Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5278000" data-attributes="member: 18280">Personally, I don't think that they should be.  But I would suggest that wandering monsters make sense for the area that they are encountered on, and leave a "footprint" that gives some idea what might be wandering around there.  This is true whether the wanderer has a SoD effect or not.If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.I would suggest, in 3e, the party should always carry antitoxin.  (Or did they call it antivenom?)  It's a great deal for its price, and in a D&D world it is an elementary precaution.  Likewise, any party should have at least two characters who have maxed out the Heal skill.  After all, if you believe that "There are many situations where PCs might end up against these opponents without having advance warning or notification.", then that belief itself is a sort of warning, isn't it?  (Shudder)Anyone who says that the CR system is an improvement over the 1e Monster Level system simply isn't paying attention!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking. Assassins randomly targeting people walking on the street is poor DMing.  Usually, if there is an assassin after the PCs, there is a reason for it.  And usually the PCs are aware of the reason.I don't believe that this is poor DMing, although the outcome might be unfortunate for the PCs.  I would certainly not complain about it as a player.I would be happy with such a section.If you therefore conclude that the problem is lack of advice, rather than the mechanic lacking advice, we agree!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I am curious where you get "the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves.....is to kill the PCs" from, though.  Can you quote that? Tension and challenge rely upon context, which in turn rely upon the players being able to make decisions.  All tension and challenge rely upon (1) the unknown, and (2) determining how to deal with the known.The unknown presents a challenge in terms of making it known, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.The known presents a challenge in terms of coming up with a plan to deal with it, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.In a game where a SoD (or HoD) effect can occur, the challenge of the unknown includes, perforce, the chance that one has failed to uncover something unknown and REALLY BAD.  Conversely, a game in which the PCs will always have multiple decision points once a threat becomes known, and/or is expected to be able to deal successfully with any encountered threat, there is no real tension of the unknown.RC</blockquote>

Verification