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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5247131" data-attributes="member: 63214">I'm going to go with yes, it is the right game move. The Artificer should have delayed or readied his heal in such a way so that you were healed right before your turn so that you could do something. It was a bad decision on the Artificers part, especially after the first time. Also, your party needed to feel the pain of not having a defender or a controller to keep the monster from killing you. What's the point of having a defender or a controller if the monster won't bother killing the glass-cannons/healers anyway?The right game move, in my opinion, is to create a challenging situation for the players to overcome in some way. A challenge is cheapened when it is made easier because someone else thinks you can't handle it. For instance, if a 3.5 party lacks a rogue, it seems lame to me that anything locked or trapped disappears from the world. You should have consequences for your choices, including class choice. You should feel your lack of defender but enjoy your abundance of strikers, or whatever.You should miss not being able to open that chest without the rogue, but be glad you now have the barbarian to bust open the secret door.This breaks down at a point, if the DM is clearly trying to make you fail by placing an impossible to kill monster in an impossible-to-run-from area but before that it is fair game. (Or having an easy to disable auto-kill trap or locked door that is required to advance the game, etc etc for any challenge.)</blockquote>

Verification