Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5294671" data-attributes="member: 7883">I guess my players just weren't competent, because they definitely didn't use the exact tactics you have mentioned.  None of this was a problem, as they used different selections of spells.Reading these boards some days, it seems there is a segment of players who spend their time reading up on optimum tactics, and basically trying to figure out how to game the system, and then others who just want to have fun, and spend less time trying to make the perfect character.  I guess I was blessed in that only one out of my five players was an optimizer.In any case, all of the spells you've mentioned have their place.  But the wizard at the end of the day has a limited number of spells, and for every mind blank he memorized, he had one less Horrid Wilting, for instance.  And they weren't always tricked out to the nines in scrolls.I'm not denying that wizards might be a problem in some groups at higher levels.  What I'm saying is that other classes could be just as effective, in different ways, and the tactics that made the wizard better in one group might not work in another.One of our characters was a monk who specialized in grappling for instance.  That character was more of a nuisance in terms of ruining encounters than anyone in the group.Then we had the experiment with the Vow of Poverty monk (Ew).As DM, I gave villains every possible advantage where appropriate.  If the BBEG had INT 24, he would have a lot of contingencies and backup plans in place, and would have the optimum selection of spells for facing the party, for instance.  It's just kind of accepted that I'm not 24 INT myself, so in order to outthink characters that are supposed to have less INT, you give other advantages, like ensuring the villain had spells selected which would be beneficial against the party.And things like Antimagic Shell?  It's  6th lvl abjuration, so, though uncommon, it wouldn't be unheard of.  And it gives a huge advantage to some classes like fighter/wizards.  If the party is going to spam particular tactics, they'll get the same thing reversed on them.  And if someone's going to say "well, yeah, the villains could do that, but the players would get frustrated" then I say "well, why would the villains *not* make use of the resources they have available?  Why wouldn't they act in an intelligent fashion? ".  Now......the villains weren't always intelligent.  Some monsters just aren't that bright.  But human opponents tended to be, and would use appropriate tactics.In any case, I think we're beating a dead horse.  Your argument relies upon tactics I never saw implemented in my games.  Whether it is because my players weren't optimizers, didn't have enough skill with certain classes, preferred role over roll playing, or something else, I'm not sure.  It doesn't invalidate the tactics you've mentioned.  Simply establish that it didn't happen that way in my game, and I'd be willing to bet there are other games where it didn't happen that way either.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification