Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6803518" data-attributes="member: 5834">Our party generally has this attitude. It's a min-max attitude. You want to set everything up so they can't retaliate. It does work sometimes. There are many fights where the enemy is doing the exact same thing. And if it works for the enemy, the PCs are TPKed. It leads to very paranoid play. Since I'm so accustomed to this type of play, it doesn't stand out. As a DM, I certainly wouldn't find it interesting to run the game if every encounter I set up ended in this fashion. Fact is some enemies are so powerful the only way you'll end anything is a knockdown, drag out fight to the death. That is where heroes show their mettle by their willingness to die and sacrifice themselves to achieve victory for the greater good against an enemy that destroys nations and worlds. I think that a tactician that adhered too greatly to the idea that the enemy landing a hit was a strategic failure would have his morale destroyed by some ancient demon or a massive dragon that shrugged off all attempts to kill him quickly and without retaliation. Does that tactician run when his only option becomes to sacrifice himself and others to achieve victory? Or does he flee knowing he cannot win without the risk of death? The philosophy is a common one among strategists. "He strikes first need not strike again." "Hit someone hard enough and they won't get up." "He who strikes first often strikes last." I believe if a DM has dealt with carefully planned stealth attacks more often than not, you become burned out building encounters that die without retaliating. It becomes an exercise in mental masturbation relying almost completely upon DM caveat.</blockquote>

Verification