Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4044703" data-attributes="member: 18280">See, this is the thing that gets me on this thread.  The OP has repeatedly told us that he did not have all the encounters in the location negate a PC's abilities.  There were (if memory serves) two iron golems (which nerf direct magical attacks, but which do not nerf indirect magical attacks) and undead (some of which could be simply blasted).  If the biggest problem is that the DM should have listened, then it is equally true that the biggest problem on this thread is that those attacking said DM should have first listened to what he said.Even then, I completely disagree with the idea that an area with magic resistant creatures negates the effectiveness of spellcasters.  Certainly, as has been pointed out many, many times, there are spells that allow you to be effective without directly affecting the creature.  And not just buffing, because (as we know) support roles are now officially "unfun".You can summon a creature.  You can turn the floor beneath a resistant creature to mud, and then to stone, effectively trapping it.  You can damage the ceiling above it to cause damage, or you can damage the floor beneath it to cause it to fall.  IMC, one memorable fight ended when the party set up a Stone Guardian to chase them through a weakened section of floor, causing it to fall through to the level below.  The OP is clear that the players knew what sort of area they were entering; the player in question should have known that relying on sheer blasting power might not have worked.  A few divination spells would certainly be useful prior to heading in, because better information leads to better spell selection.On top of that, it is a good thing, IMHO, for the DM to introduce situations in which the players cannot simply rely on the same tactics over and over again.  If Bob the Fighter charges into close combat every time an enemy is sighted, it is a good DM who designs some encounters that make charging into combat either impossible or a questionable tactic.  And there is nothing wrong with an entire adventuring site (such as natural caverns) that accomplish this function.  Situations that force players to occasionally change tactics lead (with good players) to greater depth in play, memorable encounters, and a greater sense of accomplishment.  These are all good things.In this game, players have the option to create either a character with breadth of ability (but who, as a result of that breadth, lack the concentrated firepower of a specialist) or who focus on doing one thing really, really well (and who, by doing so, sacrifice at least a portion of that breadth of ability).  No player has the right to assume that, by selecting a narrow focus, he is guaranteed to make good use of that focus in every encounter, or on every adventure.  Indeed, setting up adventures that way does nothing more than eliminate the downside of selecting such a narrow focus, as there is no need for breadth of ability.  The DM has every right to set up situations in the campaign world in whatever way seems best to him or her.  Being able to meet various sorts of challenges is part of the metagame of D&D....Do we have enough variety in character types/characters to succeed?  Are we too tightly focused?  How can we get past this thing which seems to be clearly beyond us?  Must we fight these iron golems, or is there a better way to get by (teleportational magic, gaseous form, etc.)?  Might a divination spell clue us in on the iron golem's instructions, so that we can simply walk past it by displaying the right sign, or saying the right word?The only major DM problem I can see here is that the DM assumed that the players would engage with his encounters, instead of (in some cases) simply running away.  Of course, it has become far more popular with 3.x to assume that the players will follow along with the DM's storyline.  This is, after all, the era of the Adventure Path.  Anyone reading the DMG may well come to the conclusion that the DM is supposed to tailor encounters for the players, rather than allowing the players to choose what encounters they face based on seeking information and acting accordingly.  If the DM reads the WotC site in recent years, he might discover that "wandering encounters" are now "unfun".  If he reads WotC modules like Barrow of the Forgotten King, he might be forgiven if he thought that an adventure should be a series of encounters, one after the other, without deviation or room for choice.(Can you tell that I prefer sandbox play?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )Thankfully, though, the OP has acknowledged this problem.To DonTadow:  As I understand it, the player accused of whining is frequently a DM.  I take it that he has a pretty good understanding of the rules, and thus is able to determine likely levels based upon effects seen at the table.  As someone who DMs almost exclusively, I find that I can guage encounters like this pretty quickly while playing.  I just try not to announce levels at the table, or otherwise interfere with the rest of the players' enjoyment of the game.RC</blockquote>

Verification