be CR 3. This means the DC for the Breath Weapon should be 12, not 13 or 15.
For whatever reason, Wizards of the Coast has not sought fit to issue an errata on for the creature. I have no idea why.
I have a question about the half-dragon's firebreath.
In the Monster Manual they say that "the half-dragon has the breath weapon of its dragon half. The half-dragon's size determines how this action functions".
In the template they applied a red dragon to a human veteran, size medium, which should give a breath weapon of a red dragon wyrmling.
The text of the breath weapon for the veteran and wyrmling however is almost identical.
Red Dragon Wyrmling: Fire Breath (Recharge 5-6). The dragon exhales fire in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Veteran: Fire Breath (Recharge 5-6). The dragon exhales fire in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw, taking 24 (7d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Should the Veteran's DC also not be DC 13?
I do not know. There doesn't seem to be any reason for it whatsoever. I can only guess WotC made a mistake somewhere between copy and paste.
It should, but it's also important to understand why. The stat block is incorrect, in several places, and we'll explore that.
The red dragon wyrmling has a Constitution score of 17 (+3) and is CR 4; meaning it's Proficiency Bonus is +2. Since the DC for such abilities is calculated as 8 + Proficiency Bonus + Constitution modifier, the math becomes 8 + 2 + 3 = 13. The veteran has a Constitution of 14 (+2), but it's been elevated to CR 5; meaning its proficiency bonus is +3. And, as we know, 8 + 3 + 2 = 13. So, yes, the DC for the Breath Weapon is wrong. And you're right that it should also be 13.
But it's not the only thing that's wrong. None of the weapon attacks have been adjusted to account for the increased Proficiency Bonus. That said, I'm having trouble figuring out how the half-red dragon veteran is CR 5. By their own rules, the CR should not be recalculated. It should still be CR 3. This means the DC for the Breath Weapon should be 12, not 13 or 15.
For whatever reason, Wizards of the Coast has not sought fit to issue an errata on for the creature. I have no idea why.
Thanks.