Real vs. Theoretical problems and Grudging DMs

[Psion]

This whole energy substitution thing got me thinking: what's the point. So most outsiders don't have resistance to sonics. Okay? So? In my game, I delight when players use their noggin' to overcome obstacles. So you mop up my demons by using your brain to find a weakness. In some venues that's sort of the point of the game. In the end, I don't see it as a big problem because I don't think the balance of the game is going to shift becasue of it, and I am not going to have to make huge accomodations to make up for that feat. I see the problem as valid in theory, but not too much concern in the game.

It strikes me that some DMs are a little to quick to say "nay nay" to anything the players might do to give them a small advantage.

Ultimately, it is up to the DM to decide what is going to be a broad problem. Energy Substitution covers such a small spectrum of the game, I don't consider it to be a problem. I mean in retrospect, I am thinking that I might have made a mistake in allowing a player to play a grey elf wizard with the spellcasting prodigy feat and 20 int -- just a LITTLE too minmaxy for my taste, and I am considering reversing it, as I see than as having much broader implications than ES: sonic could.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Very well said, dear Psion -- I completely agree!

BTW: If only you weren't so busy with reviews, I would suggest a weekly "Psion's Gaming Soap Box" article to be made available here at EN World.

 

[Mark]

Very well said, dear Psion -- I completely agree!

BTW: If only you weren't so busy with reviews, I would suggest a weekly "Psion's Gaming Soap Box" article to be made available here at EN World.

Please, don't encourage him...

Psion - Can you expand on this rant to include the problems with module creation in regard to themed modules that often have one through line of weakness, I.E. modules where all of the creatures can be overcome more easily using one form of attack like "cold" or "fire"?

 

[Desdichado]

I set up my ground-rules from the very first (I accept these supplements, I don't allow this spell, etc.) and then I don't deviate from the throughout the course of the campaign. There's nothing worse than having your toys taken away by the DM because he feels like you outsmarted him. If it's a problem, then don't allow it next campaign you DM.

 

[Psion]

Well, since I am not a big fan of published adventures, I'm not sure I care to make that argument. However, I will say that a little judicious GM tweaking my be appropriate. But even if they don't, the character may find that they wasted their feat on a one-shot if their shiny new ability is useless the next adventure. So your frost mage did a great job in "the halls of the fire mummy." Okay, how is he going to do in the "lair of the frost worm."

 

[Mark]

When I say module I am referring to any session or scenario be it published or devised by a DM that takes a modular form (such as a DM preparing for an assault on "Fire Mountain").

 

[Psion]

Ah, well, I really don't think you should approach it any different than the way WotC (and Monte) recommends you handle various other magic, like high level divination and teleportation magic. You should not strictly circumvent the characters abilities, as that is just another form of grudging (whatdya mean all the fire elementals have elemental resistance cast on them!?) You should allow the character to shine where its appropriate, but have the foes use their intelligence and capabilities (i.e., don't be at ALL surprised if the fire giant shaman has elemental resistance cast on him) and don't let it be a cure-all.

Last night's game comes immediately to mind. I was runnig a new party though NeMoren's Vault. The aforementioned wizard stocked up on sleep and color spray to take advantage of his minmaxed DC. He was a godsend when it came to carving out the hobgoblins. But he was only a minor distraction to the umber-hulk-looking thing (too many HD) and will be nearly useless against the upcoming undead, and the fighters and clerics in the group will be the mainstay there.

 

[Mark]

Perhaps I am still not being clear...

I don't mean to suggest that monsters should be adapted to circumvent intelligent players, but rather that scenarios should be developed that keep them well rounded. Not putting all of your eggs into one basket by having all creatures encountered in a given area all having the same basic attack forms, defenses, resistances, etc.

I thought you might have some positive suggestions along these lines, being someone who absorbs so much material. Following me yet?

 

[Psion]

I thought you might have some positive suggestions along these lines, being someone who absorbs so much material. Following me yet?

I'm not sure I am. I look back at your initial question, and my answer sounds like the one I would say again. There's nothing wrong with thematic modules -- in fact they tend to be rather memorable. Further, there is nothing wrong with having a character in the party who is particularly well suited to the challenges. The trick is to just ensure that they remain challenged... i.e., don't make every challenge one that the character in question is good at -- give the other characters a chance to shine. But don't rob the character of their chance to shine. Of course I am repeating myself.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think Psion has addressed your point, Mark. At least, my reading of his posts indicates so. Basically, what I'm getting from his posts is: don't worry about it on the level of individual adventures, just make sure that it balances out in the campaign as a whole. So the wizard that uses a lot of fire spells does well in the "Assault on Fire Mountain" scenario; just make sure he goes through a few underwater adventures at some point.

But, maybe I'm reading him wrong.