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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6847516" data-attributes="member: 5834">I don't know that you can take Flamestrike's word on the six to eight encounter adventuring day. When I started to destroy his encounters even with his recommended tactics forcing the encounters to follow a grid map, there were major weaknesses in his encounter design I exploited. Flamestrike even thought that dim light imposed disadvantage on ranged attack rolls. Now he's running it himself because I'm defeating his encounters too easily. Go look at the thread and analyze my tactics as both DM and player. I'm using his encounters in an optimal fashion. But I'm not playing theater of the mind. I'm using grid mapping, which forces following of the movement rules like Squeezing and having to take double moves to cover father distances. As well as putting creatures in range of spells he hand-waved as not in range. I'm done listening to this six to eight encounter day rubbish. I housed his encounters. I ran them as optimally as I ran the characters. Just like I do the majority of my monsters. There just seems to be this assumption by folks like Flamestrike that they can do things that aren't easy to do to optimized characters like break their concentration or attack them without making suboptimal movement choices that lead to them dead faster while dealing less damage. I can only assume their used to poorly spaced parties that don't bother to account for enemy movement.Don't buy that six to eight encounter day rubbish. Optimized parties will destroy such encounters even with a time limit. No way you can maintain that level of challenge on a consistent basis against an optimized party using the Monster Manual or even the recommended design principles.</blockquote>

Verification