Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2524193" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Well, we will just have to disagree here. Hunger might drive you to eat the nearest and easiest exposed flesh of the bleeding part, which is a far cry from going for the vital spot needed to kill. I would have a blood crazed or hunger crazed attacker be more likely to spend time gnawing off your figngers and hand or gnahs at your bleeding shoulder wound before I would have it go for a lethal kill shot. If its goal is feeding on flesh that doesn't mean it goes for the throat or heart, but for the meatiest most available parts. As an aisde, for the hunger-crazed guys in the audience, look back at the first post, where the Gm outlined his reasons.  Not the absolute lack of "hunger crazed need to feed" and the list of reasoned considerations... Int 13 creature, creature judged the fight was lost, plundering his home, opportunity to take one down with him... When your justification is "its a smart creature and here is why it was the smart thing to do" tossing in the crazed hunger when other, perhaps smarter options are presented, speaks more of "trying to justify an earlier choice no matter what" than simply assessing whether the move was appropriate. At least to me.Snipped the majority to keep the emotional elements forefront...driven insane... desperate hatred etc... you describe a wonderful adversary here... but not one i would normally represent with 13 int and 14 wisdom.there seems to be an odd synergy going on here. at the same time the intelligence of the ghoul is highlighted as relevent to the encounter, all the descritions seem to want to portray it as an animalistic, feral , out of control, insane thing. There seems to be at the same time, in order to rationalize the choice the Gm already made, a goal to  consider it intelligent enough that it has the wherewithal to do a considered CDG  instead of more instinctive reactions to active enemy stiking at it (attack threat, run away) and at the same time to also explain why it didn't make other considered choices by ascribing insane irrational feral drives it cannot control.I cannot speak to what others would do, but for me it works like this...if before making the monster's choice for it, i decided it was a feral thing driven by rage or hunger and not really a reasonable, intelligent creature, then its reactions would be instinctive, not calculated, and choices like "run away" or "fight the one trying ton hurt me" or even "take a bite at exposed flesh" would be reasonable given the inhuman nature of the beastie. none of these make sense as a focused, precison strike such as a CDG.if before making the monster's choice for it, i decided it was an intelligent and wise creature and would act accordingly, then "reasoned" or "calculated" options such as "take a hostage" or other choices geared for survival would be the choices i would lean towards.About the only cases where i would tend to fall towards "take one down with me" suicidal vengence thingy would be for a fanatic kind of thing, like a cultist or something who believed dying this way was a virtue. The joint arguments trying to support the decision after the fact based on "its intelligent" AND "it doesn't have to make sense" seem a lot like searching for after the fact justification for a decision made on grounds other than that. For me itsa more "fun" to come up with these before the action isn chosen and to have my game run so that when my NPCs do something "unexpected" the reactions of the players are more "yeah, we should'a seen that coming" as opposed to "uhh... are you sure thats what it would do?"[/QUOTE]

Verification