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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 649116" data-attributes="member: 5724">What i think we have here, is a failure to communicate <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=":)" />.  No, not really. The above makes perfect sense, and, in general, is accurate. There are time periods where certain tactics/tech tends to dominate but usually things even out like you say.The main thing here that I noticed is that such an idea, although reasonable, isn't necessisarily compatable with DnD concept of magic. In the long run, counter measures in DnD are usually equal to or more expensive than the actual tactic. As you know effective countermeasures must be more cost-effective than the original tactic to truly prevent said tactic from being used.Ok here I'm going out on a limb and am very interested in hearing what others think about the above statement and my ramblings that follow. This is off-the-cuff, but from my general knowledge of the game, countermeasures tend to be equal-level to more expensive.Like invisibility. Countering invisibility is simple as long as you're within medium range of the invisible creature.  Here's what I'm talking about. An improved invisible creature would attempt to remain outside this realm of possible countermeasures to maximize effectiveness.The expected counter to counter that is to enlarge see invisibility. Well when you do that you've only countered for a little better response for a little more cost (3rd level spell instead of 2nd). You're still doing a bit better (3rd counter for 4th Imp Invis), but the main issue here is that only one person has the counter. Only one person can see invis. If that one person cannot effectively counter other actions of the Imp Invised person, their counter of the invis is not really a counter and if it takes two people to counter one Imp Invised person you've suddenly got two 3rd level spells needed to counter one 4th. Now this may end up ok if you have proportionaltly more 3rd level spells available (ie you do have 2 3rd level spells to fight every 4th level spell). Now a glitterdust allows everyone to see the Imp invised creature. BUT it does take a caster who can already see the creature to cast it and it does have that annoying range issue. So again, it looks like more magic is expended to defend than attack.Anytime you spend more reasources to defend than attack, you better have a lot of reasources (and a damn good reason why you're not on the offensive) if you want to win.Another good scenerio is to take 4 wizards (two on each side). One group has both wiz's take offensive spells, while the other group has one wiz take offensive spells and the other wiz just counterspell.  I think the offensive guys would probably win.  I have a gut feeling, which i haven't taken the time to fully explore yet as i just got it <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=":)" />, that trying to use magic to defend against magic will require more magic that it would if you just used magic to attack to begin with.... *Whew*I agree to a point. But what i think would happen more than wizards launch'en it with the boys is you'd have more of the "swat team" type PC action going on. You've have elite groups of spell casters who uber-buff before going out to wreck havoc for a few minutes.And, just because they're wizards, don't mean they aint soldiers just like everyone else and that they wouldn't be expected to take risks.  Just means they're tougher, and the risks of failure are greater. Such things have always existed in armies/warfare.This is why i spoke about retaliation being the big thing. Honestly protecting yourself from a determined group of spellusers is pretty much imposible. Eventually you'll make a mistake and *poof* <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=":)" />. That's when you want your friends to bring you back and/or retaliate in order to hopefully prevent the attack from occuring in the first place. Here again i think offense is vastly favored over defense.Magically protecing yourself from magical attacks, (like teleport in, attack, teleport out type stuff) seems again to be less cost effective considering you always have to do it because the one time you don't they'll hit you then.Yep, I tend to agree with you here as well but.... <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=":)" />  The element of surprise when your big baddass shows up at a combat for even only 3 rounds, and the massive amounts of damage he will cause will, IMHO will probably outweigh the risks.If you can obfusciate your location and plans for only 30 seconds you could do so much. <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=":)" /> I think this would eventually win out to where you'd have a situation where the BBguy would show up for a very few seconds, perhaps only one round, at almost every combat to be rather unfriendly to the other side.I honestly don't see how you'd defend against such things until perhaps epic levels.  I'm not terribly versed with the epic rules, but I expect them to follow the "more offensive bang for your buck than defensive bang for your buck" mentality that i think is indicitive of DnD magic.Anyway, interested in hearing peoples thoughts about this.  Good thread.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification