Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2227506" data-attributes="member: 30001">Agreed.  So I think we could agree that one (of many) possible solutions to the problem would be to examine the real role that other high level creatures (eg. gold dragons, demon princes, etc.) would be playing in the campaign, and what their potential reactions would be to the character's actions. The second IMO would be to take a good look at the high level rules in 3E.  As you say, you don't want to have the same "anti-X" spell solution to every X spell out there.  It becomes uninteresting and repetitive - like the Undermountain example you give. At the same time, I believe that "anti-X" spells are grossly under-represented in the 3E rules, and I believe this is the heritage of earlier editions.  In the old days, spell power was more easily limited in a dungeon-crawl type setting where you could just have random and wacky things happen, and where high level monsters lived next door to each other, and where camping and rememorizing spells was a dangerous thing.   Now in campaigns with a little more subtlety, I think it makes sense to re-examine the spell list.  In the situation of teleporting assassins, I just think it makes sense that "anti-teleport" zones would be fairly common in higher level areas/strongholds.  Of course this could lead to a sort of "arms race" where methods are developed to counter these "anti-teleport" zones, and so on.  But I think it's realistic that even high level fighters would have spent some time trying to protect themselves against these effects.</blockquote>

Verification