Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="stevelabny" data-source="post: 5783060" data-attributes="member: 9298">DMG says its the DM's job to make the game fun for everyone and stop spotlight hogging. Adding a time limit isn't hard.  I see in your response elsehwere you added a ONE MONTH time limit to one of your adventures, your party blew the deadline and rather than have any negative consequences at all you just let them get away with it. That is an epic failure of DMing.Because the players know its cheesing the rules? Or more importantly because the CHARACTERS see it as as boring, dishonorable, and cowardly?   Because if anyone ever lives to tell the tale of these victories, the next set of enemies will do everything they can to mess with a teleport in, one fight, teleport out strategy?  (Like: re-arrange the furniture!)  If you don't have a rogue, replacing rogue skills is not a problem. If you know in advance that you are going on a stealth mission and bring stealth spells to help the non-rogues in the party, this is not a problem.  If the wizard always have utility spells memorized 'just in case' or carry along an unlimited amount of utility scrolls (miraculously at the ready and not requiring a  rummage-through-the-backpack-round) he is just not being a people-person. Maybe he has a 6 charisma to balance his 20 int and he's just playing it up. Now its up to 30? Let's powergame the system till it breaks and then call it broken.  Not with the kind of encounter-wiping power you've been describing. They may be able to dominate 1 or 2 encounters, but by 3 and 4 they're just helping out. There are. But are those the ones you prepared today? Or is your intel so good that you knew to expect silence today and prepared only spells with no verbal component. You poo-poo this but it is a pretty serious limiter.Not usually that hard, unless this supreme wizards also fly every combat?Sure it is. It specifically says a wizard must have his spellbook to memorize spells and provides lists of spell components.  I think rules are also provided for saving throws for spellbooks?  Anyone who knows anything about magic will know about these requirements and therefore targeting these two items is just as viable a strategy as casting silence. It is not required anymore than any other good strategy from the bad guys is required. If a DM just moves his monsters 30 feet forward every round and uses their most powerful available ability without any strategy, that is another epic failure. And another great example of why the DM is necessary and two different DMs can still run completely different "perfectly balanced" encounters. Can't predict everything sure is a a far leap from there's a wizard. And as a DM, you should know what spells your wizard has learned.So, for example, rangers in a campaign you run might never see their favored enemy?  You might want this, but this is a horrible thing to want.But just from knowing that Protection from Fire spells exist, you should know this is a possibility even if you are running an adventure for strangers.  No, no, no. Sometimes there are favorable and unfavorable "matchups"  Especially so if the party is 4 wizards or 4 rogues or 4 fighters or 4 clerics.  A roomful of undead should be easier for 4 undead-hating clerics than 4 anything else.  Yes, I do realize that 4e continued the trend of catering to whiny brats. That's why 4e failed and I'm posting in a 5e thread!Mod Note: Name calling is grounds for expulsion from a thread, folks.  Don't do this.  ~UmbranYou have a friend with another HORRIBLE DM. Why would he have 3 entire sessions of fighting undead without giving the thief something to do? Um, wait. If your spell components were lost, what happened to all those magic items and scrolls you were telling me about?  If your spell book was stolen, you might still have stuff memorized from this morning.  Temporarily reducing your ability to cast spells is not insulting or mean.Also, see how the fighter in your example has a backup sword, or at least a dagger in his boot? Why is your wizard so one-dimensional? Wouldn't it have been nice to spend a few stat-points or feats for versatility rather than min-max the game to death? The power gamer mindset of "I can make PunPun, so therefore the system is broken" is incorrect.   PunPun is cute as  a thought experiment but anyone who actually brings him to the table should be beaten repeatedly around the face with a mackerel.Class balance needs to be "If 4 normal people who arent trying to cheese everything they do play 4 different classes, and the DM is semi-competent at understanding table dynamics are they all getting to do interesting things every session"   and not  "If 4 bored power gamers exploit every loophole in the rules and the DM let's them get away with it to protect 'his story'  then clearly the rules need to be more rigid to balance everything out.   That way lies MADNESS. Or, in a best case scenario, sameness. Which also stinks.</blockquote>

Verification