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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7986011">Huh?  Maybe you totally misunderstood my intent, there.  I wasn't claiming that flying is as ridiculous as a lightsaber. I was just making the point that if you know something won't be in the game, it's not "poor encounter design" to assume as much.  I don't know what he does and does not include in the game, so I picked something extreme.  So here's another example: we use the optional flanking rule in the DMG.  Because of that, we (whoever happens to be DMing) designs fights, especially boss fights, so that it won't be easy to just flank the heck out of the boss and win the fight.  Now, if somebody does NOT use that rule and said, "Yeah, that would make my boss fights way too easy," does that mean they need to design better encounters?  Of course not.As an aside, I have to admit I'm perplexed why my table's playstyle seems to push some peoples' buttons so hard.We happen to play a lot of encounters where there's difficult terrain, or impassable terrain, or maybe impassable terrain that could (maybe) be jumped over, with a range of consequences if you fail.  (But huge flanking potential if you succeed!) If everybody can just fly over that stuff, a fun and interesting part of the challenge is gone.Another way to play is to not use terrain challenges like that, and instead restrict the challenge largely to the contest of abilities between two opposing groups.  So you can have people flying around, threatened by ballista-launched nets and enemy sorcerers mounted on giant bats and what have you. My flying counters your melee attack, but your Hold Person counters my flying.  Etc.  That's cool, too.  Aesthetically it's not my cup of tea, but it's a perfectly valid way to play.Why do people get so bent out of shape because some people like a lower-magic game?</blockquote>

Verification