Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tigereye504 Sep 27, 2009 17:45:26	My situation:  I'm playing a game (3.5) where I play all four PCs in my party, as the group only consists of me and my DM. I'm a combination of a power gamer and tactical planner, as I hate to waste my characters' powers. I recently slaughtered a dragon that my DM planned to be a difficult battle without it getting in a single attack due to some effective tactics and a few lucky rolls (no crits, but still some high rolls). The DM told me that I am using to effective of tactics and he doesn't like it... What should I do? Start bringing my B game, or tell the DM to just use stronger foes? P.S. my party consists of a L.10 rouge, L.9 wizard, a L.11 evil cleric, a L.10 Dragon Disciple/Fighter, and a 16HD skeletal red dragon that my cleric animated.
#2 humanmind Sep 27, 2009 17:58:35	Does your DM realise that D&D is supposed to be a tactical game? If he didn't want you to use superior tactics, then why did he give you 4 PCs to play? If he wants to challange you then I suggest he uses some good tactics of his own. I wouldn't change anything your doing because your not doing anything wrong. I would love it if my players used superior tactics to my monsters. Hope this helps
#3 kouk Sep 27, 2009 19:40:55	Not everyone is capable or willing (assuming a time investment) to face a "tactical" player on even ground.  Some DMs are storytellers more than tacticians. I would say speak with your DM to find out what he/she prefers, and push for character rebuilding to tone things down if you're interested in keeping the DM on board. You could try to tutor the DM on tactics, but it's unlikely to help overmuch.   But -- you can't really have one monster against 4 crazy-strong guys and their pet dragon, that just won't work. The one monster doesn't get nearly enough actions to compete. Ever.
#4 tigereye504 Sep 27, 2009 20:09:35	to clarify, while I try to make them tough, my PCs are NOT optimised. And maybe he just needs to toss more foes at me at once...
#5 salla Sep 27, 2009 20:16:36	You're playing a spellcaster in 3rd Edition.  You aren't using 'too good tactics', you're just being reasonably competent.  Anybody with a better grasp of tactics than a novice in a nunnery can spoil big-bad encounters with a spellcaster in 3rd Edition.  If you were using 'too good tactics', you'd have the encounters beaten before you even met the monsters.
#6 tigereye504 Sep 27, 2009 20:34:07	You're playing a spellcaster in 3rd Edition.  You aren't using 'too good tactics', you're just being reasonably competent.  Anybody with a better grasp of tactics than a novice in a nunnery can spoil big-bad encounters with a spellcaster in 3rd Edition.  If you were using 'too good tactics', you'd have the encounters beaten before you even met the monsters. OK, so that's your opinion. Point is, DM thinks I'm winning fights too easily, and I want to know what to do. I'm asking for advice of how to handle this situation, not for someone to bash the edition I like to play.If you post on this thread again, please have it pertain to my dilemma. Thank you. EDIT: if you are complaining about save-or-die spells, I chose not you use those as I prefer more satisfying kills.
#7 Krusk Sep 27, 2009 22:08:04	I'd make the effort to pick some second tier classes that aren't as powerful as the wizard and cleric. Especially using tactics like animating skeletons. Find a similar class that does the same theme, and just play that. Basically optimize within specific parameters.
#8 generalhenry Sep 27, 2009 22:16:02	you're past the sweet spot of 3.5E   simply put 3.5E becomes largely unplayable past level 10.  Death becomes instant.   options include: switching to 4E going back to level 1-6    (levels 6-10 are the sweet spot)  finding more players focusing less on the combat   and for two players, consider picking up a couple D&D minis starter sets.
#9 chaosturtle Sep 28, 2009 1:52:08	you're past the sweet spot of 3.5E   simply put 3.5E becomes largely unplayable past level 10.  Death becomes instant.   options include: switching to 4E going back to level 1-6    (levels 6-10 are the sweet spot)  finding more players focusing less on the combat   and for two players, consider picking up a couple D&D minis starter sets. I think you'd be very disapointed with my 3.5 campaigns then.   If the dm is throwing too few creatures at you then that could be solved with additional creatures...4 v 1 tends to be a slaughter.
#10 omniblackchaos Sep 28, 2009 3:43:54	Bring your A game and tell your DM to not send one monster at you unless its waaaaay stronger. Anyone with a basic understanding of tactics will be able to take down a single mosnter. Also DMs are supposed to know about tactics or else they would be getting beat all to easy. D&D is not a video game where you are forced to follow a set plan, your dealing with real people and so unless your a mind reader you never know what they will do. DMs are people who make a adventure and basiclly have to out think the players or at least make it hard for the players. If you cant do that then you should not be the DM and if your players have to hold back 50% of the time then that does not sound fun and so there is no point in playing. Have a bolar pop out of the dead dragon and we have ourselves round two. Oh and look this bolar happens to see your skeleton dragon and jumps into it. Now you just lost your pet and have to destroy it before you can even fight the bolar. ^.^
#11 etarnon Sep 28, 2009 4:33:43	I say try a different approach.  Less wargaming, and more playing the role. Is every single PC a "Well-Oiled Combat Machine?" With a 21st century knowledge of tactics? I'm not saying you are wrong.  I am suggesting you are playing 4 PC as if it was you, split 4 ways, not 4 individuals. Likely you as all 4 never make mistakes, and always do the optimal move. Nobody runs in fear, all stand in line, and tear it up. Again, that's not wrong, but is that what you want to play in a medieval adventure game? Best of luck.
#12 generalhenry Sep 28, 2009 12:47:28	If the dm is throwing too few creatures at you then that could be solved with additional creatures...4 v 1 tends to be a slaughter. tossing in more monsters helps. the casters can still slaughter them all before they take a single action with the right AoE spells, but at least the melee doesn't AoE so things sometimes last.
#13 entropy_judge Sep 28, 2009 13:11:27	You're playing a spellcaster in 3rd Edition.  You aren't using 'too good tactics', you're just being reasonably competent.  Anybody with a better grasp of tactics than a novice in a nunnery can spoil big-bad encounters with a spellcaster in 3rd Edition.  If you were using 'too good tactics', you'd have the encounters beaten before you even met the monsters. OK, so that's your opinion. Point is, DM thinks I'm winning fights too easily, and I want to know what to do. I'm asking for advice of how to handle this situation, not for someone to bash the edition I like to play.If you post on this thread again, please have it pertain to my dilemma. Thank you. EDIT: if you are complaining about save-or-die spells, I chose not you use those as I prefer more satisfying kills. If you think that was 'bashing,' you're being way too critical.  It's pretty darn near a *fact* that 3rd Ed. full casters can make any encounter a cakewalk unless the opponent specifically plans a counter for that character (generally *another* full caster). For your dilemma:  It's pretty much a choice between beefing up the DM or toning down your playstyle.  If a brown-belt spars a white-belt, who's going to win?  Beefing up the DM can take a couple of options - either use stronger creatures against you, or have you teach the DM some tactical skill, which may or may not work.  One of the biggest things is that he's going to need to know *exactly* how his creatures work.  Can the monster fly?  Then it fights out in the open, not in a closed space, and it stays out of reach of the characters.  Does it have spells or ranged attacs?  Then it uses them to soften up the party before closing to melee.  Is it rich/powerful?  Have it hire/threaten mercenaries or other monsters to engage the PCs while it moves in for the kill. EG:  A spellcasting Red Dragon with Invisibility threatens an Orcish tribe to attack the PCs.  While the PCs are fighting the orcs, the Dragon buffs up with spells, casts Invisibility, flies down behind the PCs, then breathes fire on the Magic-User or Cleric before flying out of reach of the melee and the undead dragon.  Next round, it Flyby Attacks either of the casters, or the most dangerous-looking melee character with a Snatch, carries him as high as it can, and drops him.  If done well and with lucky rolls, two to four of the five-creature group - the Wizard, the Cleric, the Fighter, and the Undead can be taken out of commission in two turns.
