NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6992412" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to reply to this anyway."Should" = to make the encounter interesting/threatening/matterEspecially since, as CapnZapp later explained, he was testing the alternate rules for Mobs from the DMG. If one wants such a test to be meaningful, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to limit the monsters in such ways. So...you are correct that gnolls can be played as a rampaging horde that rushes to certain doom out of a lack of care....that's a fine interpretation. You can also play them as cunning and as capable of using basic tactics which are more than hinted at based on their stats and plenty of lore. You can play it either way....however it best suits your game. Now, given these two equally valid takes....one lends itself to a simpler encounter and one to a more threatening one. Especially given that this discussion started as an examination of efficacy of ranged attacks versus melee attacks. So if you are of the opinion that ranged combat is inherently superior, then taking away the ranged capability of enemies would seem to be a deliberate choice to make the enemies weaker than they should be. Which is fine if that's what you want. But it seems a poor reason to criticize such enemies. Let's ignore my use of the word complaint, then, and instead examine what I think is pretty clearly my point. If the reason that Capn doesn't use masses of low-hp minions is the way that this scenario played out, then I would certainly think how he chose for it to play out is a factor. "I don't like to use low HP mobs because they got slaughtered because of how I ran them". Do you see the conflict in this?Ultimately, he is of course free to do what he likes....and I can understand some of the points he has made over the course of this thread....but I see factors within his control that seem to exacerbate his concerns. Sure, surprises are certainly possible. That point is not mutually exclusive with the fact that we can reasonably predict outcomes based on the many factors that may shape an encounter. Sometimes we may be wrong, but very often we will be right. It's hard to say for certain because there are so many variables. I likely wouldn't throw a horde of enemies against my PCs with the expectation that they fight them head on as in this scenario. But let's just say for argument's sake that this scenario was one I was running at my table...>I'd likely do things a bit different. I don't think that rampaging creatures would consider the Spirit Guardians spell as weak or inferior in any way....not for long anyway. Once it was clear that there were gnolls dropping like flies, I'd have them acknowledge that and then act accordingly. Throwing a spear or shooting a bow isn't some kind of genius level tactic. Staying away from a visible effect that is clearly harmful is not either. The closest comparison to the spell effect is fire. Thinking creatures don't run into flames without incredibly extenuating circumstances. That is in effect what these gnolls were doing. Running into flames and dying by the dozen, without any of them even reaching the cleric (which sounds like it may have been an error in rule application, but either way). Was it being used that way? Capn said that the cleric was in a central point that allowed him to affect "all or most" of the incoming gnolls. I think perhaps you misread that. It is certain that the cleric likely moved a bit, but I don't think he was what I would consider "mobile". It seems to be in dispute at times, because that is all that I am really saying. I don't think that anyone said the DM was doing a poor job. Instead, people are commenting on the admittedly limited understanding that we have of the scenario. The use of tactics is a choice made by the DM. He can have them be cunning demonic hunters, or he can have them be mindless, rampaging beasts....as I said above, either approach is fine.But the choice is going to affect the outcome. Choosing to not have the gnolls use tactics will mean that they will not be as effective as if you chose otherwise. Actually, it could be a help. If it's the aura that is weakening melee presence on the part of the PCs, then perhaps having the enemies stay outside the aura would mean that the melee PCs would have to close with them in order to attack. So you're allowed to mention your swarm approach to the topic, and that's fine, but when I or others say a tactical approach might work, we're commenting on Capn's ability to GM?There are many ways to approach this issue. CapnZapp is free to use any he likes, and we are all free to discuss any we like. Because I suggested tactics in the encounter in question doesn't comment on his ability to DM effectively anymore than your choice to use swarms does.  Sure. Maybe don't have all the entry points to the PC location funnel into the area of effect of such spells. Perhaps arm the gnolls with their standard equipment and allow them to threaten the cleric from outside the area of effect. Those would help accomplish what you just described. There could be other solutions, as well. But I think that if what is desired is for enemies to be a threat, then the first step is to have them behave in a way that makes them a threat. Or at the very least, to not behave in a way that makes them not threatening.</blockquote>

Verification