Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9259467" data-attributes="member: 86653">There are so many things wrong with these examples it's hard to know where to start.Again, you're stuck in the false assumption that you're limited to the mechanics on your character sheet and nothing else. You're assuming that you have to hit the target where it's strongest and since that doesn't work, you throw up your hands and quit. It's an odd reaction.This is where creativity in general and creativity specifically with spells comes into play. The old standbys of casting rock to mud on the ground and letting the tough opponent sink into the mud...only to cancel or cast the reverse spell, mud to rock, thereby trapping the opponent in the rock and making them an easier target. Or casting wall of stone above the target's head and letting gravity do its thing. You don't have to attack the target directly. That's a choice you're making. And you certainly don't have to attack the target where they're strongest. If they're magic resistant, don't attack them directly with magic. You're a spellcaster, okay...so? Don't attack them directly with magic. Attack them indirectly with magic or directly with non-magical means. Don't have a staff, dagger, sling, crossbow, etc? That was a mistake on your part. Don't have utility spells that can effect the environment? That was a mistake on your part. If nothing else, pick up a rock from the ground and throw it.Again, several things being overlooked. There's all the prelude to this scene. You're a group of adventurers who're trying to infiltrate the royal ball...okay. So what was the barbarian doing during the hours of planning and setup? Chances are they could contribute a lot during that. Gather information, intimidate kitchen staff, etc. During this scene there's always the distraction angle, replacing one of the guards, replacing one of the kitchen staff, pretending to be a temp hire, etc. Pick an episode of Leverage and watch that. Watch what the character Eliot Spencer does and take notes. Pass those along to the barbarian's player.If you intentionally exclude every way the wizard can make that scouting mission easier or completely obviate it, sure. All the charm spells, all the divination spells, all the transmutation spells, polymorph, invisibility, portable holes, bags of holding, etc. If you decide ahead of time that the only useful thing is a Dexterity (Stealth) check, then sure...having a high Dexterity and expertise in Stealth wins the day. But you're intentionally ignoring about 1/4 of the wizard's spell list to get there.Yes, going out of your way to make a pacifist healer in a game about fighting monsters means you're not going to be as effective in combat. That's a character "build" problem. It's also worth noting that this isn't how D&D has actually worked since 3E. There are no ranks in skills. Haven't been since about 2008. In both 4E and 5E you have to work really, really hard to make a character who's not effective in combat.A big note here: having social skills is not required to roleplay. You can roleplay with terrible social skills.I think a secondary problem is you might be doing the "if it's not perfect, it sucks" thing where you decide ahead of time that only the character with the best stat+skill combo is allowed to make the check. That's not a game problem. That's a player mentality problem.If you're seeing these weekly you need a new group and definitely a new referee. This is also one of the major reasons I play old-school games or extremely rules light games, they tend to bring out player creativity, lateral thinking, and puzzle solving.There's also a bit of "always needing the spotlight" going on. The other characters get to shine, too. Not every character is going to be the star of every scene. If the referee is lingering on some character's spotlight time while glossing over others' spotlight time, that's a referee problem.</blockquote>

Verification