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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Paul Farquhar" data-source="post: 7640656" data-attributes="member: 6906155">It's always been the case in D&D that a single spell can potentially be decisive. That's the nature of the game and why casters are always the priority targets.It seems your definition of "useless" is "anything that does not make the enemy explode in flames". Causing the enemy to expend resources is not useless.Sometimes surprise can get you a long way, and even miniscule damage can be enough to finish of weakly defended wizards. Anyway, you never heard of dwarf wizards?It happens, but I have never been in a campaign where it was a common occurrence. I think you perhaps would benefit from having more encounters that do not involve enemy spellcasters. If encountering spellcasters was a not a common occurrence you would find that your players would be less likely to have counterspell prepared.Smart players only take counterspell if they expect to be fighting spellcasters. I would say roughly 1/4 encounters in my games involve spellcasting enemies. If all your encounters involve spellcasters it's no wonder your games get tedious.No, I'm suggesting mixing it up a bit. Have more encounters with zero spellcasters, have some encounters with lots of spell casters. If you design an encounter with one spell caster assume that they will be locked down and focus on their minions, the environment, and pre-battle spells. Spell casters are usually intelligent. It's not DM-cheating for them to expect to have their spells countered and put contingencies in place.</blockquote>

Verification