(EDIT: Ok so this is a VERY old thread but I'm still embarrassed that I even tried to argue the dragon point so I'm editing the OP to add this note saying that I was quite dumb two years ago)
Even though humans have guns, dragons would win if humans attempted a genocide. Let's say humans are commoners with guns. A pistol does 1d10 (average 5 to 6) damage, and a musket does 1d12 (average 6 to 7) damage. Since you can make one attack per six seconds with them, and adult blue dragons have AC 19, we can expect 5% of the attacks to hit normally and 5% to be crits. The other 90% will miss. Since we can assume that they will be using muskets, we can expect 6.5 damage on a normal hit or 13 on a crit. Thus, if we send 100 humans after the dragon, it will suffer roughly 97 to 98 damage every six seconds, in which time it might use its breath. Its breath can cover a 90x5 foot line, or 450 square feet, with an average of 66 damage per hit (or, 10% of the time, 33), which would automatically kill a commoner. If the commoners are attacking in a wave, the dragon would easily kill them despite having only two rounds alive before the guns kill it, since it can also burrow. Then it can recharge while the humans are looking for it, and then burst out and use Frightful Presence, which would scare away 80% of the humans. Since we can expect that it killed about 20 before, we have 16 remaining who aren't scared. Then it can claw, claw, bite and kill three of them. Then, since it has, say, 50 HP left, the 13 musket shots will do about 6 to 7 damage. Not much. It would easily claw, claw, bite them all. Let's say they use modern weapons. An automatic rifle would do an average of 9 damage, or 18 on a crit. Essentially, they do twice the damage. The dragon can still just use Frightful Presence, then lightning breath them all. Let's also not forget the lair actions and regional effects. Now let's think about ancient red dragons. If we call a human soldier a commoner with an automatic rifle. Ancient red dragons have AC 22. Either you crit or you miss. 5% of the humans would do 18 damage each to the dragon. The other 95% would miss. The dragon has 546 HP. We need 31 hits to kill the dragon. Thus, we need 620 shots. Maybe we send 620 humans at the dragon. But, since the dragon and humans have equal Dexterity modifiers, we can expect the dragon to have its turn halfway through the humans. It would then have, say, 270 HP. Then it uses Frightful Presence, only 5% of the humans succeed, and the other 589 humans run away. Then we have 31 humans left. The dragon then claw, claw, bites to kill three of them. Also, consider the range of the automatic rifle. Beyond 80 feet, the shots would have disadvantage, and only 0.25% of the humans would hit if the dragon flew up there. It would take only one turn to do so. Then, there would be only 1 or 2 hits per turn, and the dragon can just pick them all off with fire breath. And don't even think about sneaking up on the dragon. IT HAS PASSIVE PERCEPTION 26. To kill the red dragon, we have to send a number of humans after it, all armed with automatic rifles, equal to 1/{fraction of humans that hit the dragon when it is within 80 feet} x {number of hits to kill the dragon} x 2. That is equal to 1,240 humans. Can we pack 1,240 humans so tightly that they all are within 80 feet of the dragon and all have line of sight on it? We have about 19,700 square feet of space, so if we put one human every fifteen or sixteen square feet, yes, we could pack them tight enough. But what if the dragon just flies 80 feet up? Then only 1/400th of the humans would hit, and we'd need 24,800 humans to kill the dragon. To keep all of them in that space, adding the 400 square feet under the dragon, each person would only get 4/5 of a square foot of personal space. Also, half of the time, the dragon would still get a turn before it died, and it can hit a 90-foot cone with fire. That covers about 25,450 square feet, and about 31,800 humans would fit there - in other words, the entire force we sent after it. Then, there would be no one left to shoot it, and it would survive. We would need to launch the entire assault again. Thus, for every three assaults launched, two ancient red dragons could be killed, and almost 75,000 humans would have died for it. Is it really worth it to lose 37,500 humans for each dragon we want to kill? The United States's regular army is 485,000 people in size. It could thus kill only about a dozen dragons before being entirely wiped out.
The poll results so far mystify me. Modern humans with modern warfare would decimate dragons. We can literally nuke them from across the globe. How much damage dice does a high payload, modern nuclear warhead do? Even without nukes dragons would have to contend with modern tanks and aircraft. We have conventional bombs can can literally vaporize a 1 mile diameter AOE. And we don't even have to go that far.
The poll results so far mystify me. Modern humans with modern warfare would decimate dragons. We can literally nuke them from across the globe. How much damage dice does a high payload, modern nuclear warhead do? Even without nukes dragons would have to contend with modern tanks and aircraft. We have conventional bombs can can literally vaporize a 1 mile diameter AOE. And we don't even have to go that far.
Nuclear weapons damage by showering everything with x-ray radiation. Effects of x-ray radiation include damage to living cells (dracoliches would resist that), skin burns (red dragons would resist that), and cancer (seriously? Can dragons even get cancer?).
Normal bombs would do damage by releasing a bunch of heat (again, red dragons) and sending debris flying everywhere. I'm pretty sure dragons wouldn't be too bothered by that; it's essentially just getting shot with a fairly powerful weapon.
As for aircraft, dragons can just knock it out of the sky. An F-15 is about 60 by 40 feet, so six ancient dragons can fit on top of it. They weigh 45,000 pounds already, and the dragons would add a lot to that. Also, they are made of metal. Blue dragons, red dragons, gold dragons, copper dragons, black dragons...almost every type of dragon is effective against metal.
Anyway, a standard tank is about the size (at the base, not including height) of an ancient dragon. Thus, a dragon could just land on it.
Tank fire and aircraft fire might be much stronger than standard bullet fire, but frankly, I don't see how humans could win.
Let's say tanks have AC 16 and 30 HP and do 4d10 damage per hit, with +3 to hit. They would then have a 90% chance of missing the ancient red dragon, a 5% chance of doing about 22 damage, and a 5% chance of doing about 44 damage. The dragon has 546 HP. For every 100 tanks, we'd do 330 damage in a round. But what is the range of a standard tank? It's about 1.85 miles. Okay, so range won't be a problem. But to kill the dragon in one round, we'd need to have 331 tanks attacking it (since the dragon would go in the middle). And anyway, I'm absolutely sure that a tank would automatically fail a Dexterity saving throw. Thus, the 90-foot cone of space that the dragon could use if it flew upward would encompass eighteen tanks. To kill a dragon, we'd need to attack it with 331 tanks and lose 18. We could also attack with 662 and not lose any, but honestly, dragons are likely to cover each other, so we'd still lose a few. Also, what about burrowing blue dragons? They could erupt from the ground at any time and incinerate an entire military encampment.
Let's say tanks have AC 16 and 30 HPand do 4d10 damage per hit, with +3 to hit. They would then have a 90% chance of missing the ancient red dragon, a 5% chance of doing about 22 damage, and a 5% chance of doing about 44 damage. The dragon has 546 HP. For every 100 tanks, we'd do 330 damage in a round. But what is the range of a standard tank? It's about 1.85 miles. Okay, so range won't be a problem. But to kill the dragon in one round, we'd need to have 331 tanks attacking it (since the dragon would go in the middle). And anyway, I'm absolutely sure that a tank would automatically fail a Dexterity saving throw. Thus, the 90-foot cone of space that the dragon could use if it flew upward would encompass eighteen tanks. To kill a dragon, we'd need to attack it with 331 tanks and lose 18. We could also attack with 662 and not lose any, but honestly, dragons are likely to cover each other, so we'd still lose a few. Also, what about burrowing blue dragons? They could erupt from the ground at any time and incinerate an entire military encampment.
If we just suppose absurdly low numbers for modern arsenal.. sure. I can give you a 7.62 mm assault rifle and let you shoot an Abrams tank all day long and you still won't hurt it. A 7.62 mm round would go through plate mail armor like butter.
PS: I did the math. For comparison sake, an Ancient Gold Dragon can move 80 feet per turn (6 seconds). An F-22 raptor? 13,200 feet per turn. It can engage targets with laser accuracy from literally miles away.
You can't say "modern humans" and then arbitrarily assign weak stats that don't even scratch the surface of reality. You assigned a freaking Abrams Tank equal AC to chain mail!
I"m sorta confused why this thread is in tips and tactics. OP arguably is relying on stats on dragons (though inflates their resistance to say, nuclear blasts by exaggerating dragon's resistance and minimizing the mechanical representation of a nuclear blast, and think radiant damage, not "fire" damage) but the "modern military" representation doesn't seem to engage with any actual game analogs ... like a tank with 30 hp?
Descent into Avernus, as I recently pointed out in another thread, gives much more plausible representation of armored vehicles etc. A motorcycle equivalent has 30 hp. Plus armor thresholds etc. Sure a dragon may be able to thrash a few, but a dragon isn't really Godzilla and I'd say something like a
I also don't understand what the dragon population is in this modern world that happens to have dragons in it. Ancient dragons aren't all that common even in dragon populated world, or even dragon populated multiverses.
There's really no tips and tactics to effectively discuss if the entry point is one side is presemptively exponentially stronger than the other because OP happens to think that way regardless of prior precedent for modern gear as represented in game. Your +3 to hit for a tank doesn't take into a account a military trained operator with proficiency in the weapon, nor any optics or fire support that will likely give it magic level bonuses. Heck a "harpoon flinger" on an Avernus (basically an armored fast attack vehicle) gets +7 to hit and does 2d8+2 damage, and that's the infernal equivalent of armored cavalry, not a tank. A _wrecking ball_ by Avernus stats does 8d8, I"m imagining smart explosive munitions would do considerable more to dragons. And this is just the ground game, SeanJP gives some insight into why air superiority craft are called air superiority. Dragons at best would have to wage asymetric insurgency type wars trying to somehow sneak into large population centers and basically conduct terror attacks before a coordinated response could be mobilized. But once lairs are known, they become ash and glass, and I don't think a dragonkind would risk all their hoards for the sorta protracted war that would happen. Dragons would take one look at modern Human mutually assured destruction and scorched earth policies and realize if humanity is willing to do that stuff to themselves, they may want to find a different plane of existence to establish dominion.
Why use commoners for stat blocks for soldiers, there are ample stat blocks for martials in the game. The most basic have +3 to hit from proficiency and ability stats, and again their gear might as well be "magical" in terms of target acquisition ... and those are the grunts.
OP arguably is relying on stats on dragons (though inflates their resistance to say, nuclear blasts by exaggerating dragon's resistance and minimizing the mechanical representation of a nuclear blast, and think radiant damage, not "fire" damage) but the "modern military" representation doesn't seem to engage with any actual game analogs ... like a tank with 30 hp?
I actually agree here. Modifying it, let's give a tank 100 HP and AC 22 or 23.
Your +3 to hit for a tank doesn't take into a account a military trained operator with proficiency in the weapon, nor any optics or fire support that will likely give it magic level bonuses. Heck a "harpoon flinger" on an Avernus (basically an armored fast attack vehicle) gets +7 to hit and does 2d8+2 damage.
Why use commoners for stat blocks for soldiers, there are ample stat blocks for martials in the game. The most basic have +3 to hit from proficiency and ability stats, and again their gear might as well be "magical" in terms of target acquisition ... and those are the grunts.
Giving the tanks automatic hits because of the sights and saying that they do maybe 10d10 damage, we get an average of 55 damage, and see that, indeed, humans would win if they used tanks, aircraft, etc. Otherwise? I mean foot soldiers got their butts kicked in the original simulation:
Let's say humans are commoners with guns. ... Now let's think about ancient red dragons. If we call a human soldier a commoner with an automatic rifle. Ancient red dragons have AC 22. Either you crit or you miss. 5% of the humans would do 18 damage each to the dragon. The other 95% would miss. The dragon has 546 HP. We need 31 hits to kill the dragon. Thus, we need 620 shots. Maybe we send 620 humans at the dragon. But, since the dragon and humans have equal Dexterity modifiers, we can expect the dragon to have its turn halfway through the humans. It would then have, say, 270 HP. Then it uses Frightful Presence, only 5% of the humans succeed, and the other 589 humans run away. Then we have 31 humans left. The dragon then claw, claw, bites to kill three of them. ... To kill the red dragon, we have to send a number of humans after it, all armed with automatic rifles, equal to 1/{fraction of humans that hit the dragon when it is within 80 feet} x {number of hits to kill the dragon} x 2. That is equal to 1,240 humans. Can we pack 1,240 humans so tightly that they all are within 80 feet of the dragon and all have line of sight on it? We have about 19,700 square feet of space, so if we put one human every fifteen or sixteen square feet, yes, we could pack them tight enough. But what if the dragon just flies 80 feet up? Then only 1/400th of the humans would hit, and we'd need 24,800 humans to kill the dragon. ... Also, half of the time, the dragon would still get a turn before it died, and it can hit a 90-foot cone with fire. That covers about 25,450 square feet, and about 31,800 humans would fit there - in other words, the entire force we sent after it. Then, there would be no one left to shoot it, and it would survive. We would need to launch the entire assault again. Thus, for every three assaults launched, two ancient red dragons could be killed, and almost 75,000 humans would have died for it. ... The United States's regular army is 485,000 people in size. It could thus kill only about a dozen dragons before being entirely wiped out.
While this is super cool math, it doesn't really make sense in a long run, seeing as soon as humans start fighting dragons, they'll start finding new ways to actually kill them. The longer the conflict stretches on, the worse it gets for dragons, so by the time you get to 12 dragons like in your first post, humans will probably have started finding out ways to kill them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to lie to the gnomes and try to convince them that my ten year old tabaxi character is actually just a tall gnome with...uh...a skin condition?"
"Let's make a warforged farm!"
"We have decided that in exchange for helping your king, we want a magical wagon made of blankets and pillows."
"Once we take over the world, can the official currency be goats?"
I"m sorta confused why this thread is in tips and tactics.
Where else do you suggest?
Story and Lore, this is basically a "my dad can beat up your dad" brag off more than anything really extrapolated from rules beyond your apparent reverence but I think overly generous reading of dragon and dragon v modern human behavior. Story and Lore is sorta better for that.
OP arguably is relying on stats on dragons (though inflates their resistance to say, nuclear blasts by exaggerating dragon's resistance and minimizing the mechanical representation of a nuclear blast, and think radiant damage, not "fire" damage) but the "modern military" representation doesn't seem to engage with any actual game analogs ... like a tank with 30 hp?
I actually agree here. Modifying it, let's give a tank 100 HP and AC 22 or 23.
Your +3 to hit for a tank doesn't take into a account a military trained operator with proficiency in the weapon, nor any optics or fire support that will likely give it magic level bonuses. Heck a "harpoon flinger" on an Avernus (basically an armored fast attack vehicle) gets +7 to hit and does 2d8+2 damage.
Why use commoners for stat blocks for soldiers, there are ample stat blocks for martials in the game. The most basic have +3 to hit from proficiency and ability stats, and again their gear might as well be "magical" in terms of target acquisition ... and those are the grunts.
Giving the tanks automatic hits because of the sights and saying that they do maybe 10d10 damage, we get an average of 55 damage, and see that, indeed, humans would win if they used tanks, aircraft, etc. Otherwise? I mean foot soldiers got their butts kicked in the original simulation:
You're talking _modern_ humans vs dragons, what military in the world does anything but combined arms, especially against existential threats? I mean even NATO might actually invoke and enact it's mutual defense clause for once here.
Let's say humans are commoners with guns. ... Now let's think about ancient red dragons. If we call a human soldier a commoner with an automatic rifle. Ancient red dragons have AC 22. Either you crit or you miss. 5% of the humans would do 18 damage each to the dragon. The other 95% would miss. The dragon has 546 HP. We need 31 hits to kill the dragon. Thus, we need 620 shots. Maybe we send 620 humans at the dragon. But, since the dragon and humans have equal Dexterity modifiers, we can expect the dragon to have its turn halfway through the humans. It would then have, say, 270 HP. Then it uses Frightful Presence, only 5% of the humans succeed, and the other 589 humans run away. Then we have 31 humans left. The dragon then claw, claw, bites to kill three of them. ... To kill the red dragon, we have to send a number of humans after it, all armed with automatic rifles, equal to 1/{fraction of humans that hit the dragon when it is within 80 feet} x {number of hits to kill the dragon} x 2. That is equal to 1,240 humans. Can we pack 1,240 humans so tightly that they all are within 80 feet of the dragon and all have line of sight on it? We have about 19,700 square feet of space, so if we put one human every fifteen or sixteen square feet, yes, we could pack them tight enough. But what if the dragon just flies 80 feet up? Then only 1/400th of the humans would hit, and we'd need 24,800 humans to kill the dragon. ... Also, half of the time, the dragon would still get a turn before it died, and it can hit a 90-foot cone with fire. That covers about 25,450 square feet, and about 31,800 humans would fit there - in other words, the entire force we sent after it. Then, there would be no one left to shoot it, and it would survive. We would need to launch the entire assault again. Thus, for every three assaults launched, two ancient red dragons could be killed, and almost 75,000 humans would have died for it. ... The United States's regular army is 485,000 people in size. It could thus kill only about a dozen dragons before being entirely wiped out.
Why are all the modern humans standing in ... I dunno Napoleonic or more likely Roman ranks to get torched like that? You're still talking commoners, when we're really talking soldiers. Redo your math, taking into account even basic soldiers in 5e have advantage of saves against fear when fighting with their team ... and I'd actually give WIS save proficiency to at minimum, Marines, Rangers, special operators, combat flight crews, and anyone who's been to SERE school (way of the modern "warrior" in modern conflict and direct actions is a game that banks on what is mechanically considered WIS stuff in 5e). Those who don't have that instilled mettle will likely benefit from officers and NCOs with Inspiring leader, etc. And that's just contending with one aspect of your "analysis" ... I just think the whole thing fails as a thought experiment because you set the human side in your conflict on stupid mode, when in fact you're just failing to consider how modern war machinery and the people in that machinery are in many ways much more potent than stuff that's dreamed up the world's favorite fantasy role playing game. Like even World War Z had better thinking about modern war against an imaginary horror (probably why the writer now lectures at West Point).
And again, humanity would probably wage their extermination campaign by just taking out lair after lair, burying prey whenever possible through nuclear detonations, it' would make some of the no quarter stuff pulled off in Tora Bora look like sand castle play. And again, even if the dragons survived nuclear blasts, how many will keep up the will to press the conflict if they know their precious hoards are going to be reduced to slag given enough warheads exist to end the planet several times over. Some dragons have burrow, but most don't and I don't know how much earth they may able to move after failing CON checks as they run out of air (assuming the nuke didn't burn up all the available air in the first place, all explosives, even nukes literally suck at taking the air out of a room).
Wondering what happens to the first A Team that takes out a dragon and dips it's .50 cal sniper rifles in its blood per Fizban's.
Ancient Red Dragon: AC 22, 546 HP, auto-hits 25,450 square feet with AoE fire at range 90 feet (91 DMG), 400 square feet in size Tank: AC 22, 100 HP, auto-hits 100 square feet with AoE radiant at essentially any range (55 DMG), 384 square feet in size
Dragon moves first: Dragon flies 80 feet up -> Dragon does 91 damage to each of up to 67 tanks -> Tanks do 55 damage each to dragon -> Dragon dies if more than 9 tanks remain
Dragon moves halfway through, 10 tanks: First tanks do 275 damage to dragon -> Dragon flies 80 feet up -> Dragon does 91 damage to each tank -> Last tanks do 275 damage to dragon -> Dragon dies
Dragon moves halfway through, 4 tanks: First tanks do 110 damage to dragon -> Dragon flies 80 feet up -> Dragon does 91 damage to each tank -> Last tanks do 110 damage to dragon -> First tanks do 110 damage to dragon -> Dragon does 91 damage to each tank -> All tanks destroyed, dragon has 216 HP left
I think MidnightPlat may have won here; the determining factors: Where and How Many.
If we have all the dragons in Reonith, versus the US Army, on the Great Plain of Daruko-iss, well, dragons win. Most certainly.
However, if we mean all the dragons in a standard D&D world, versus all of humanity, on modern-day Earth, humans win.
If we have the entire population of Daruko-iss (mostly dragons, but also dragonborns, half-dragons, kobolds etc.), versus the US Army, on modern-day Earth, we have a problem. See what you think:
Who would win:
The US army or 1 to 2 ancient dragons of each type, 10 to 30 adult dragons of each type, 20 to 35 young dragons of each type, 30 to 40 wyrmlings of each type, 30 to 40 half-dragons of each type, 135 to 150 dragonborns of each type, 300+ kobolds, several hundred skitters, and one adult bronze dragon with a dragon-sized +3 spear
BlueDragon is just adding arbitrary stats to the human arsenal.
I mean, first 16 and now 22 AC for an Abrams Tank? Do you have any idea how tough those things are to kill? You can penetrate plate mail quite easily small caliber pistol. With an Abrams tank you literally need a main gun from a battleship.
BlueDragon is just adding arbitrary stats to the human arsenal.
I mean, first 16 and now 22 AC for an Abrams Tank? Do you have any idea how tough those things are to kill? You can penetrate quite plate mail quite easily small caliber pistol. With an Abrams tank you literally need a main gun from a battleship.
AC 30. Happy? And really, the AC only matters for the claw, claw, bite or tail attacks. Your AC could be infinity and the breath would still get you.
An F-22 could perhaps do 125 damage. Even a young white dragon could survive that.
Also, these aircraft need pilots. Where are you going to get the pilots when all of the soldiers are getting killed by skitters?
Again your credibility is shot here because you're just spitballing when there's actually stuff supported in the game, and these air craft have specs IRL that defy your facile musings. A F-22 in addtion to missiles and other munitions presumably more powerful than what I'm outlining, is armed with a M61A2 20-mm multibarrel cannon. It holds 480 rounds of 20-mm ammunition and feeds the gun at a rate of 100 rounds per second. (quick google). 100 rounds a second, and that's supposed to be 100 rounds on a target, not the burst fire (which are actually suppressive fire, as burst fire you're putting it all on one target) rules in the DMG. So 100 rounds doing more 2d10 of a hunting rifle per round ...
And skitters? Homebrew flailing like that just is indicative of some dude walking into an argument with no background on the conflict you're trying to take a side in. Good day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
And skitters? Homebrew flailing like that just is indicative of some dude walking into an argument with no background on the conflict you're trying to take a side in. Good day.
I had made skitters before this thread began. Also, for my first simulation, I put all of the "dragon"-classified monsters in Reonith against all the humans on Earth. There are skitters on Reonith. Skitters are classified as dragons. Thus, skitters will be present in the battle.
An F-22 could perhaps do 125 damage. Even a young white dragon could survive that.
Also, these aircraft need pilots. Where are you going to get the pilots when all of the soldiers are getting killed by skitters?
Again your credibility is shot here because you're just spitballing when there's actually stuff supported in the game, and these air craft have specs IRL that defy your facile musings. A F-22 in addtion to missiles and other munitions presumably more powerful than what I'm outlining, is armed with a M61A2 20-mm multibarrel cannon. It holds 480 rounds of 20-mm ammunition and feeds the gun at a rate of 100 rounds per second. (quick google). 100 rounds a second, and that's supposed to be 100 rounds on a target, not the burst fire (which are actually suppressive fire, as burst fire you're putting it all on one target) rules in the DMG. So 100 rounds doing more 2d10 of a hunting rifle per round ...
Okay, but even if this is thousand-damage instakill, how are you going to deal with Bahamut and Tiamat?
The poll results so far mystify me. Modern humans with modern warfare would decimate dragons. We can literally nuke them from across the globe. How much damage dice does a high payload, modern nuclear warhead do? Even without nukes dragons would have to contend with modern tanks and aircraft. We have conventional bombs can can literally vaporize a 1 mile diameter AOE. And we don't even have to go that far.
Nuclear weapons damage by showering everything with x-ray radiation. Effects of x-ray radiation include damage to living cells (dracoliches would resist that), skin burns (red dragons would resist that), and cancer (seriously? Can dragons even get cancer?).
Normal bombs would do damage by releasing a bunch of heat (again, red dragons) and sending debris flying everywhere. I'm pretty sure dragons wouldn't be too bothered by that; it's essentially just getting shot with a fairly powerful weapon.
Radiation from a nuke is just an aftereffect of the science involved with creating such a massive explosion, it is not the weapon itself (unless you're talking about a dirty bomb). Same with a regular bomb-- heat isn't the primary cause of damage (unless you're taking napalm or some other incendiary bomb), it's just released by the explosion as an aftereffect.
The primary damage from either weapon (the difference just being varying degrees) is sheer force generated by the explosion, and nothing in D&D to my knowledge resists or is immune to force damage.
Also shrapnel with regular bombs, and shrapnel might stab for half damage if it's non-magic, but that's still a lot of damage.
AC 30 - HP 512 - STR 30 - DEX 15 - CON 30 - INT 28 - WIS 30 - CHA 28 - Saving Throws Str +21, Dex +13, Int +20, Wis +21, Cha +20 - Resistances: psychic, radiant; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons - Immunities: fire, cold, poison, acid, lightning - Condition Immunities: charmed, deafened, blinded, frightened, poisoned, petrified - When Bahamut rolls for initiative, any allies within 80 feet of Bahamut gain +1 bonus to all checks and attack rolls, and any enemy within that area must succeed a DC 20 Wisdom saving throw or take disadvantage on all checks and attack rolls for 1 minute - Bahamut can cast any cleric, paladin, or sorcerer spells of 1st level 5/day each. He can cast any cleric or sorcerer spell of 2th-4th levels 3/day each. He can also cast any cleric spell of 5th or 6th level 1/day - Unless he wants to be affected, Bahamut is immune to all spells of 5th level or lower - Bahamut regains 20 hit points at the start of his turn as long as he is not unconscious - If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.
Attacks: Multiattack. Bahamut can make two claw, one bite, and one tail attack, or he can use a breath weapon and a tail attack. Claw. +15 to hit, reach 15 feet., one target. Hit: 38 (10d6 + 8) slashing damage. Bite. +15 to hit, reach 15 feet., one target. Hit: 100 (10d20) piercing damage. Tail. +20 to hit, reach 20 feet., one target. Hit: 35 (6d10 + 5) bludgeoning damage. Cold Breath. Bahamut exhales cold in a 120-foot cone. Each of the creatures in that area must make a DC 30 Dexterity saving throw or take 100 (10d20) cold damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one. Fire Breath. Bahamut exhales fire in a 120-foot cone. Each of the creatures in that area must make a DC 30 Dexterity saving throw or take 80 (8d20) fire damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one. Disintegration Breath. Bahamut exhales a beam of light that is five feet wide and can be up to 400 feet long. Each creature in that area must make a DC 25 Dexterity saving throw, taking 87 (12d12 + 15) force damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one. Lightning Breath. Bahamut exhales a line of lighting that is 10 feet wide and up to 400 feet long. Each creature in that line must make a DC 25 Dexterity saving throw or take 90 (9d20) lighting damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one. Acid Breath. Bahamut exhales acid in a 200-foot line that is 10 feet wide. Each creature in that line must make a DC 25 Dexterity saving throw or take 80 (8d20) acid damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one.
Hardpoint: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 U.S. gallon (2,270 L) drop tanksor weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,270 kg).
(EDIT: Ok so this is a VERY old thread but I'm still embarrassed that I even tried to argue the dragon point so I'm editing the OP to add this note saying that I was quite dumb two years ago)
Even though humans have guns, dragons would win if humans attempted a genocide. Let's say humans are commoners with guns. A pistol does 1d10 (average 5 to 6) damage, and a musket does 1d12 (average 6 to 7) damage. Since you can make one attack per six seconds with them, and adult blue dragons have AC 19, we can expect 5% of the attacks to hit normally and 5% to be crits. The other 90% will miss. Since we can assume that they will be using muskets, we can expect 6.5 damage on a normal hit or 13 on a crit. Thus, if we send 100 humans after the dragon, it will suffer roughly 97 to 98 damage every six seconds, in which time it might use its breath. Its breath can cover a 90x5 foot line, or 450 square feet, with an average of 66 damage per hit (or, 10% of the time, 33), which would automatically kill a commoner. If the commoners are attacking in a wave, the dragon would easily kill them despite having only two rounds alive before the guns kill it, since it can also burrow. Then it can recharge while the humans are looking for it, and then burst out and use Frightful Presence, which would scare away 80% of the humans. Since we can expect that it killed about 20 before, we have 16 remaining who aren't scared. Then it can claw, claw, bite and kill three of them. Then, since it has, say, 50 HP left, the 13 musket shots will do about 6 to 7 damage. Not much. It would easily claw, claw, bite them all. Let's say they use modern weapons. An automatic rifle would do an average of 9 damage, or 18 on a crit. Essentially, they do twice the damage. The dragon can still just use Frightful Presence, then lightning breath them all. Let's also not forget the lair actions and regional effects. Now let's think about ancient red dragons. If we call a human soldier a commoner with an automatic rifle. Ancient red dragons have AC 22. Either you crit or you miss. 5% of the humans would do 18 damage each to the dragon. The other 95% would miss. The dragon has 546 HP. We need 31 hits to kill the dragon. Thus, we need 620 shots. Maybe we send 620 humans at the dragon. But, since the dragon and humans have equal Dexterity modifiers, we can expect the dragon to have its turn halfway through the humans. It would then have, say, 270 HP. Then it uses Frightful Presence, only 5% of the humans succeed, and the other 589 humans run away. Then we have 31 humans left. The dragon then claw, claw, bites to kill three of them. Also, consider the range of the automatic rifle. Beyond 80 feet, the shots would have disadvantage, and only 0.25% of the humans would hit if the dragon flew up there. It would take only one turn to do so. Then, there would be only 1 or 2 hits per turn, and the dragon can just pick them all off with fire breath. And don't even think about sneaking up on the dragon. IT HAS PASSIVE PERCEPTION 26. To kill the red dragon, we have to send a number of humans after it, all armed with automatic rifles, equal to 1/{fraction of humans that hit the dragon when it is within 80 feet} x {number of hits to kill the dragon} x 2. That is equal to 1,240 humans. Can we pack 1,240 humans so tightly that they all are within 80 feet of the dragon and all have line of sight on it? We have about 19,700 square feet of space, so if we put one human every fifteen or sixteen square feet, yes, we could pack them tight enough. But what if the dragon just flies 80 feet up? Then only 1/400th of the humans would hit, and we'd need 24,800 humans to kill the dragon. To keep all of them in that space, adding the 400 square feet under the dragon, each person would only get 4/5 of a square foot of personal space. Also, half of the time, the dragon would still get a turn before it died, and it can hit a 90-foot cone with fire. That covers about 25,450 square feet, and about 31,800 humans would fit there - in other words, the entire force we sent after it. Then, there would be no one left to shoot it, and it would survive. We would need to launch the entire assault again. Thus, for every three assaults launched, two ancient red dragons could be killed, and almost 75,000 humans would have died for it. Is it really worth it to lose 37,500 humans for each dragon we want to kill? The United States's regular army is 485,000 people in size. It could thus kill only about a dozen dragons before being entirely wiped out.
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
The poll results so far mystify me. Modern humans with modern warfare would decimate dragons. We can literally nuke them from across the globe. How much damage dice does a high payload, modern nuclear warhead do? Even without nukes dragons would have to contend with modern tanks and aircraft. We have conventional bombs can can literally vaporize a 1 mile diameter AOE. And we don't even have to go that far.
Nuclear weapons damage by showering everything with x-ray radiation. Effects of x-ray radiation include damage to living cells (dracoliches would resist that), skin burns (red dragons would resist that), and cancer (seriously? Can dragons even get cancer?).
Normal bombs would do damage by releasing a bunch of heat (again, red dragons) and sending debris flying everywhere. I'm pretty sure dragons wouldn't be too bothered by that; it's essentially just getting shot with a fairly powerful weapon.
As for aircraft, dragons can just knock it out of the sky. An F-15 is about 60 by 40 feet, so six ancient dragons can fit on top of it. They weigh 45,000 pounds already, and the dragons would add a lot to that. Also, they are made of metal. Blue dragons, red dragons, gold dragons, copper dragons, black dragons...almost every type of dragon is effective against metal.
Anyway, a standard tank is about the size (at the base, not including height) of an ancient dragon. Thus, a dragon could just land on it.
Tank fire and aircraft fire might be much stronger than standard bullet fire, but frankly, I don't see how humans could win.
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
Or, to run the simulation again:
Let's say tanks have AC 16 and 30 HP and do 4d10 damage per hit, with +3 to hit. They would then have a 90% chance of missing the ancient red dragon, a 5% chance of doing about 22 damage, and a 5% chance of doing about 44 damage. The dragon has 546 HP. For every 100 tanks, we'd do 330 damage in a round. But what is the range of a standard tank? It's about 1.85 miles. Okay, so range won't be a problem. But to kill the dragon in one round, we'd need to have 331 tanks attacking it (since the dragon would go in the middle). And anyway, I'm absolutely sure that a tank would automatically fail a Dexterity saving throw. Thus, the 90-foot cone of space that the dragon could use if it flew upward would encompass eighteen tanks. To kill a dragon, we'd need to attack it with 331 tanks and lose 18. We could also attack with 662 and not lose any, but honestly, dragons are likely to cover each other, so we'd still lose a few. Also, what about burrowing blue dragons? They could erupt from the ground at any time and incinerate an entire military encampment.
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
If we just suppose absurdly low numbers for modern arsenal.. sure. I can give you a 7.62 mm assault rifle and let you shoot an Abrams tank all day long and you still won't hurt it. A 7.62 mm round would go through plate mail armor like butter.
PS: I did the math. For comparison sake, an Ancient Gold Dragon can move 80 feet per turn (6 seconds). An F-22 raptor? 13,200 feet per turn. It can engage targets with laser accuracy from literally miles away.
You can't say "modern humans" and then arbitrarily assign weak stats that don't even scratch the surface of reality. You assigned a freaking Abrams Tank equal AC to chain mail!
I"m sorta confused why this thread is in tips and tactics. OP arguably is relying on stats on dragons (though inflates their resistance to say, nuclear blasts by exaggerating dragon's resistance and minimizing the mechanical representation of a nuclear blast, and think radiant damage, not "fire" damage) but the "modern military" representation doesn't seem to engage with any actual game analogs ... like a tank with 30 hp?
Descent into Avernus, as I recently pointed out in another thread, gives much more plausible representation of armored vehicles etc. A motorcycle equivalent has 30 hp. Plus armor thresholds etc. Sure a dragon may be able to thrash a few, but a dragon isn't really Godzilla and I'd say something like a
I also don't understand what the dragon population is in this modern world that happens to have dragons in it. Ancient dragons aren't all that common even in dragon populated world, or even dragon populated multiverses.
There's really no tips and tactics to effectively discuss if the entry point is one side is presemptively exponentially stronger than the other because OP happens to think that way regardless of prior precedent for modern gear as represented in game. Your +3 to hit for a tank doesn't take into a account a military trained operator with proficiency in the weapon, nor any optics or fire support that will likely give it magic level bonuses. Heck a "harpoon flinger" on an Avernus (basically an armored fast attack vehicle) gets +7 to hit and does 2d8+2 damage, and that's the infernal equivalent of armored cavalry, not a tank. A _wrecking ball_ by Avernus stats does 8d8, I"m imagining smart explosive munitions would do considerable more to dragons. And this is just the ground game, SeanJP gives some insight into why air superiority craft are called air superiority. Dragons at best would have to wage asymetric insurgency type wars trying to somehow sneak into large population centers and basically conduct terror attacks before a coordinated response could be mobilized. But once lairs are known, they become ash and glass, and I don't think a dragonkind would risk all their hoards for the sorta protracted war that would happen. Dragons would take one look at modern Human mutually assured destruction and scorched earth policies and realize if humanity is willing to do that stuff to themselves, they may want to find a different plane of existence to establish dominion.
Why use commoners for stat blocks for soldiers, there are ample stat blocks for martials in the game. The most basic have +3 to hit from proficiency and ability stats, and again their gear might as well be "magical" in terms of target acquisition ... and those are the grunts.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Where else do you suggest?
I actually agree here. Modifying it, let's give a tank 100 HP and AC 22 or 23.
Giving the tanks automatic hits because of the sights and saying that they do maybe 10d10 damage, we get an average of 55 damage, and see that, indeed, humans would win if they used tanks, aircraft, etc. Otherwise? I mean foot soldiers got their butts kicked in the original simulation:
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
While this is super cool math, it doesn't really make sense in a long run, seeing as soon as humans start fighting dragons, they'll start finding new ways to actually kill them. The longer the conflict stretches on, the worse it gets for dragons, so by the time you get to 12 dragons like in your first post, humans will probably have started finding out ways to kill them.
"I want to lie to the gnomes and try to convince them that my ten year old tabaxi character is actually just a tall gnome with...uh...a skin condition?"
"Let's make a warforged farm!"
"We have decided that in exchange for helping your king, we want a magical wagon made of blankets and pillows."
"Once we take over the world, can the official currency be goats?"
Story and Lore, this is basically a "my dad can beat up your dad" brag off more than anything really extrapolated from rules beyond your apparent reverence but I think overly generous reading of dragon and dragon v modern human behavior. Story and Lore is sorta better for that.
You're talking _modern_ humans vs dragons, what military in the world does anything but combined arms, especially against existential threats? I mean even NATO might actually invoke and enact it's mutual defense clause for once here.
Why are all the modern humans standing in ... I dunno Napoleonic or more likely Roman ranks to get torched like that? You're still talking commoners, when we're really talking soldiers. Redo your math, taking into account even basic soldiers in 5e have advantage of saves against fear when fighting with their team ... and I'd actually give WIS save proficiency to at minimum, Marines, Rangers, special operators, combat flight crews, and anyone who's been to SERE school (way of the modern "warrior" in modern conflict and direct actions is a game that banks on what is mechanically considered WIS stuff in 5e). Those who don't have that instilled mettle will likely benefit from officers and NCOs with Inspiring leader, etc. And that's just contending with one aspect of your "analysis" ... I just think the whole thing fails as a thought experiment because you set the human side in your conflict on stupid mode, when in fact you're just failing to consider how modern war machinery and the people in that machinery are in many ways much more potent than stuff that's dreamed up the world's favorite fantasy role playing game. Like even World War Z had better thinking about modern war against an imaginary horror (probably why the writer now lectures at West Point).
And again, humanity would probably wage their extermination campaign by just taking out lair after lair, burying prey whenever possible through nuclear detonations, it' would make some of the no quarter stuff pulled off in Tora Bora look like sand castle play. And again, even if the dragons survived nuclear blasts, how many will keep up the will to press the conflict if they know their precious hoards are going to be reduced to slag given enough warheads exist to end the planet several times over. Some dragons have burrow, but most don't and I don't know how much earth they may able to move after failing CON checks as they run out of air (assuming the nuke didn't burn up all the available air in the first place, all explosives, even nukes literally suck at taking the air out of a room).
Wondering what happens to the first A Team that takes out a dragon and dips it's .50 cal sniper rifles in its blood per Fizban's.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Tanks vs. Dragons Simulator:
Ancient Red Dragon: AC 22, 546 HP, auto-hits 25,450 square feet with AoE fire at range 90 feet (91 DMG), 400 square feet in size
Tank: AC 22, 100 HP, auto-hits 100 square feet with AoE radiant at essentially any range (55 DMG), 384 square feet in size
Dragon moves first:
Dragon flies 80 feet up -> Dragon does 91 damage to each of up to 67 tanks -> Tanks do 55 damage each to dragon -> Dragon dies if more than 9 tanks remain
Dragon moves halfway through, 10 tanks:
First tanks do 275 damage to dragon -> Dragon flies 80 feet up -> Dragon does 91 damage to each tank -> Last tanks do 275 damage to dragon -> Dragon dies
Dragon moves halfway through, 4 tanks:
First tanks do 110 damage to dragon -> Dragon flies 80 feet up -> Dragon does 91 damage to each tank -> Last tanks do 110 damage to dragon -> First tanks do 110 damage to dragon -> Dragon does 91 damage to each tank -> All tanks destroyed, dragon has 216 HP left
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
I think MidnightPlat may have won here; the determining factors: Where and How Many.