#14 clement Sep 28, 2009 13:36:33	Easiest answer is tell your DM to impose a difficulty hike on you.  Make each fight a level or two harder, but don't adjust the xp.  Call it a penalty for your 4 characters all sharing the same brain.
#15 jgumbyrx Sep 28, 2009 15:12:21	I have to say that this does seem a little suspicious.  1 player playing 4 characters?  Are you absoltely sure that you're not doing a little "fair cheating"?  What I mean by that is that perhaps you may be using your knowledge of each character's plan-of-action to make decisions on the other characters.  Yes, a cohesive party that takes the time to work out a various array of stratagies during their down-time is going to work very efficiently in combat.  However, that is only going to take you so far.  In a very dynamic battlefield, things are changing literally second-by-second.  Any amount of planning very well may get thrown out the window as soon as contact is made.  Unless you have one of your characters dedicated to actively "directing traffic" (which should probably be a standard action), then there is going to be at least some degree of freelancing. Also, to reinforce what has been said before -- your DM definitely needs to change-up the kinds of encounters that he throws at you.  Solo monsters do have the problem of action-economy working against them.  Things should balance-out a little if he designs his encounters with several roles being covered, each by different monsters. Oh, and by the way -- the whole idea of the "6-10th level sweet spot" is a bit of a falacy.  In the last campaign that I ran (chracters grew from 3rd to 25th), I had no problem challenging my players/characters all the way threw.  It's just a matter of the DM putting in the work and being imaginative.  Granted, it does get a little harder as you go, but the DM gets the luxury of knowing his opponents and the terrain in advance.
#16 pyro_azer Sep 28, 2009 15:44:39	Oh, and by the way -- the whole idea of the "6-10th level sweet spot" is a bit of a falacy.  In the last campaign that I ran (chracters grew from 3rd to 25th), I had no problem challenging my players/characters all the way threw.  It's just a matter of the DM putting in the work and being imaginative.  Granted, it does get a little harder as you go, but the DM gets the luxury of knowing his opponents and the terrain in advance. I agree with this. I DMed a campaign that ran up to level 37 and I did not have trouble creating a good story with encounters that challenged the PCs until lvl 35 or so.
#17 generalhenry Sep 28, 2009 15:54:38	Oh, and by the way -- the whole idea of the "6-10th level sweet spot" is a bit of a falacy.  In the last campaign that I ran (chracters grew from 3rd to 25th), I had no problem challenging my players/characters all the way threw.  It's just a matter of the DM putting in the work and being imaginative.  Granted, it does get a little harder as you go, but the DM gets the luxury of knowing his opponents and the terrain in advance. I agree with this. I DMed a campaign that ran up to level 37 and I did not have trouble creating a good story with encounters that challenged the PCs until lvl 35 or so.   I've DMed past the sweet spot as well.  The game still works, just not as well.  So when things break down, reseting back to the sweet spot can help.
#18 tigereye504 Sep 28, 2009 16:08:01	Bring your A game and tell your DM to not send one monster at you unless its waaaaay stronger. Anyone with a basic understanding of tactics will be able to take down a single mosnter. Also DMs are supposed to know about tactics or else they would be getting beat all to easy. D&D is not a video game where you are forced to follow a set plan, your dealing with real people and so unless your a mind reader you never know what they will do. DMs are people who make a adventure and basiclly have to out think the players or at least make it hard for the players. If you cant do that then you should not be the DM and if your players have to hold back 50% of the time then that does not sound fun and so there is no point in playing. Have a bolar pop out of the dead dragon and we have ourselves round two. Oh and look this bolar happens to see your skeleton dragon and jumps into it. Now you just lost your pet and have to destroy it before you can even fight the bolar. ^.^ And that would be very fun, and more challenging as I had used a lot of spells to take the dragon out fast. Of course, my wizard or cleric could just animate the first dragon after the fighting ends... still, this would make for a fun challenge! Thanks for the idea, I'll pass it on to my DM
#19 tigereye504 Sep 28, 2009 16:13:05	Easiest answer is tell your DM to impose a difficulty hike on you.  Make each fight a level or two harder, but don't adjust the xp.  Call it a penalty for your 4 characters all sharing the same brain. That's fair. Thanks for the idea.
#20 shadow_viper Sep 28, 2009 22:48:50	simply put 3.5E becomes largely unplayable past level 10.  Death becomes instant.  options include: switching to 4E 3.5 is actually perfectly playable past level 10.   One should resist the urge to reply to 3.5 help/advice request threads with any variation of "Just play 4E!"
#21 generalhenry Sep 28, 2009 23:27:32	simply put 3.5E becomes largely unplayable past level 10.  Death becomes instant.  options include: switching to 4E 3.5 is actually perfectly playable past level 10.   One should resist the urge to reply to 3.5 help/advice request threads with any variation of "Just play 4E!"     ::looks at the forum name:: nope not 3.5 forum ::looks at the topic:: nope not looking for 3.5 advice ::looks at the OP's responce to the suggestion:: nope, not out of place   I've been playing since 1E, each new edition has turned out better than the last.    It's not strange to suggest that he should bypass a flaw that 4E fixes by switching to 4E.   The DM would have to invest too much time to really make things work.   Really I think D&D minis would work best for the OP.
#22 shadow_viper Sep 29, 2009 0:20:16	::looks at the forum name:: nope not 3.5 forum Correct, this is not an edition specfic forum section. ::looks at the topic:: nope not looking for 3.5 advice I invite you to re-read the OP's first post. "I'm playing a game(3.5)" makes this a 3.5 advice/help request thread.   Either way, not a big deal, was simply pointing it out for future reference. Each new edition has turned out better than the last.    That is a matter of opinion.
#23 jgumbyrx Sep 29, 2009 0:25:55	you're past the sweet spot of 3.5E   simply put 3.5E becomes largely unplayable past level 10.  Death becomes instant. only for incompetent/lazy DMs.
#24 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 0:43:23	you're past the sweet spot of 3.5E   simply put 3.5E becomes largely unplayable past level 10.  Death becomes instant. only for incompetent/lazy DMs. or simply an inexperienced DM. . . like the OP's    yes, you can force any system to work.  But it doesn't mean the system isn't broken.   If switching to a more functional system is an option, why not take advantage of a more functional system?
#25 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 0:46:11	That is a matter of opinion. uh huh and this is a forum   you don't have to refute my opinions, and you're wasting your time if you think you're going to change the way I post.   If you want to be useful, make some suggestions for the OP
#26 shadow_viper Sep 29, 2009 1:19:02	That is a matter of opinion. uh huh and this is a forum   you don't have to refute my opinions, and you're wasting your time if you think you're going to change the way I post.   If you want to be useful, make some suggestions for the OP Again, not a big deal, simply pointing out a pitfall I've noticed a few posters falling into here and there. If you want to be useful, it's much better to offer advice pertaining to and relevant to the edition the person is playing rather than a variation of "Dude, just play < insert different edition here > !!!!" Just because you may like a certain edition and feel it solves problems with another edition, doesn't mean everyone else will/does(like) and/or agrees(solves problems).
#27 shadow_viper Sep 29, 2009 1:29:15	or simply an inexperienced DM. . . like the OP's    And the only way an inexperienced DM will gain experience with his/her current edition is by DMing it, rather than just switching to a new/different "better" one.
