Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7285143" data-attributes="member: 15700">I have not found it problematic at all. But I think that is largely due to play style.&nbsp; One thing I’ve observed in threads about this topic, there are two primary play styles that folks seem to fall into: role playing opponents, and roll playing opponents. Before people get all worked up, neither is objectively better; it’s personal preference.&nbsp; What I mean by this, is I consider myself in the role playing camp.&nbsp; How an encounter plays out is significantly impacted by how the opponent would normally act, both during the encounter, and before the encounter ever happens. Will they plan for the party?&nbsp; Use the environment to their advantage?&nbsp; A lot of this is dictated by the flavor text and intelligence of the opponent, which IMO is just as importance as any other stat. A group of devious goblins can far out punch their CR. A group of wolves may constantly harass the party, looking for weakness, and making rests nearly impossible because as soon as the party tries, they do hit and run attacks.&nbsp; You wanna see players who feel challenged?&nbsp; Watch what happens when they can’t recharge their abilities whenever they want. The other style, I’ve seen, is dependent on actual defined abilities, and combat is played tactically as if they are game pieces on a board. Again, nothing wrong with this, and it comes to preference. The problem with that is if you’re ignoring the flavor text and environment (which while not a mechanic, is a rule to show you how to play the monster), you’re leaving some of the challenge off the table and may need to make changes to make up for that.&nbsp; For mundane creatures, give them a superiority dice or two like the battlemaster. For others, give some magical limited use abilities.&nbsp; Or something like legendary resistance, only instead of saving throws, they can turn a hit into a miss.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7285143, member: 15700"] I have not found it problematic at all. But I think that is largely due to play style. One thing I’ve observed in threads about this topic, there are two primary play styles that folks seem to fall into: role playing opponents, and roll playing opponents. Before people get all worked up, neither is objectively better; it’s personal preference. What I mean by this, is I consider myself in the role playing camp. How an encounter plays out is significantly impacted by how the opponent would normally act, both during the encounter, and before the encounter ever happens. Will they plan for the party? Use the environment to their advantage? A lot of this is dictated by the flavor text and intelligence of the opponent, which IMO is just as importance as any other stat. A group of devious goblins can far out punch their CR. A group of wolves may constantly harass the party, looking for weakness, and making rests nearly impossible because as soon as the party tries, they do hit and run attacks. You wanna see players who feel challenged? Watch what happens when they can’t recharge their abilities whenever they want. The other style, I’ve seen, is dependent on actual defined abilities, and combat is played tactically as if they are game pieces on a board. Again, nothing wrong with this, and it comes to preference. The problem with that is if you’re ignoring the flavor text and environment (which while not a mechanic, is a rule to show you how to play the monster), you’re leaving some of the challenge off the table and may need to make changes to make up for that. For mundane creatures, give them a superiority dice or two like the battlemaster. For others, give some magical limited use abilities. Or something like legendary resistance, only instead of saving throws, they can turn a hit into a miss. [/QUOTE]

Verification