Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6120579" data-attributes="member: 22424">IIRC, the policy in early 3e was to balance monsters on the assumption that PCs could not bypass damage reduction or other resistances. IMO, that's the right policy for 5e as well - and that should eliminate this case entirely.(Later in the lifespan of 3e, I'm pretty sure that policy was reversed, as part of the overall power creep that that edition suffered as it went on. IMO, a bad move on all fronts, though I seem to be in a minority on that one.)I actually wrote a snarky first draft of this reply, because of that single line. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In all honesty, in the case like this, my impulse is to argue that it is the responsibility of the players to realise they are overmatched and to retreat. And that applies even if the DM accidentally throws a too-tough encounter at them. Regardless of resistances, or immunities, or the lack of magic weapons, the overpowering encounter is a valid scenario that PCs really should take into account during play.So, yeah, your suggestion that it was for the DM to realise the problem and to fix it so that PCs don't die got me a little riled. Then I realised I was being unreasonable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification