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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7013639" data-attributes="member: 16814">False..False.What fun!  I like this game!They also happen less often.  For instance, a dragon may only be able to breathe once in an encounter.  So, not exactly evidence.Yeah, we've been down this road.  I'm well aware that you think it's the DM's job to select monsters specifically to offset player abilities.  I generally hold it's the DM's job to select monsters that make sense for the story.  Neither of us wins this argument.  Let's not trot it out again.Nope.  Avoidance of conflict is avoidance of conflict, not resolution, and no edition set the game up as 'sneak through the entire game' as the predominant conflict resolution system.  D&D has had combat as it's central focus from the beginning.  Doesn't mean you can't play it how you want, but the rules clearly reflect combat as the central assumption of what happens in a game.  That you can, could, or should sneak past some encounters doesn't detract from this.The next solution set is much smaller, though, and adds even more disruption to the game.  The more you distort your game by using more and more non-standard attacks, the more you're allowing the cloak to dictate your game.  At the point in which you're making selections primarily on the basis of defeating the cloak, or even largely on that basis, I'd say your game is broken by the cloak.  You can still run it, as you can run any broken game, but the distortion caused by the cloak is now evident in all of your decisions.Right, so, because you'd be fine with whatever obtains, everyone else has to share that opinion?  Beside, don't you claim that it's your job to pick monsters to offset player abilities that are distorting?  This doesn't seem to line up.</blockquote>

Verification