Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8088033" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't agree at all. 5E has the same issue as 3E, in that people who aren't specialized in these tactics via class/subclass/feats are not strong with them and the opportunity cost for using them is extremely high. There are times when they make sense, but it's not comparable to 4E, where every combat was tactical.I disagree. Dismissing spells, powers, etc. as being part of tactical options means your definition of tactical options is so askew as to be meaningless.I think that depends entirely on where they are in the ecosystem of your world, and what threats they've faced.I think the mistake people make is to equate a massive top-predator with flight and significant magical capabilities to some sort of villainous human. Every comparison I ever see to a dragon is Moriarty or Xanatos or whatever, but to me that seems to be completely anthropomorphizing dragons in a bizarre way. A dragon criminal in a society of dragons might have to be "The Moriarty of dragons" or whatever, sure. But a dragon in the typical D&D world? It's more like "Where does the 800lb gorilla sit? Wherever it likes." Very few creatures can oppose a dragon, especially once they're a couple of hundred years old. They're huge, powerful creatures, who generally are accepted to have "arrogance" as part of their typical psychological make-up. Obviously, they are individuals. Their experiences will vary. One dragon, who has perhaps tangled with a lot of dangerous adversaries (powerful wizards, nations with troops who specialize in hunting dragons, other dragons or other intelligent flying monsters, and so on), may be extremely canny and cautious. Particularly if they've faced adventurers a lot before, and particularly if they're not arrogant. Another dragon, who has been in a location where they face fewer threats (less developed human/humanoid societies, or ones which have a relationship with the dragon, few other dragons), may well be lazy, thoughtless, and not put its intellect to any good use.My issue is with the oft-repeated canard that because a monster has a high INT, it's always going to do the smart thing, and should have elaborate plans. This should be disproven by your day-to-day experience of highly intelligent humans, who frequently have NO plan and whilst they can think on their feet better, may well panic, see red, or make very bad decisions in the heat of the moment! Yet I've seen it repeated, as it it were some genius approach to monsters, since at least the early 1990s. Sure, if a monster is smart, it may have a smart plan, especially if it's on the offensive, or in its lair and it is frequently attacked. But dragons have "I can leave the door unlocked" neighbourhoods (or the equivalent thereof) and levels of complacency too. Or they might panic, or try something superficially smart but actually not. High INT means they have the potential for very elaborate tactics, not that it's necessity.</blockquote>

Verification