#28 evil_weevil Sep 29, 2009 1:43:30	The OP is in an odd situation that needs to be handled right. Your DM is new to the game, so of course he will be frustrated when you destroy encounters that should be difficult. He hasn't had enough time with the system to be comfortable, but once he does he will certainly challenge you. For now though you may want to tone things down, try not going nova on monsters. If the DM isn't having fun, then he doesn't have much incentive to continue playing. So my suggestion is to just pull back and allow him to at least make it look like you are being challenged.
#29 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 1:53:18	or simply an inexperienced DM. . . like the OP's    And the only way an inexperienced DM will gain experience with his/her current edition is by DMing it, rather than just switching to a new/different "better" one. The skill of DMing (or more generally GMing) isn't really tied to any one system. A good DM playing 3E will know how to set up fights with terrain and numbers in the monsters favor.  4E simply makes it easier.   Simply plopping down a dragon into an encounter will never yield great results, but in 4E it will yield better results.  And the DM would still get better at DMing along the way.
#30 jgumbyrx Sep 29, 2009 2:51:20	or simply an inexperienced DM. . . like the OP's    And the only way an inexperienced DM will gain experience with his/her current edition is by DMing it, rather than just switching to a new/different "better" one. The skill of DMing (or more generally GMing) isn't really tied to any one system. A good DM playing 3E will know how to set up fights with terrain and numbers in the monsters favor.  4E simply makes it easier.   Simply plopping down a dragon into an encounter will never yield great results, but in 4E it will yield better results.  And the DM would still get better at DMing along the way.     It looks as though you have invoked Airos Corollary.  And that isn't a good thing. And yes, experience with a particular system does matter -- it determines your competence with the particular rules system.  When I got dropped in to DMing my first campaign using 3rd, I definitely had a steap learning curve.  Sure, my previous experience definitely helped, but I was still getting tripped-up by many of the rules.  Between that, and the fact that each successive edition takes more and more discretion out of the hands of the DM (further straight-jacketing them with each "advancement"), rules mastery is very much an issue in determining a DM's competence level. That being said, incompetence is something that can be corrected with the proper attention.  In the case of the OP's DM, it's a matter of spending the time to learn how to put together more effective encounters.
#31 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 2:59:18	In the case of the OP's DM, it's a matter of spending the time to learn how to put together more effective encounters. that's one option. I suggested other options including switching to 4E.   only my suggestion that 4E might help things has triggered much in the way of replies.   I never said it's the only option.  I only put it forth as an option.  No one has refuted it as an option, aside from the OP's financial concern.    there's no need to get worked up every time someone suggests it.
#32 jgumbyrx Sep 29, 2009 3:54:46	In the case of the OP's DM, it's a matter of spending the time to learn how to put together more effective encounters. that's one option. I suggested other options including switching to 4E.   only my suggestion that 4E might help things has triggered much in the way of replies.   I never said it's the only option.  I only put it forth as an option.  No one has refuted it as an option, aside from the OP's financial concern.    there's no need to get worked up every time someone suggests it.  okay -- your opinion has been noted.  so you have anything new to add? "switching edition" is largely an irrelevant point.  as a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  "gee, the DM only throws nothing but 'solo' monsters at me, and that has proved to be no challenge.  he also doesn't seem to demonstrate full competence of the rule-set, which probably leads to 'dumbed-down' encounters.  additionally, he has some issues with implementing tactics.  hey, I've got an idea -- let's go spend a bunch of cash on a whole new set of rules that we're gonna have to hammer through, thus extending the learning-curve even further." Yeah, that almost makes sense.   I just don't see anything constructive about it.  If it's not constructive, then what's the point?  Maybe you could explain 4e's approach to the issue?  And in doing so, perhaps you could draw analogies to 3rd?  That way, you'd present a possible "fix" that could be handled by edition being used; as opposed to looking like you're trying to help WotC hawk their shiny new stuff.
#33 Sans_Serif Sep 29, 2009 12:30:28	Rather than joining the edition war, I have another radical suggestion. Find more players. I don't know where you're located at, and don't know what your options are... but the game (at any edition) is better with more people than just you and the DM.  Do everything you can to find more players. See if there's a Weekend in the Realms event kind of close to you. Find a local game shop, and see if they have either a website or a gamers bulletin board. community.wizards.com - YA RLY dnd.meetup.com/ Check out Yahoo Groups, and see if there are any Living Forgotten Realms groups in your area. See if there's a convention that comes kinda close to you. That's my advice, anyway.  Maybe the encounters are too easy, maybe you have l33t skills, and maybe the four PCs share a hivemind that makes them better tactically.  "More players" fixes the latter problem, and will make the game better anyway.  I'd suggest trying it out.
#34 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 13:09:09	so you have anything new to add?   writing adventures is much harder than running them   simply picking up some published adventures should help things out.
#35 _jayne_cobb_ Sep 29, 2009 13:46:08	Have the DM add a naught to the end of every number in the monsters' stat blocks. That should make things a bit more challenging…
#36 tigereye504 Sep 29, 2009 15:44:07	ha ha. yes, all of a sudden, EVERYONE except my PCs have a ring of +1 to all stats and rolls. the ring explodes for 5d6 fire damage when the owner dies or removes the ring from his finger. the ring teleports to a diffrent finger (or explodes if none are left) if the finger it is on is severed, or otherwise removed from the owner's body. Than we go on a quest to find out why we didn't get any, and it turns out that the gods fear us for our powers, and hoped that the rings would result in our doom.
#37 tigereye504 Sep 29, 2009 15:56:31	He isn't the best DM. He doesn't have the books, has has the opportunity to at least read through my books, but doesn't. He doesn't keep track of initiative or current HP (so I do). And has only a basic grasp of the rules.  To sum it up, he lacks knowledge of the rules and makes me keep track of in-battle stats. At least he's figgured out the CR system...   dispite all this, as far as I'm conserned getting a new DM isn't a option. He is a good friend of mine, and he has a rather low self-esteem as it is, quiting his games would make it worse.
#38 tigereye504 Sep 29, 2009 16:10:12	also, as a response to the idea of switching to 4ed,I don't have the cash. If you can point me to where I can get, say, a download able PDF version of the 4.0 books for free or very cheap, I'd be happy to look into it, but I simply can't afford buying a new edition
#39 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 16:34:33	www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx
#40 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 20:06:20	one more option:  switch roles   have him play the characters while you DM
#41 shadow_viper Sep 29, 2009 22:32:07	The skill of DMing (or more generally GMing) isn't really tied to any one system. Never stated that it was. Everyone has to start somewhere, and it's much better for a person to continue to learn within their current edition rather than moving to and 'starting all over again' with a completely different/new edition because it's supposedly "better," or "more simple," etc. We get that you love 4E, honestly, we do. But not everyone shares that opinion, nor does everyone choose to play that edition, some(like me) are perfectly happy sticking with our current "older" editions(3.5 for me).
#42 shadow_viper Sep 29, 2009 22:35:40	In the case of the OP's DM, it's a matter of spending the time to learn how to put together more effective encounters. that's one option. I suggested other options including switching to 4E.   only my suggestion that 4E might help things has triggered much in the way of replies.   I never said it's the only option.  I only put it forth as an option.  No one has refuted it as an option, aside from the OP's financial concern.    there's no need to get worked up every time someone suggests it.  okay -- your opinion has been noted.  so you have anything new to add? "switching edition" is largely an irrelevant point.  as a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  "gee, the DM only throws nothing but 'solo' monsters at me, and that has proved to be no challenge.  he also doesn't seem to demonstrate full competence of the rule-set, which probably leads to 'dumbed-down' encounters.  additionally, he has some issues with implementing tactics.  hey, I've got an idea -- let's go spend a bunch of cash on a whole new set of rules that we're gonna have to hammer through, thus extending the learning-curve even further." Yeah, that almost makes sense.   I just don't see anything constructive about it.  If it's not constructive, then what's the point?  Maybe you could explain 4e's approach to the issue?  And in doing so, perhaps you could draw analogies to 3rd?  That way, you'd present a possible "fix" that could be handled by edition being used; as opposed to looking like you're trying to help WotC hawk their shiny new stuff. Well said, :clapping emote face thingy:
#43 generalhenry Sep 29, 2009 23:44:53	The skill of DMing (or more generally GMing) isn't really tied to any one system. Never stated that it was. Everyone has to start somewhere, and it's much better for a person to continue to learn within their current edition rather than moving to and 'starting all over again' with a completely different/new edition because it's supposedly "better," or "more simple," etc. We get that you love 4E, honestly, we do. But not everyone shares that opinion, nor does everyone choose to play that edition, some(like me) are perfectly happy sticking with our current "older" editions(3.5 for me).     if he where playing AD&D 1st edition, would you not suggest that he switched editions?
#44 tigereye504 Sep 30, 2009 0:20:31	'scuse me. just wondering how long you'll be going back and forth on the 'battle of the editions'. I'm doing what I can to salvage my 3.5 game. I'm also checking out the 4.0 rules to see if I would like to play them instead. other ideas would be appreciated, but this argument isn't helping much. If you want to continue your fight on v3.5 vs. v4, I'm making a topic called "The Epic Struggle Between 3rd and 4th editions". perhaps the topic will take the fight out of other topics that are for other, more productive stuff.
#45 generalhenry Sep 30, 2009 0:24:35	sorry bout that, I'll leave it alone in this thread. (though for the record I'm still confused as to why it boiled up here)
#46 salla Sep 30, 2009 0:32:04	sorry bout that, I'll leave it alone in this thread. (though for the record I'm still confused as to why it boiled up here) Because I mentioned that spellcasters are very powerful in 3rd Edition, which was construed as 'bashing' despite the fact that it's, y'know, true.
#47 tigereye504 Sep 30, 2009 0:47:44	ok, I admit I overreacted there. I just meant to say that it wasn't necessary to point out flaws in the system, as that really didn't amount to anything useful. I apologize for offending you. P.S. I do realize that flaw. My solution to it is to not use my save-or-die spells.
#48 pbn Sep 30, 2009 0:49:21	disclaimer: I know nothing of the 3.x systems.  That said, I recall reading a post that mentioned an anti-magic field.  Would that help?
#49 Tony_Vargas Sep 30, 2009 1:25:07	If you're in a situation where there's only one guy willing to play D&D with you, and he's willing to DM, I'd say do not antagonize that guy.  Yeah, bring your 'B game' or whatever internal mental gymnastics are required to reach a point where you both can have some fun with it.
#50 salla Sep 30, 2009 1:32:01	disclaimer: I know nothing of the 3.x systems.  That said, I recall reading a post that mentioned an anti-magic field.  Would that help? The party's (or rather, the player's) spellcasters would go from 'overpowered' to 'nearly useless' in the blink of an eye.  I wouldn't really call that 'helpful', just frustrating.
#51 pbn Sep 30, 2009 1:37:13	The party's (or rather, the player's) spellcasters would go from 'overpowered' to 'nearly useless' in the blink of an eye.  I wouldn't really call that 'helpful', just frustrating. Ah - thank you.  Does casting REALLY make that much of a difference in 3.x?
#52 shadow_viper Sep 30, 2009 2:37:35	if he where playing AD&D 1st edition, would you not suggest that he switched editions? Nope.
#53 pyro_azer Sep 30, 2009 14:39:06	The party's (or rather, the player's) spellcasters would go from 'overpowered' to 'nearly useless' in the blink of an eye.  I wouldn't really call that 'helpful', just frustrating. Ah - thank you.  Does casting REALLY make that much of a difference in 3.x? Yes.