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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6589753" data-attributes="member: 996">With good reason, there are a lot of /very/ powerful individual monsters in the DMG. In the playtest, a common encounter design was multiple lesser monsters and one more powerful boss - dependably being able to dominate the latter would own the encounter. In the DMG guidelines, a lone monster is the most straightforward way to design a challenging encounter.Whether that happens at low or high level, if domination was too easy to maintain, it'd be a problem.  A new save when taking damage would help in the lone-monster scenario, for instance.  In the other scenario it might or might not - depends on how uppity the minions are.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> That's a complicated philosophical point.  If a player chooses an already-overpowered class, and does everything he can to try to dominate play and wreck the campaign, is it his fault if he succeeds, or is it the DM's fault for not stopping him?  In 5e, clearly, the DM is meant to have the power to stop such a player cold.  In 3.x, with the RAW-uber-alles zietgiest surrounding it, it'd've been less clear.  But does either case really absolve the player of guilt for making the attempt in the first place?That's not an unreasonable approach, but it doesn't invalidate there being higher risk/reward options.</blockquote>

Verification