Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6848924" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p>I had enough a while back when you started complaining about how I ran things. You never indicated in any way that ranged attacks had disadvantage. I read your encounter set up where you stated darkvision worked normally. Here you were backtracking on what you wrote. I'm glad I posted it and saved it. I doubt anyone read it any differently than I did. You won't admit you're wrong, and when people can't admit they're wrong you can't do much about it but leave. I mean really, show me where you wrote ranged attacks have disadvantage? I want to see it. </p><p></p><p>Darkness in 5E is binary due to the simplicity of the game rules. The rules are written so players and DMs have an agreeable set of rules for both to follow. If the DM is going to alter this, he must state in advance he going to do that and make it clear. You did not do that. I vetted your statements very clearly and nowhere does it state anything about ranged attacks being impeded for characters with darkvision. </p><p></p><p>As far as creature positioning, it was all very advantageous to players that know how to use terrain to their advantage on a grid map. Something I deal with as a DM on a weekly basis. </p><p></p><p>When a person hops into a debate making certain claims, and those claims don't hold up, so the person involved in the debate starts to change the rules, strategies, and complains about everything you're doing because it is not working out as he thought it would, it is clear that person is being disingenuous. I took on this test in good faith. I utilized tactics you recommended including the placement of enemies, going after casters (which you think is easy, but isn't), attempting to launch certain spells, and playing the enemies in an effective manner. I ran the encounters as you recommended with very slight modifications to improve the monster's chances. I clearly outlined the rules and movement explaining each part very clearly. I mapped out the encounter. I did things on the up and up explaining resource use and the like. Nothing I did was outside the parameters of rules of the game or what you included in your encounter descriptions. The monsters were played in an effective manner tactically. I DM my group 80% of the time and am well aware of how to play monsters effectively as well as use terrain.</p><p></p><p>To you it seemed as though I wasn't having the problems you intended, so you started to complain about how I ran it even with disadvantage occurrences like 5 of 6 party members surprised and the fact the bard would win initiative against two slaad more than 50% of the encounters face given average rolls allowing her to do exactly what she did given the magic item you provided. Yet this somehow seemed inappropriate to you even though the math of the encounter should consider this rather average results.</p><p></p><p>You were disingenuous with your dealings with me as well as showing a real misunderstanding of various rules I manage on a weekly basis as a DM. Sometimes in these discussions you and a few others seem to debate with me as though I'm a player. I'm not. I mostly DM. My perspective is a DM's perspective running a highly optimized, tactically proficient, stable group of thirty year D&D players. It was fun to get a chance to play a little, but I'm not going to have some question my abilities to manage encounters and monsters. I played your encounters well with a full understanding of how the mechanical interactions would work. Once I determined you were going to give me flack and arguments every time the players succeeded too easily, I decided the best course of action was to exit the experiment. You obviously expected a certain result. If that result did not occur, you weren't going to be satisfied. And if that was the case, then the experiment was never going to work. I wish I had known from the start you weren't going to act in a good faith manner as to the results of the experiment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6848924, member: 5834"] I had enough a while back when you started complaining about how I ran things. You never indicated in any way that ranged attacks had disadvantage. I read your encounter set up where you stated darkvision worked normally. Here you were backtracking on what you wrote. I'm glad I posted it and saved it. I doubt anyone read it any differently than I did. You won't admit you're wrong, and when people can't admit they're wrong you can't do much about it but leave. I mean really, show me where you wrote ranged attacks have disadvantage? I want to see it. Darkness in 5E is binary due to the simplicity of the game rules. The rules are written so players and DMs have an agreeable set of rules for both to follow. If the DM is going to alter this, he must state in advance he going to do that and make it clear. You did not do that. I vetted your statements very clearly and nowhere does it state anything about ranged attacks being impeded for characters with darkvision. As far as creature positioning, it was all very advantageous to players that know how to use terrain to their advantage on a grid map. Something I deal with as a DM on a weekly basis. When a person hops into a debate making certain claims, and those claims don't hold up, so the person involved in the debate starts to change the rules, strategies, and complains about everything you're doing because it is not working out as he thought it would, it is clear that person is being disingenuous. I took on this test in good faith. I utilized tactics you recommended including the placement of enemies, going after casters (which you think is easy, but isn't), attempting to launch certain spells, and playing the enemies in an effective manner. I ran the encounters as you recommended with very slight modifications to improve the monster's chances. I clearly outlined the rules and movement explaining each part very clearly. I mapped out the encounter. I did things on the up and up explaining resource use and the like. Nothing I did was outside the parameters of rules of the game or what you included in your encounter descriptions. The monsters were played in an effective manner tactically. I DM my group 80% of the time and am well aware of how to play monsters effectively as well as use terrain. To you it seemed as though I wasn't having the problems you intended, so you started to complain about how I ran it even with disadvantage occurrences like 5 of 6 party members surprised and the fact the bard would win initiative against two slaad more than 50% of the encounters face given average rolls allowing her to do exactly what she did given the magic item you provided. Yet this somehow seemed inappropriate to you even though the math of the encounter should consider this rather average results. You were disingenuous with your dealings with me as well as showing a real misunderstanding of various rules I manage on a weekly basis as a DM. Sometimes in these discussions you and a few others seem to debate with me as though I'm a player. I'm not. I mostly DM. My perspective is a DM's perspective running a highly optimized, tactically proficient, stable group of thirty year D&D players. It was fun to get a chance to play a little, but I'm not going to have some question my abilities to manage encounters and monsters. I played your encounters well with a full understanding of how the mechanical interactions would work. Once I determined you were going to give me flack and arguments every time the players succeeded too easily, I decided the best course of action was to exit the experiment. You obviously expected a certain result. If that result did not occur, you weren't going to be satisfied. And if that was the case, then the experiment was never going to work. I wish I had known from the start you weren't going to act in a good faith manner as to the results of the experiment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
Top