Quote:
Originally Posted by mr beer
In DF you can have a fighter with skill-20 and Extra Attack straight out of the box, that's without putting points into Techniques or extra skill. This fighter doesn't need good rolls on Feint or to use Deceptive Attack in order to bypass skill-14 opponents.
A Magery +6 wizard out of the box has a similar skill of 19 but has the range penalty to contend with, taking the roll from 'probably succeeds, now lets check if they resist' through to 'no chance'.
There are issues with Magic but save-or-die isn't a problem IMO.
|
Skill-14 opponents may die to a single roll, that's not a problem.
Problem is Skill-25 opponents "dying" to a single roll because they aren't wearing special protection against that kind of attack in particular.
I
hate to tailor the enemies (besides Challenges) to the players. (I even try to not tailor the Challenges and create them so they
make sense. You wandered into a dragon's den? Better run. He won't be injured just because you're the heroes.)
The Angry GM has an excellent
series on building meaningful combats, I believe I saw the example below on his guide.
Why would a garrison be specifically designed to fight and barely lose to a party consisting of a wizard, a scout, a knight and a cleric?
That's straight out
bad GMing in my opinion.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify: If you tailor the world to fit like a glove to whatever characters the players create, and whatever choice they take, those are not
real choices - they become
illusion of choice.
Of course, who am I to say how people should play, right? I'm merely stating
my opinion, but consider this: RPG is a game of choices. If the players' choices don't matter, what's the point of playing at all?