Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6991329" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Not sure who this is addressed to, but just in case it's a response to the immediately prior post by me:I use a lot of non-intelligent enemies. &quot;Their intelligence&quot; is fairly low. I play githzerai/githyanki/mind flayers/etc. much closer to my own actual tactical ability, with allowances for the fact that on the one hand I'm not a trained warrior, and on the other hand, they don't get to think in bullet time like I do. (I can spend two minutes of real time thinking about the optimal response to an event, and I automatically notice everything that happens in a combat; they have to decide in a fraction of a second, while keeping track of a hundred things going on around them.)But I use a lot of non-intelligent enemies because I don't like feeling like an adversarial DM who's beating up on the players. My goal is to give my friends a fun time while having a fun time myself; not to boost my own ego by &quot;winning&quot; every confrontation. It is fun to occasionally TPK a party with a Not-Even-Easy encounter, as long as (1) the danger has been appropriately telegraphed in advance; and (2) it serves the story somehow, e.g. taking out a ~10th level party with a handful of CR 1/4 drow makes the point that &quot;drow are scary and you should be scared of the Underdark&quot;. (One of the two PCs made all of his death saves and survived; the other died.)But for the most part I believe that 5E is best played against monsters, not organized, intelligent, well-trained, militaristic tool-users. Or at any rate, the players tend to avoid conflict with the intelligent militaristic tool-users and look for treasure in dungeons instead, so at least they seem to believe it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6991329, member: 6787650"] Not sure who this is addressed to, but just in case it's a response to the immediately prior post by me: I use a lot of non-intelligent enemies. "Their intelligence" is fairly low. I play githzerai/githyanki/mind flayers/etc. much closer to my own actual tactical ability, with allowances for the fact that on the one hand I'm not a trained warrior, and on the other hand, they don't get to think in bullet time like I do. (I can spend two minutes of real time thinking about the optimal response to an event, and I automatically notice everything that happens in a combat; they have to decide in a fraction of a second, while keeping track of a hundred things going on around them.) But I use a lot of non-intelligent enemies because I don't like feeling like an adversarial DM who's beating up on the players. My goal is to give my friends a fun time while having a fun time myself; not to boost my own ego by "winning" every confrontation. It is fun to [I]occasionally[/I] TPK a party with a Not-Even-Easy encounter, as long as (1) the danger has been appropriately telegraphed in advance; and (2) it serves the story somehow, e.g. taking out a ~10th level party with a handful of CR 1/4 drow makes the point that "drow are scary and you should be scared of the Underdark". (One of the two PCs made all of his death saves and survived; the other died.) But for the most part I believe that 5E is best played against monsters, not organized, intelligent, well-trained, militaristic tool-users. Or at any rate, the players tend to avoid conflict with the intelligent militaristic tool-users and look for treasure in dungeons instead, so at least [I]they[/I] seem to believe it. [/QUOTE]

Verification