Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olrox17" data-source="post: 7022214" data-attributes="member: 6801397">Yes, counters to control do exist. A carefully crafted group of PCs can be almost immune to control. A paladin for the aura, an abjurer for counterspelling, maybe a monk to stun and take out enemy casters. However, I don't feel like every PC party should be required to choose some very specific builds just to counter one element of the game. An element that, frankly, was just built over shaky math that lacks appropriate scaling.That goes double for monsters. Yes, as a DM I can bestow condition immunities and legendary resistance on my critters every time I want to. But I feel like that's just a cheap way to tackle the problem. I think that the whole reason I started this project is that I think it's unfair to slap legendary resistance or a bunch of immunities on every other monster just to keep the game challenging. I wanted to do things differently, and HP thresholds is just what I happened to come up with.(1) Right. From your signature, I get the feeling you're familiar with 4e. My players really liked the bloodied condition from 4e, so we kept it in 5e. So, basically, the monsters go through 3 phases: healthy, bloodied, and dying/dead. The bloodied condition usually helps the players a lot. Also, I always give hints if monster knowledge checks are successfully employed.(2) I'll be honest, I never heard my players talking, let alone complaining, about that. I guess it just makes sense for them. Personally, I imagine it like this: picture yourself on the couch, watching the most boring movie ever. Are you going to fall asleep? If it's morning and you've just woken up, probably not. But after a long day of work, when you're low on energy (hit points)? Almost guaranteed!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olrox17, post: 7022214, member: 6801397"] Yes, counters to control do exist. A carefully crafted group of PCs can be almost immune to control. A paladin for the aura, an abjurer for counterspelling, maybe a monk to stun and take out enemy casters. However, I don't feel like every PC party should be required to choose some very specific builds just to counter one element of the game. An element that, frankly, was just built over shaky math that lacks appropriate scaling. That goes double for monsters. Yes, as a DM I can bestow condition immunities and legendary resistance on my critters every time I want to. But I feel like that's just a cheap way to tackle the problem. I think that the whole reason I started this project is that I think it's unfair to slap legendary resistance or a bunch of immunities on every other monster just to keep the game challenging. I wanted to do things differently, and HP thresholds is just what I happened to come up with. (1) Right. From your signature, I get the feeling you're familiar with 4e. My players really liked the bloodied condition from 4e, so we kept it in 5e. So, basically, the monsters go through 3 phases: healthy, bloodied, and dying/dead. The bloodied condition usually helps the players a lot. Also, I always give hints if monster knowledge checks are successfully employed. (2) I'll be honest, I never heard my players talking, let alone complaining, about that. I guess it just makes sense for them. Personally, I imagine it like this: picture yourself on the couch, watching the most boring movie ever. Are you going to fall asleep? If it's morning and you've just woken up, probably not. But after a long day of work, when you're low on energy (hit points)? Almost guaranteed! [/QUOTE]

Verification