Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8868667" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Yeah, since silver weapons work against them, I didn't even bother with them.Powerful creatures which even have resistance to non-magical weapons still typically rely on magic or magical features to make them actually powerful IME. There might be a few exceptions, but none I can think of offhand.I meant more in that it was &quot;easy mode&quot; because (from the sounds of it) those decision on not targeting foci, etc. would be playing many creatures to a &quot;less-than-optimal&quot; level, i.e. &quot;easy mode&quot; for the players because their characters aren't being challenged as much as they could be by the same opponents.Sure, there are plenty of less intelligent creatures who won't recognize the threat a caster poses, but other than those targeting casters first is generally a good strategy, and taking away their &quot;toys&quot; is an easy way to do that--especially at mid- to high-levels IME.It isn't quite an apt analogy but ok, I can run with it. A player who loses his stick can still skate &quot;interference&quot; for a teammate who has a stick. They can also kick the puck (probably not &quot;legal&quot; in a game, but I don't play hockey or know very much about it...).In a similar fashion, taking away magic (or when it is spent) still leaves a caster options: Help, Attack, Use an Object, Stabilize a fallen ally, etc.I mean, what would a Fighter do if you took away his weapons? He still finds a way to help out, right? I've had entire parties be captured and escape, using no weapons until they managed to subdue someone, etc. Casters were right there with them, fighting along side, until their foci/spellbooks/etc. were recovered.Not having your toys for an encounter or even a few is hardly the end of the world. I mean, I am not advocating to do this every time, but enough that most of my PCs and parties I play with take measures to keep themselves as viable as possible (backup weapons, unarmed fighting or grappling, spells without needing foci, etc.).It certainly does not make the game &quot;not fun&quot; for me or my players to take these toys away by limiting spellcasting--in fact it makes the game more challenging and exciting. YMMV, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8868667, member: 6987520"] Yeah, since silver weapons work against them, I didn't even bother with them. Powerful creatures which even have resistance to non-magical weapons still typically rely on magic or magical features to make them [I]actually[/I] powerful IME. There might be a few exceptions, but none I can think of offhand. I meant more in that it was "easy mode" because (from the sounds of it) those decision on not targeting foci, etc. would be playing many creatures to a "less-than-optimal" level, i.e. "easy mode" for the players because their characters aren't being challenged as much as they could be by the same opponents. Sure, there are plenty of less intelligent creatures who won't recognize the threat a caster poses, but other than those targeting casters first is generally a good strategy, and taking away their "toys" is an easy way to do that--especially at mid- to high-levels IME. It isn't [I]quite [/I]an apt analogy but ok, I can run with it. A player who loses his stick can still skate "interference" for a teammate who has a stick. They can also kick the puck (probably not "legal" in a game, but I don't play hockey or know very much about it...). In a similar fashion, taking away magic (or when it is spent) still leaves a caster options: Help, Attack, Use an Object, Stabilize a fallen ally, etc. I mean, what would a Fighter do if you took away his weapons? He still finds a way to help out, right? I've had entire parties be captured and escape, using no weapons until they managed to subdue someone, etc. Casters were right there with them, fighting along side, until their foci/spellbooks/etc. were recovered. Not having your toys for an encounter or even a few is hardly the end of the world. I mean, I am not advocating to do this [I]every time[/I], but enough that most of my PCs and parties I play with take measures to keep themselves as viable as possible (backup weapons, unarmed fighting or grappling, spells without needing foci, etc.). It certainly does not make the game "not fun" for me or my players to take these toys away by limiting spellcasting--in fact it makes the game more challenging and exciting. YMMV, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification