Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5991885" data-attributes="member: 3400">Repeatedly proven? By whom and under what assumptions? That's a pretty serious statement that probably requires citation. Frankly, I'm skeptical.If you think that the issue has to do with rationing, then the debate should be over how many spells a caster gets, not whether or not low level ones retain usefulness against higher level opponents. Low level spells becoming relatively weaker seems to me to be the worst of both issues - too many spells but many of them being useless.What's wrong with asking the DM if the creature seems particularly graceful? Isn't that an attempt to find out what the character is perceiving so he can make that decision without resorting to metagaming? Or how about rolling an appropriate lore check? That's a non-metagame way to find out a creature's weaknesses and relative strengths.As far as the owlbear goes, I'd certainly avoid strength or constitution-based attacks - he's build like a bear, after all. I don't have any particular reason to believe it's not very perceptive. So I'd probably target its dexterity given a choice of the two.As far as the zombie goes, so I may have something that target's charisma. Do I have anything else? If that's all I've got, of course I'd use it. But I might not if I had something else. Undead lore is probably enough to tell me they're slow and ponderous. I'd go for that first. They may not be personable, but that doesn't mean a zombie doesn't have a forceful personality. Is he of the &quot;Brains!&quot; variety? They're memorable. How about the zombies from &quot;Dead Alive?&quot; They had a lot of personality even if they weren't likeable (certainly don't go over to their house for the custard).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5991885, member: 3400"] Repeatedly proven? By whom and under what assumptions? That's a pretty serious statement that probably requires citation. Frankly, I'm skeptical. If you think that the issue has to do with rationing, then the debate should be over how many spells a caster gets, not whether or not low level ones retain usefulness against higher level opponents. Low level spells becoming relatively weaker seems to me to be the worst of both issues - too many spells but many of them being useless. What's wrong with asking the DM if the creature seems particularly graceful? Isn't that an attempt to find out what the character is perceiving so he can make that decision without resorting to metagaming? Or how about rolling an appropriate lore check? That's a non-metagame way to find out a creature's weaknesses and relative strengths. As far as the owlbear goes, I'd certainly avoid strength or constitution-based attacks - he's build like a bear, after all. I don't have any particular reason to believe it's not very perceptive. So I'd probably target its dexterity given a choice of the two. As far as the zombie goes, so I may have something that target's charisma. Do I have anything else? If that's all I've got, of course I'd use it. But I might not if I had something else. Undead lore is probably enough to tell me they're slow and ponderous. I'd go for that first. They may not be personable, but that doesn't mean a zombie doesn't have a forceful personality. Is he of the "Brains!" variety? They're memorable. How about the zombies from "Dead Alive?" They had a lot of personality even if they weren't likeable (certainly don't go over to their house for the custard). [/QUOTE]

Verification