Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7563739" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I'm getting tired of this thread, hence the sarcasm.&nbsp; But to answer your questions more fullyWhich is why it's called a challenge.&nbsp; Sometimes the bad guys get the drop on the good guys.&nbsp; I'm not doing this to screw over players, but I do set up logical scenarios based on the enemy they're facing.It was hobgoblin archers riding wyvern mounts.&nbsp; I thought that was clear.&nbsp; Sometimes the wyverns would close for combat if their rider was dead or incapacitated, other times they would just fly away.&nbsp; The threat was the archers, although in other scenarios it was humanoid dragon hybrids that could fly.&nbsp; And no, I don't always have enemies (flying or not) show up in fireball formation.The double standard to me is that dexterity based PCs can be good at melee and ranged but strength based ones only have limited range.&nbsp; One I don't see a reason for.I've never said strength based fighters should be as good at ranged as they are at melee.&nbsp; Wizards have spikes in their capability, but with 5E they always have some decent cantrips.&nbsp; Warrior types are more slow-and-steady with decent contribution over time.&nbsp; When they're slow-and-virtually-useless I think it's a problem.&nbsp; That and everybody is all &quot;teamwork for the win!&quot; with the assumption that the proper spells are always available.Snarky/sarcastic I'll own up to, but I don't know when I've &quot;deflected&quot;.&nbsp; I like 5E, it's probably my favorite version.&nbsp; I just think they dropped the ball by making dex based characters too good without giving strength based characters equal chances to excel.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7563739, member: 6801845"] I'm getting tired of this thread, hence the sarcasm. But to answer your questions more fully Which is why it's called a challenge. Sometimes the bad guys get the drop on the good guys. I'm not doing this to screw over players, but I do set up logical scenarios based on the enemy they're facing. It was hobgoblin archers [I]riding [/I]wyvern mounts. I thought that was clear. Sometimes the wyverns would close for combat if their rider was dead or incapacitated, other times they would just fly away. The threat was the archers, although in other scenarios it was humanoid dragon hybrids that could fly. And no, I don't always have enemies (flying or not) show up in fireball formation. The double standard to me is that dexterity based PCs can be good at melee and ranged but strength based ones only have limited range. One I don't see a reason for. I've never said strength based fighters should be as good at ranged as they are at melee. Wizards have spikes in their capability, but with 5E they always have some decent cantrips. Warrior types are more slow-and-steady with decent contribution over time. When they're slow-and-virtually-useless I think it's a problem. That and everybody is all "teamwork for the win!" with the assumption that the proper spells are always available. Snarky/sarcastic I'll own up to, but I don't know when I've "deflected". I like 5E, it's probably my favorite version. I just think they dropped the ball by making dex based characters too good without giving strength based characters equal chances to excel. [/QUOTE]

Verification