Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6784326" data-attributes="member: 97077">I think a scene with just a monster and nothing else going on is lacking, both in terms of challenge and engagement. I try to turn the volume up on all counts. That was true in both D&amp;D 3.Xe and D&amp;D 4e as well. It's never just the monster for me. I don't see why it should be.Based on your comments, I'm thinking it's not expectations - it's how I design challenges that differs.It's less about the monster in my view and more about everything - including the monster - that goes into the challenge. The monster is just part of it. Perhaps even central to it, but not the end all be all.1. I don't recall.2. Yes. I don't prohibit anything in my games.3. I don't recall. Maybe.4. For part of the campaign until a scheduling issue caused the player to drop.5. For part of the campaign until a scheduling issue caused the player to drop.6. Yes, an elf rogue who had respectable sneak attack dice.The party generally consisted of a human barbarian, halfling fighter/rogue, a paladin (with a holy avenger sword), and an elf rogue. The two players who had to drop ran a human fighter/cleric and human fighter/wizard if I remember correctly. Respectable damage especially the paladin with the holy avenger and smites (mostly undead and fiends in this game), good staying power even without a dedicated healer. My guess is that this will be seen as &quot;not optimized enough,&quot; but my counter to that is simply to add more difficulty in the form of additional monsters, traps, and hazards. As I mentioned upthread, the DM is in all respects in control of the difficulty of a challenge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6784326, member: 97077"] I think a scene with just a monster and nothing else going on is lacking, both in terms of challenge and engagement. I try to turn the volume up on all counts. That was true in both D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e as well. It's never [I]just [/I]the monster for me. I don't see why it should be. Based on your comments, I'm thinking it's not expectations - it's how I design challenges that differs. It's less about the monster in my view and more about everything - including the monster - that goes into the challenge. The monster is just part of it. Perhaps even central to it, but not the end all be all. 1. I don't recall. 2. Yes. I don't prohibit anything in my games. 3. I don't recall. Maybe. 4. For part of the campaign until a scheduling issue caused the player to drop. 5. For part of the campaign until a scheduling issue caused the player to drop. 6. Yes, an elf rogue who had respectable sneak attack dice. The party generally consisted of a human barbarian, halfling fighter/rogue, a paladin (with a [I]holy avenger[/I] sword), and an elf rogue. The two players who had to drop ran a human fighter/cleric and human fighter/wizard if I remember correctly. Respectable damage especially the paladin with the [I]holy avenger[/I] and smites (mostly undead and fiends in this game), good staying power even without a dedicated healer. My guess is that this will be seen as "not optimized enough," but my counter to that is simply to add more difficulty in the form of additional monsters, traps, and hazards. As I mentioned upthread, the DM is in all respects in control of the difficulty of a challenge. [/QUOTE]

Verification