Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 332623" data-attributes="member: 2486">I found Sean K Reynolds’ rant on high-level play both inaccurate and fatuous.Inaccurate because he continues to make assertions without backing them up with anything than vague allusions.  He repeatedly cites that the fighter is the only one who can make a significant impact on the effigy.  However, it is quite clear from a more objective standpoint that it would not be as difficult to defeat as he makes out, even without a party of hackers.  A 17th level wizard could easily use a Quickened Haste, followed by Ghostform (to negate the benefits of the effigy’s Incorporeality) and then a Time Stop followed by a barrage of metamagicked Cones of Cold.  Taking double damage from cold on a failed save, it is perfectly possible to dispatch the creature in one round with, say, three Maximised Cones of Cold.  Similarly, he assumes that the cleric is useless simply because he is unable to turn it.  Surely by this logic the cleric is useless in any battle against non-undead creatures?  Quite incorrect: a Holy Aura provides more than ample defence against it (short-circuiting its most powerful ability) and a simple Heal spell which all but slay it.  The only character archetype that really is substantially damaged is the rogue, but this hardly makes ample fare for a rant.More significantly, though, it is utterly fatuous.  Although it professes to be a criticism of high-level play, it is none such.  It is a criticism of one (admittedly poorly-designed) creature, and even his generic points are not characteristic of, or even specific to, high-level play.  His points about circumventing character abilities is tiresome: the simplest skeleton is immune to critical hits and sneak attacks.  His point about SR he himself concedes is a criticism of the way SR is designed (and hence not specific to high level play) and is thus too generic to be a substantial point.  His only salient point, that of DMs being careful to avoid creatures which short-circuit characters’ abilities (though the extent to which this does so he grossly exaggerates) is not a feature of high-level play, but is a wise word to DMs at any campaign level.  Ironically, his concluding sentence he brackets for fear that it is too specific to this creature, whilst failing to realise that his entire rant is based around one (inaccurate) encounter with one specific creature.I was disappointed to have had to read such a poor analysis from such a lofty source.  My image of Sean Reynolds’ is forever tarnished: for what he professes as a critique of high-level play is a badly worded, ill-conceived, half-baked and factually inaccurate dig at one creature in one supplementary book.</blockquote>

Verification