TNE: How often should your schtick be completely useless?

[Manxome]

See, I assumed that the question meant "what percentage of combats," not "what percentage of game time." If your main schtick is swinging a sword, you probably don't get to use it in the scene where you're scaling a cliff, but I don't think that's what the thread is about.

I would submit that if an encounter is designed so that the party has to run away, it's not an encounter, it's a plot device, and probably shouldn't be counted towards this total for design purposes. You can accomplish "force the party to run" for any party just by making the opposition high enough level, or by granting immunities via DM fiat. The number of times you do that is based on the narrative, not on the rules of the combat mini-game.

Puzzle monsters--or at least the puzzle portions of them--can arguably be ruled out on the same principle. If your idea of a puzzle monster is something that's (effectively) immune to all standard combat practices, then measuring it on the scale of regular combat is probably pointless. If your idea is a troll-thing that fights exactly like a regular monster but requires an arbitrary ritual to prevent it from coming back after you win, then the monster and the puzzle are eminently separable.

If you're thinking instead of a medusa-type monster where you have to avoid looking directly at it but it's still vulnerable to regular attacks, that sounds like a legitimate combat challenge, rather than a plot device or a puzzle. But I don't see any reason such monsters have to negate anyone's schtick; it makes life more complicated, but I doubt I'd switch from spells to melee (or vice versa) as a result.

I would also note that it's possible for every member of the party to have their main schtick nullified at the same time and still win--it just means that everyone is doing something other than their main schtick (as long as there exists some schtick that isn't the main schtick for anyone in the party). The maximum challenge level the party can overcome when everyone's main tactic is nullified is presumably lower than when everyone is using their preferred methodology, but that doesn't mean the party auto-loses.

[Talisman]

I mostly agree with Manxome's analysis. When I see "negating someone's primary schtick," I'm thinking of things like:

- Monster that's immune to magic (nerfs spellcasters)

- Monster with absordly high DR and/or other weapon immunities (nerfs non-spellcasters)

- Undead/constructs/elementals/oozes/plants (nerfs rogues)

- Undead/constructs/elementals/oozes/plants (nerfs enchanters)

- Highly mobile and/or ranged fliers (nerfs melee guys)

All of these situations drastically reduce the power of a given character type's primary schtick. They don't arbitrarily negate it - but then, that's rather hard without GM fiat. What they do is force players to think creatively, work together, or simply sit one out and sulk.

[Draco_Argentum]

Crap in a bag, the poll didn't come across. Ah well, looked like most people were going for being able to do your thing most of the time.

Also mobile ranged doesn't nerf melee. It nerfs a subset of melee. Same for flyers.

[JonSetanta]

(21 votes)
10 9 - 42.86%
20 4 - 19.05%
30 2 - 9.52%
40 2 - 9.52%
50 1 - 4.76%
60 0 - 0.00%
70 0 - 0.00%
80 0 - 0.00%
90 0 - 0.00%
100 3 - 14.29%