Sol.Dragonheart
First Post
Terrible. If I were in the players situation, I would be criticizing the DMs choices as well. Any one of those characters described in the initial situation has the capability, and likelihood, of wiping out the party by themselves. As a team, there is literally no way for them not to destroy the PCs within one round.
I would like the DM who posted this to explain precisely how the party survived this encounter, and why the party should have been ready and willing to charge into what should be utter defeat and destruction.
As for the rest, creating a dungeon where specific PCs have their primary abilities weakened or completely eliminated, is flawed design. Nightfang Spire, a WoTC module from back in the day, was criticized for just this problem, as Rogues had a particularly difficult time in a dungeon filled with creatures that were either immune to their primary damage dealing abilities, or melee beasts able to rip them apart in 1-2 rounds.
Now, it's possible for the Wizard to take a different tact in the dungeon, but that's a possibility that exists in a vacuum until more specifics are given about the situation the PCs found themselves in. Was there reason, before entering the dungeon, to expect it to be populated with such creatures, thus giving the Wizard time to prepare and alter his general tactics?
Was it an option to retreat from the dungeon, return to the city, and scribe the spells necessary to become effective in such a scenario? Because if those criteria are not met, it's a perfectly valid complaint to have. In both the examples you've given, you've committed the worst DM error possible, which is making the PC(s) a bystander, an observer.
PCs have so little control and influence over the world as it is, and when you then remove what little effect they can have, which is through the power and abilities of their character, you are basically playing by yourself. As others have said, I would demand an explanation as to why you are DMing in this fashion, and if you could not provide a suitable reason, I would simply leave the game. It's not fun to watch the DM play D&D by himself.
I would like the DM who posted this to explain precisely how the party survived this encounter, and why the party should have been ready and willing to charge into what should be utter defeat and destruction.
As for the rest, creating a dungeon where specific PCs have their primary abilities weakened or completely eliminated, is flawed design. Nightfang Spire, a WoTC module from back in the day, was criticized for just this problem, as Rogues had a particularly difficult time in a dungeon filled with creatures that were either immune to their primary damage dealing abilities, or melee beasts able to rip them apart in 1-2 rounds.
Now, it's possible for the Wizard to take a different tact in the dungeon, but that's a possibility that exists in a vacuum until more specifics are given about the situation the PCs found themselves in. Was there reason, before entering the dungeon, to expect it to be populated with such creatures, thus giving the Wizard time to prepare and alter his general tactics?
Was it an option to retreat from the dungeon, return to the city, and scribe the spells necessary to become effective in such a scenario? Because if those criteria are not met, it's a perfectly valid complaint to have. In both the examples you've given, you've committed the worst DM error possible, which is making the PC(s) a bystander, an observer.
PCs have so little control and influence over the world as it is, and when you then remove what little effect they can have, which is through the power and abilities of their character, you are basically playing by yourself. As others have said, I would demand an explanation as to why you are DMing in this fashion, and if you could not provide a suitable reason, I would simply leave the game. It's not fun to watch the DM play D&D by himself.
