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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rofel Wodring" data-source="post: 7216819" data-attributes="member: 6873189">Here's the thing that people don't consider when they present this fix: what if the players don't want you doing that? If my Eldritch Knight picks up a Flametongue and starts doing fireball damage every round, a lot of people aren't going to appreciate it when the DM ups the difficulty slider to compensate by arbitrarily having more fire-resistant monsters.Some people want a constant difficulty level such that having a well-oiled party, great item drops, and creative use of plans means that they fight encounters 2 levels harder than expected, and that's fine. However, there are also a lot of players (and I suspect there are many more players in this group than in the former) who, when they get a lucky drop or have a particularly efficient crew, do want the game to get easier. That is, now that they rolled a lucky Holy Avenger in Tomb of Annihilation, they don't actually want there to be more skeletons and radiant-resistant revenants. They realize that the game expects a generic level 6 character to have a certain level of butt-kicking and it makes them feel good when they kick so much more butt that things are significantly easier. Maybe not no challenge whatsoever, but definitely in a '1996 Chicago Bulls v. Seattle SuperSonics'.Again, a game that's too easy is less problematic and easier to compensate for than a game that's too hard. So it's not a big deal. But it's not a problem you can handwave away with 'just add more monsters, bro'.My example was intentionally that of a difficulty revision downwards (Lich prepares suboptimal spells, more fire-vulnerable monsters show up) than upwards. I really don't appreciate you changing my example like that, especially since I feel that difficulty revisions downwards are more problematic than difficulty revisions upwards.</blockquote>

Verification