This....thing...is....AWESOME!
Firstly, if you're going to use such extremes of hyperbole, then it tells my your position is a pretty weak one. You shouldn't have to rely on hyperbole at all, let alone such extremes, to make your point. Secondly, it's your job as the DM to incorporate all of these things into your adventures (flavor text, INT, stats, preparation, interaction, living world, etc). Failure to do so is on you, not the game. Thirdly, it was you who said the only reason Lex doesn't get immediately wasted is because Superman has a code. So I brought up all the other people who could easily beat Lex in a one on one fight but haven't been able to as a way to show how your logic is extremely flawed.
Also, the others in the DCU don't kill Lex because the author chooses not to have that occur. That doesnt really work for D&D, unless you only play D&D by yourself.
Pretty much what I thought. It's easy to posture when you're discussing writing a work of fiction by yourself. Actually planning for all the various contingencies needed to make Lex a threat to a party of Supermen is simply way more hassle than it's worth. Hence why "mastermind" type NPC's should just have these narrative kludges built into their mechanics.
Ok, threaten a PC party with a guy with a 24 INT and 1 HP and no spells, magic items or abilities. You're clearly so smart. Write a scenario that won't feel contrived or frustrating from a player perspective. Otherwise cut the "git good" internet toughguy act lol.
Ok, threaten a PC party with a guy with a 24 INT and 1 HP and no spells, magic items or abilities. You're clearly so smart. Write a scenario that won't feel contrived or frustrating from a player perspective. Otherwise cut the "git good" internet toughguy act lol.
I'm not using "solo" as a synonym to "alone" or "one".For my table this has always been true. In the sense that a solo monster will likely never have a chance to TPK the party. I use solo monsters to hint more at bigger plot arcs than to be staple combat encounters.