Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 410416" data-attributes="member: 945">To each their own, I suppose.We're in our second campaign ATM, and it's a mixed bag, I guess.  We've fought lots of goblin scouts, and dire wolf mounts, but we've also fought an undead Treant, and we constantly have encounters with these black animals with red-eyes, that are like animals, except tainted and evil, and always far more vicious than their regular animal cousins.  But, we've dealth with a fair number of NPC combatants as well.In our first game, the GM used a lot of NPCs, and was especially fond of throwing us up against bladesingers, and monks.  Those were always a challenge.  We fought a lot of gnolls early on.Myself, I prefer monsters, I think.  Mostly because they are easier.  I mean, I'd rather just open the MM, copy the stats for a drider, and plop five of them into an encounter, for example, then work up the stats for 5 unique drow rogues, or something.  I don't have that kind of time.The other thing, like you suggest, is that people know what Beholders are, and what they can do.  When PCs face a guy in robes, they assume he's a wizard, and if he's a powerful wizard, they won't know.  They don't have that fear factor.  But, if they walk into a room and see an Iron Golem, and a Beholder, you're going to get cries of "OH SH*T!" from the party, and jaws are going to drop.  Even if the wizard is a higher CR than an Iron Golem, and a Beholder, the former will NEVER get the affect that the latter has - unless the party has faced the particular wizard before, and have reason to fear and respect his power.  That takes time, and skill, though, and hats off to any DM that can do that.</blockquote>

Verification