Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5308568" data-attributes="member: 94022">I agree.&nbsp; As I stated earlier, I think the encounter was flawed in its design (if nothing else, the terrain should have been factored into the budget as well, but the 5 dominators were the real problem).&nbsp; My point was merely that it would likely have helped, though clearly there is no guarantee a balanced party would have survived.&nbsp; My apologies if I had implied otherwise.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Absolutely true.&nbsp; Again my apologies for not clearly stating otherwise.&nbsp; I still think though that even not knowing whether or not the incubi would pursue, the choice comes down to &quot;Stay on the ledge and definitely lose (i.e. die/capture) or drop and maybe (though certainly not definitely) win.&quot;&nbsp; As previously stated, there was good reason to believe the fall in and of itself would not automatically be lethal.&nbsp;&nbsp;Again, I agree that the encounter should not have been designed such that the only real option for the PCs was to make a 100 ft fall.&nbsp; Nor, should DMs set up complex puzzles that must be solved exactly right in order to allow survival, etc.&nbsp; I'm a big supporter of the Three Clue Rule (i.e. for every piece of information the party needs there are at least 3 clues leading to it).&nbsp; &nbsp;The point I'm trying to make is that a) I do not believe the DM intentionally set up this situation where the players needed to make the 100 ft fall to survive -- rather I think the DM made a mistake.&nbsp; I've merely been trying to point out what the player could have done once that mistake was made.&nbsp; There's no doubt that the odds were definitely stacked against the PCs in this encounter; however, different decisions could have salvaged the situation is all I'm trying to save.&nbsp; I still contend that while a balanced party would not have guaranteed success (in fact it never does) a party of all strikers is really a tpk waiting to happen.&nbsp; That's just my opinion of course.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5308568, member: 94022"] I agree. As I stated earlier, I think the encounter was flawed in its design (if nothing else, the terrain should have been factored into the budget as well, but the 5 dominators were the real problem). My point was merely that it would likely have helped, though clearly there is no guarantee a balanced party would have survived. My apologies if I had implied otherwise. Absolutely true. Again my apologies for not clearly stating otherwise. I still think though that even not knowing whether or not the incubi would pursue, the choice comes down to "Stay on the ledge and definitely lose (i.e. die/capture) or drop and maybe (though certainly not definitely) win." As previously stated, there was good reason to believe the fall in and of itself would not automatically be lethal. Again, I agree that the encounter should not have been designed such that the only real option for the PCs was to make a 100 ft fall. Nor, should DMs set up complex puzzles that must be solved exactly right in order to allow survival, etc. I'm a big supporter of the Three Clue Rule (i.e. for every piece of information the party needs there are at least 3 clues leading to it). The point I'm trying to make is that a) I do not believe the DM intentionally set up this situation where the players needed to make the 100 ft fall to survive -- rather I think the DM made a mistake. I've merely been trying to point out what the player could have done once that mistake was made. There's no doubt that the odds were definitely stacked against the PCs in this encounter; however, different decisions could have salvaged the situation is all I'm trying to save. I still contend that while a balanced party would not have guaranteed success (in fact it never does) a party of all strikers is really a tpk waiting to happen. That's just my opinion of course. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification