Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jefe Bergenstein" data-source="post: 7743697" data-attributes="member: 31506">There's a huge gulf between what you CAN do roleplaying a smart, evil enemy, and what you SHOULD do. For example, the PC's in my campaign are enemies with a sect of Norgorber (god of murder/secrets). No one is vigilant at all times. Should I just state "hey, during your downtime, you were ambushed by 6 assassins while alone and killed"? We could play it out, but a solo PC would just straight up die, so it's basically a waste of everyone's time rolling the dice. I mean, realistically, no one is always vigilant and the characters don't live together. Should I just say "Oh, also your friend the blacksmith and that gnome innkeeper and his family are all dead"? It's not like they have class levels or even HP to protect them. It's realistic and technically "fair", it just isn't fun. D&D is basically a series of underhanded slow pitches by the DM.In-combat uses for their high intelligence (ie, 4E style positioning tricks), better defenses (they saw your attack coming and it misses, using one unit of legendary avoidance) would seem more fair when initiative is actually rolled. Using high level enemies as solos also comes with problems, namely their offense is too high if the defenses are good enough to stand up to 2 rounds of focus fire. Basically everything in the 5E MM is a paper tiger.</blockquote>