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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 3655278" data-attributes="member: 8158">One of the interesting aspects of ToB advocates and their capacity for rationalization is that they almost invariably assume their level of gaming experience as well as their general grasp of game mechanics trumps that of anyone who dares dispute them. Two can, of course, play the hubris game. So, in keeping with that spirit of one-upmanship...Zurai, while I give you high marks for self-esteem, I doubt that there's much about playing D&D you've realized that I haven't. What folks skim over when they make all of the hoopla about the displacement of direct damage by save-or-die effects is that the latter are almost unilaterally all-or-nothing in nature. The effect is dire if you don't save, the effect is a joke if you do. Since spell save DC's don't scale nearly as well as the saving throws of opponents, the odds work against the caster. This all assumes the spell isn't something the opponent isn't immunized against, which becomes an increasingly bad assumption against high-level opponents. D&D designers ain't no dummies.It's players that have to sweat save-or-dies, since luck will eventually turn against them, and one failure is all it takes. But don't conflate a player's problems with the opposition's. NPC's don't mind absorbing your finger of death, baleful polymorph, or disintegrate, knowing full well that for every one that succumbs, there's another--heck, maybe two, maybe more--that will brush it off. The numbers are on their side. Damage is nice and reliable. It's what the game handles well. The folks who advocate the supermacy of save-or-dies kid themselves if they consider direct damage a weak or even secondary option at any level. I don't know if it's reaching or a case of class envy, but that list of spells you've come up with is pretty bizarre, as is the sentiment that follows. Most of that list has nothing to do with combat effectiveness. Plane shift? Telepathic bond? Magnificent mansion? Resurrection??? They don't even empower the caster specifically; they're very much party resources. All the caster gets is the privilege of burning the spell slot. It's pretty unreasonable to tell spellcasters that they should leave the tanking and nuking to the warriors, because the spellcasters get to be the party's chauffer, nursemaid, caterer, and general provider of miscellaneous drudgery for the rest of the party. That's like being told you have the "privilege" of being the waterboy, while I'm stuck being the quarterback. "Don't complain; heck, I don't even have the option of being the waterboy even if I wanted to be, so this is the only way to be fair."</blockquote>

Verification