Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5760487" data-attributes="member: 2011">Your definition of plausible is different than mine.My definition of plausible for a tentacled creature from the deep where the creature itself is below the ship is for the tentacles to attack everyone on board. Friend and foe.That's the scenario driving the game mechanics of the creature, not the game mechanics of the creature driving the scenario.It's not very plausible that the tentacles can distinguish friend from foe.One sees this in adventures, even Dungeon magazine adventures. There's occasionally some handwaving thrown in because the implementation is not as well thought out as the original concept.You find it reasonable for the tentacles to be smart and for the tentacles to be able to observe their surroundings. I find it a bit illogical.I didn't say that there was anything wrong with that. I said that the adventure wasn't interesting enough for me to do that.If one of the Lair Assaults come out where it is really interesting, I might do that. But from what I've seen in the first two, there aren't enough "changeable bits" to warrant it. As an example, if the rooms could have been moved around in the first LA and different things could happen in the rooms (i.e. the runes did something different each time), then it would have been interesting.But when the foes are beaten during the first run both times, sorry, but it's just not that challenging and just not that interesting.I'm glad that you find it that way.I'm not interested in playing Groundhog's Day over and over again unless the scenario has some cool new stuff in it each time and it's not just a matter of switching up some monsters a bit. I don't need to come up with a way to tweak out a few extra bonus points.This from the DM who decided he should destroy the ship instead of having the tentacles break through the sides of it because his players played smart? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot whine about your players ignoring resources and then whine if your players use the resources and go below decks.And, I actually did show how good I was, even after the DM killed the party Cleric in round one. I really don't need to prove it a second time. To me, the purpose of Lair Assault should be to wipe out the PCs during the first run and possibly do so again during a second run where the encounters themselves are a changing challenge. But, WotC's idea of wiping out parties is just throwing a lot of damage at them. This can be countered by healing, temp hit points, resistance, etc.The next Lair Assault should be focused more on other things: splitting up the party, interesting traps, zones, effects, terrain that takes skills to negotiate, etc.That's a real challenge, one that the first two LAs did not do at all. So far, the actual encounters themselves have only been damage fests. Sorry, but damage fests are boring and can easily be countered. I'm glad that you find them interesting enough to run a second time. I don't.</blockquote>

Verification