mmsbhs's page

So the argument to go for casters and the argument to not go for casters both are supported by sound logical reasoning. So why not do it sometimes and not other times? Or every time/ never? The latter two options probably have a better chance of bothering players, but if you know your table, and aren't a jerk, it should be fine.

mmsbhs wrote:

Wrath wrote:

If I can do that as a player, then you be can be sure the enemies will have tactics to do exactly the same thing.

Doesn't that assume this random band of thugs/monsters has meta-gamed a bit, and has the same experience with class-based tactics as you/your party does? If your average encounter is an opposing group of adventurers, then sure. If it's cave-dwelling monsters or street ruffians, then why would they have anything like that?

So for some encounters, I'm sure it might make sense. But not for all, or even for a majority. Maybe 25-35% of the time.

The rest of my post covered exactly what you said here.

It did, and I almost put that in there; instead I used your quote as a tenet of a broader argument I thought was being made in the thread. Which was stupid on my part. My apologies!

I didn't get my point across very well. It's all in the GMs discretion, and personally I think leaving a table because a GM chooses to go that route is extreme. But if the OP is looking for reasons logical NOT to do it, there are plenty for that as well. The monsters don't have to be stupid.

If I can do that as a player, then you be can be sure the enemies will have tactics to do exactly the same thing.

Doesn't that assume this random band of thugs/monsters has meta-gamed a bit, and has the same experience with class-based tactics as you/your party does? If your average encounter is an opposing group of adventurers, then sure. If it's cave-dwelling monsters or street ruffians, then why would they have anything like that?

So for some encounters, I'm sure it might make sense. But not for all, or even for a majority. Maybe 25-35% of the time.

Monsters intelligent enough to spot a caster are intelligent enough to run away if they think that "the horrors of hell" are about to be unleashed on them. The argument is that their fear of things other than death is so great that they will risk death to... fight the being who can inflict the horrors? They would just run away if they were that afraid.

Monsters are, in general, not incredibly experienced at fighting things with the lethality of an average PC party. Also, monsters and villains, like almost all evil beings, are driven by personal gain and self-sacrifice for the betterment of "the team" isn't at all logical. In the case of animals defending their homes and young, the closest threat to the home is the focal point.

On the uncommon occasion you run into a group of intelligent beings who are willing to sacrifice themselves for victory and recognize the caster as being undenaibly more deadly than the barbarian with a two-handed sword in front of them, and not being too scared to fight that caster even while thinking it is so more deadly that the guy about to cleave them in two... sure, go for the caster first.

Edit: Came across as a bit dogmatic. I mean in general. Obviously doing in sometimes would be fine, but there's no reason to think it is the logical conclusion for a majority of enemies.