If we have all the dragons in Reonith, versus the US Army, on the Great Plain of Daruko-iss, well, dragons win. Most certainly.
However, if we mean all the dragons in a standard D&D world, versus all of humanity, on modern-day Earth, humans win.
If we have the entire population of Daruko-iss (mostly dragons, but also dragonborns, half-dragons, kobolds etc.), versus the US Army, on modern-day Earth, we have a problem. See what you think:
Who would win:
The US army
or
1 to 2 ancient dragons of each type, 10 to 30 adult dragons of each type, 20 to 35 young dragons of each type, 30 to 40 wyrmlings of each type, 30 to 40 half-dragons of each type, 135 to 150 dragonborns of each type, 300+ kobolds, several hundred skitters, and one adult bronze dragon with a dragon-sized +3 spear
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
BlueDragon is just adding arbitrary stats to the human arsenal.
I mean, first 16 and now 22 AC for an Abrams Tank? Do you have any idea how tough those things are to kill? You can penetrate plate mail quite easily small caliber pistol. With an Abrams tank you literally need a main gun from a battleship.
How does a dragon deal with an F-22 Raptor?
Speed: 13,200 feet per turn
Range: Miles.
An F-22 could perhaps do 125 damage. Even a young white dragon could survive that.
Also, these aircraft need pilots. Where are you going to get the pilots when all of the soldiers are getting killed by skitters?
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
AC 30. Happy? And really, the AC only matters for the claw, claw, bite or tail attacks. Your AC could be infinity and the breath would still get you.
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
Again your credibility is shot here because you're just spitballing when there's actually stuff supported in the game, and these air craft have specs IRL that defy your facile musings. A F-22 in addtion to missiles and other munitions presumably more powerful than what I'm outlining, is armed with a M61A2 20-mm multibarrel cannon. It holds 480 rounds of 20-mm ammunition and feeds the gun at a rate of 100 rounds per second. (quick google). 100 rounds a second, and that's supposed to be 100 rounds on a target, not the burst fire (which are actually suppressive fire, as burst fire you're putting it all on one target) rules in the DMG. So 100 rounds doing more 2d10 of a hunting rifle per round ...
And skitters? Homebrew flailing like that just is indicative of some dude walking into an argument with no background on the conflict you're trying to take a side in. Good day.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I had made skitters before this thread began. Also, for my first simulation, I put all of the "dragon"-classified monsters in Reonith against all the humans on Earth. There are skitters on Reonith. Skitters are classified as dragons. Thus, skitters will be present in the battle.
Okay, but even if this is thousand-damage instakill, how are you going to deal with Bahamut and Tiamat?
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
Radiation from a nuke is just an aftereffect of the science involved with creating such a massive explosion, it is not the weapon itself (unless you're talking about a dirty bomb). Same with a regular bomb-- heat isn't the primary cause of damage (unless you're taking napalm or some other incendiary bomb), it's just released by the explosion as an aftereffect.
The primary damage from either weapon (the difference just being varying degrees) is sheer force generated by the explosion, and nothing in D&D to my knowledge resists or is immune to force damage.
Also shrapnel with regular bombs, and shrapnel might stab for half damage if it's non-magic, but that's still a lot of damage.
Ahem.
D&D Wiki on Bahamut:
AC 30 - HP 512 - STR 30 - DEX 15 - CON 30 - INT 28 - WIS 30 - CHA 28 - Saving Throws Str +21, Dex +13, Int +20, Wis +21, Cha +20 - Resistances: psychic, radiant; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical weapons - Immunities: fire, cold, poison, acid, lightning - Condition Immunities: charmed, deafened, blinded, frightened, poisoned, petrified - When Bahamut rolls for initiative, any allies within 80 feet of Bahamut gain +1 bonus to all checks and attack rolls, and any enemy within that area must succeed a DC 20 Wisdom saving throw or take disadvantage on all checks and attack rolls for 1 minute - Bahamut can cast any cleric, paladin, or sorcerer spells of 1st level 5/day each. He can cast any cleric or sorcerer spell of 2th-4th levels 3/day each. He can also cast any cleric spell of 5th or 6th level 1/day - Unless he wants to be affected, Bahamut is immune to all spells of 5th level or lower - Bahamut regains 20 hit points at the start of his turn as long as he is not unconscious - If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.
Attacks:
Multiattack. Bahamut can make two claw, one bite, and one tail attack, or he can use a breath weapon and a tail attack.
Claw. +15 to hit, reach 15 feet., one target. Hit: 38 (10d6 + 8) slashing damage.
Bite. +15 to hit, reach 15 feet., one target. Hit: 100 (10d20) piercing damage.
Tail. +20 to hit, reach 20 feet., one target. Hit: 35 (6d10 + 5) bludgeoning damage.
Cold Breath. Bahamut exhales cold in a 120-foot cone. Each of the creatures in that area must make a DC 30 Dexterity saving throw or take 100 (10d20) cold damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one.
Fire Breath. Bahamut exhales fire in a 120-foot cone. Each of the creatures in that area must make a DC 30 Dexterity saving throw or take 80 (8d20) fire damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one.
Disintegration Breath. Bahamut exhales a beam of light that is five feet wide and can be up to 400 feet long. Each creature in that area must make a DC 25 Dexterity saving throw, taking 87 (12d12 + 15) force damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one.
Lightning Breath. Bahamut exhales a line of lighting that is 10 feet wide and up to 400 feet long. Each creature in that line must make a DC 25 Dexterity saving throw or take 90 (9d20) lighting damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one.
Acid Breath. Bahamut exhales acid in a 200-foot line that is 10 feet wide. Each creature in that line must make a DC 25 Dexterity saving throw or take 80 (8d20) acid damage on a failed save and half as much on a successful one.
pm me the word "tomato"
she/her
?? 125 based on what? From wikepedia:
Armament