Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6957580" data-attributes="member: 12731">Yet the game offers none of that out of the box.I certainly will not revert to the 3e way of creating NPCs, so I will proudly and emphatically denounce your "monsters can have pc levels" claim. No they won't, not unless you're willing to do the work I want to pay WotC to do for me.Many monsters are stupid. I'm quite open to you pointing out strategies in published modules however. Just as long as you don't mean that for the game to even work, I need to make all the work giving them tactics myself. I simply don't have the time, prepping takes enough hours already, I need and expect monsters to work right out of the box. And they do, provided we create slow axe dwarfs. But the problem is, the rules forgot to make that the optimal choice.Very few monsters have crossbows. But sure, point taken. Only problem is: if your monsters have cover, so will probably my heroes. And I am quite sure that's a range duel my players will win against perhaps 90% of MM entries.Look. Nothing you say is wrong. It's only when and if you say it to excuse why things aren't working better out the box you're taking a wrong turn. Having smart and tactical enemies should be a spice you add when you have the time and inclination to make something special. It shouldn't be an obligatory prep requirement for the monsters not to be roflstomped. That's one opinion I will never budge on. Why? Because it would have been possible for WotC to create competitive monsters. And it would have been possible for WotC to rein the ways you can dominate the battlefield using ranged fire.After all, this is the fifth edition. For all the great things about 5E, I expected more from WotC in the areas of actually building on past experience instead of walking into traps you'd see from a 1st edition of a game.</blockquote>

Verification