Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7642716" data-attributes="member: 23751">@<a href="https://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=2445" target="_blank">WaterRabbit</a>Your assumptions are your own, yes.There are 4 classes that can cast counterpell.&nbsp; Wizards, warlocks, sorcerers and bards.&nbsp; A full 1/3 of all classes.&nbsp; It's not at all rare to have two of those in a group.&nbsp; You do know that if there is a caster in the group that is shut down completely, the group shutting him down will generally win the fight easily, right?Frankly, you should stop making assumptions like this.&nbsp; You are way off base.Yeah!&nbsp; Just make it so that any group I put a caster in loses easily!!! That will solve the problem!&nbsp; Dude, don't try to tell me to run casters intelligently and then give me ideas on how to play them unintelligently.&nbsp; Considering all the likes I've gotten in this thread, it's clearly not only a me problem.&nbsp; I also never said that I have a house rule that allows partial identification of spells during a reaction.The cost is trivial compared to the benefit of shutting an enemy caster down.&nbsp; My design assumptions are solid.Your assumptions are not.&nbsp; You're very bad at assuming.&nbsp; Your assumption that with fully 1/3 of classes able to cast counterspell, it's rare to have two of them in a group is faulty.&nbsp; Your assumption that this is easily solved by encounter design is faulty.&nbsp; Your assumption that I should play a game other than D&amp;D is just plain trash.&nbsp; Your assumption that I would like a game like Shadowrun is pretty lame.&nbsp; I don't like that genre of game.&nbsp; Your assumption that it's a good idea to play my casters stupidly and just let them be shut down was just bad.&nbsp; Your assumption this is only a me problem is factually incorrect.&nbsp; Your assumption that the cost of shutting down an enemy caster completely isn't worth the few resources spent is amusing.&nbsp; Your assumption about my encounter design is actually rather insulting, as well as being very wrong.&nbsp; Your assumption about my &quot;house rule&quot; betrays your inability to read my posts completely.How about instead of assuming so many things, you actually engage me in discussion.&nbsp; For example, a simple &quot;Hey, would you be interested in playing a game other than D&amp;D?&quot; and &quot;Maybe you'd like Shadowrun.&quot; would have gotten you accurate information when I told you no.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7642716, member: 23751"] @[I][B][U][URL="https://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=2445"]WaterRabbit[/URL][/U][/B][/I] Your assumptions are your own, yes. There are 4 classes that can cast counterpell. Wizards, warlocks, sorcerers and bards. A full 1/3 of all classes. It's not at all rare to have two of those in a group. You do know that if there is a caster in the group that is shut down completely, the group shutting him down will generally win the fight easily, right? Frankly, you should stop making assumptions like this. You are way off base. Yeah! Just make it so that any group I put a caster in loses easily!!! That will solve the problem! Dude, don't try to tell me to run casters intelligently and then give me ideas on how to play them unintelligently. Considering all the likes I've gotten in this thread, it's clearly not only a me problem. I also never said that I have a house rule that allows partial identification of spells during a reaction. The cost is trivial compared to the benefit of shutting an enemy caster down. My design assumptions are solid. Your assumptions are not. You're very bad at assuming. Your assumption that with fully 1/3 of classes able to cast counterspell, it's rare to have two of them in a group is faulty. Your assumption that this is easily solved by encounter design is faulty. Your assumption that I should play a game other than D&D is just plain trash. Your assumption that I would like a game like Shadowrun is pretty lame. I don't like that genre of game. Your assumption that it's a good idea to play my casters stupidly and just let them be shut down was just bad. Your assumption this is only a me problem is factually incorrect. Your assumption that the cost of shutting down an enemy caster completely isn't worth the few resources spent is amusing. Your assumption about my encounter design is actually rather insulting, as well as being very wrong. Your assumption about my "house rule" betrays your inability to read my posts completely. How about instead of assuming so many things, you actually engage me in discussion. For example, a simple "Hey, would you be interested in playing a game other than D&D?" and "Maybe you'd like Shadowrun." would have gotten you accurate information when I told you no. [/QUOTE]

Verification