Jon Chung
=][=
Is "get in swording range" a combo involving Iron Whirlwind Attack? This is not some kind of arcane combination arising from using five different sourcebooks by different authors to create an unintended effect or something, it's literally using the effect exactly as designed: hit everything you can see twice.
If you don't want to take the absolute worst-case scenario of the Creation Slaying Oblivion Kick, let's go with the Realm-Slaying Oblivion Kick, and instead of Falafel one-shotting Creation it's Shajah Holok one-shotting the Scavenger Lands. Is this still something that should happen? Should this be in the game?
If you write a bunch of setting-breaking mechanics then say the correct approach to the existence of these things is to assume everything works out anyway and to handwave a justification, it doesn't look very good, does it? Past a certain point, the reaction you get is "pull the other one, mate" instead of "okay, as long as it isn't too egregious".
You need to have sufficient threat to 'sell' the enemy being actually threatening rather than a target dummy that is there to take a fall so that you can appear to have won a great victory against a terrifying foe without actually ever having been in any danger whatsoever. In D&D terms, you want an equivalent-CR enemy to apply sufficient threat so as to correctly engage the PCs and force them to use their high-level spells and class abilities to survive and win, with the probability of victory being high to assured if they do bring their A-game.
You do not want that enemy to be as threatening as 1HD giant rats to level 20 adventurers, where they do not have to bring their A-game, or even their C-game. This is bad on the narrative level, for it ruins suspension of disbelief; it is impossible to take an apparent peer enemy seriously if you know that they actually have the difficulty rating of a 1HD giant rat. This is also bad on the gameplay level, because rat-killing is not challenging, interesting, or in any way fun.
There is no reasonable circumstance where spending one action in a flurry (costing your other actions in the flurry one die of penalty if you include that extra action) to confirm a kill will lose you a combat. If you are in that situation you were losing anyway, and would lose on the edge of a slightly unlucky dice roll.
Yes, and this is part of the setting: you are the Devil incarnate, a harbinger of annihilation, an existential threat to existence that must be exterminated for the world to live. The state religion of the world hegemon wants to kill you for existing. If I have one of its loyal inquisitor-monks keep you alive out of gentlemanly politeness after having beat you into an insensate heap, do I look like I'm being internally consistent with the setting?
Would it not be infinitely superior for it not to be so utterly easy to beat said existential threat to existence into an insensate heap with one chargen monk and several goons?
Last edited:
