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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6906377" data-attributes="member: 12731">Hmm. You keep returning to the default rules as the baseline, and only judge my proposed change in terms of how this changes the status quo.But at no time do you show any signs of actually agreeing the status quo is bad, or worth changing. So before we continue this discussion: could it be that behind all your words, you're actually content with the rules as they are?---Sure the players will want to be as effective as possible. But the basic assumption I am laboring under, and what I am basing our conversation on, is this:The current rules for solos aren't enough. First, spells are completely negated, which is bad and boring. Then, spells have their full effect, which is bad and boring. What is needed is a more gradual way, so that even the first spell can have SOME effect without actually ending the encounter.I'm getting the impression you expect players to change their play style only under protest. You seem to envision reactionary players - all they want is to get back to the "good old days" where solo BBEGs can be insta-shut down. But why make that highly negative conclusion?Why not instead assume players are well on board the change, since they too want exciting solo fights?!?--- I still don't know how you conclude "they're going to bring three wizards". How? What wizards? Where did they come from?If you're suggesting the players will build their group of four to five heroes with three arcane spellcasters, that's one thing. That is also ridiculous, since why would a group tailor-make their composition for perhaps 1% of the combats they will have??Having three wizards might be nice for the two BBEG Solo fights they will be having from level 1-10, but it sure won't be as convenient when they face the regular hordes of orcs and mooks and guards...--- In short, I'm not truly getting you or your arguments, Dualazi. Could it be that you are instinctively opposed to the idea and so you bring emotional arguments to the table?</blockquote>

Verification