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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6097998" data-attributes="member: 2656">One reason it's an issue is the following chain of events (which I have observed happening in various games over the years). I'm talking about combat heavy games, but most D&D games I'm personally aware of are fall into this category, and it's possible to be sidelined in any sort of game(though less likely to kil a PC in a low combat game).A player invests limited resources in his PCs learning how to perform a certain action, for instance knocking monsters prone. The referee says "fine".Then in play it turns out that most of the monsters the PC encounters are immune to being knocked prone. This means the resources the player invested in his PC to knock monsters prone would have been better spent on something else more effective. In extreme cases (e.g. illusionists vs monsters immune to illusion, enchanters vs monsters immune to enchantment, rogues vs monsters immune to sneak attack) the PC can become a drain on the party rather than an asset.And to the player, it looks like the referee knew the PC would not be a good match for his campaign and allowed it anyway. Or didn't know the system well enough to foresee the problem. Or decided on adventures without regard to the PCs he had.The very occasional sidelining of a PC may be tolerable, IMO, but a lot of adventures feature the same monster types again and again, with similar resistances and  immunities.For me, the continued accidental or deliberate nerfing of my PC definitely does scuttle the game for me. I see rules which risk this happening accidentally (e.g. referee with poor system mastery) as flawed rules.</blockquote>

Verification