D&D 4th Edition PROPOSAL: Slight Change to Retiring Rules in Charter - Page 2




What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Malaysia, Kampar
    Posts
    614

    Ignore treex
    Iron Sky, that's how I read it too, initially. But then I didn't have the guts to be that direct.

    And there's a death penalty?
    Emsy (Deva Bard 1) Kruor (Warforged Vampire 3) Themes (Genasi Scout 1)

 

  • #12
    Spawn of Khyber/LEB Judge
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)

    stonegod's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    12,535
    Blog Entries
    10

    Ignore stonegod
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by treex View Post
    Iron Sky, that's how I read it too, initially. But then I didn't have the guts to be that direct.

    And there's a death penalty?
    I got burned by the rules too. Still don't want to make it easier to cheat death by retiring though, and we should reward continuity where possible. but, as someone whose retired three characters, it shouldn't be onerous.

    Death is a -1 penalty to everything for three milestones IIRC. We rewrote that over in LEB; don't know if it was done here.
    stonegod -- LEB judge and spawn of Khyber since 2005 (Blog)

    My many characters | LEB Games | EtCR |Rise of a Demon Prince Story Hour

    "You be evil stonegod" -- Bront

  • #13
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Mewness's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Alameda
    Posts
    1,904

    Ignore Mewness
    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Sky View Post
    @Mewness , if I understand you correctly, your argument is "it sucked for me, so it wouldn't be fair if it didn't suck for everyone else?" I might be way off base on how I read that, but that seems like the best reason to change a rule rather than keep it.

    And YES by the way.
    I hope that that isn't the case. While I can't honestly say that I'm overjoyed when I retire a character and lose XP, I think that some sort of penalty is reasonable, and the existing penalty is not that onerous.

    I think it would be nice if simply revamping an existing character were easier (with a stiffer penalty for introducing a spanking new character at higher level), but that would require some sort of judgment as to what constituted a true revamp, and the approval process is complicated enough as it is.
    Papolstaanas (babbling kobold); Pharodeys (living statue); Scarmiglione (singing kenku)

  • #14
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    CrimsonFlameWielder's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    26035 Moulton Parkway #140, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
    Posts
    936

    Ignore CrimsonFlameWielder
    It has been more than 48 hours now, since the count of Yes votes was 2 more than that of the No votes. I believe that means that this proposal passes, right?

  • #15
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Dekana's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    2,070

    Ignore Dekana
    This really bums me out. I don't want to play in a game where there's no consequence to failure.
    close the world, .txEn eht nepo

  • #16
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Dekana's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    Posts
    2,070

    Ignore Dekana
    Would there be any support for an amendment to this proposal to make a distinction between retirement due to character death and retirement for other reasons? Something like:

    If a PC dies and that player chooses to retire the dead character, the next PC that player creates using retirement option A starts with enough XP to reach the same level of the dead character (instead of the same XP total).
    close the world, .txEn eht nepo

  • #17
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    CrimsonFlameWielder's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    26035 Moulton Parkway #140, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
    Posts
    936

    Ignore CrimsonFlameWielder
    Dekana:

    I'm not a judge, but I would support something along those lines. The only problem is...how do you prevent someone from allowing their character to be revived, play a couple of extra encounters to throw off suspicion, and then decide that they don't want to play that character and retire it without penalty?

    Should the amendment state that they are considered to be retiring due to death during the period that they are under the influence of the death penalty?

  • #18
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    covaithe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    4,971

    Ignore covaithe
    My communities:

    Proposals need (at least) 3 yes votes to pass, so the timer is from Iron Sky's post, not mine. This hasn't passed yet.

    I'm getting the feeling that people want to talk more about this before it passes, so I'm going to change my vote to NO temporarily, so that it won't pass while we're still talking.

    Seems like there are three options:

    1. status quo. There is still a (variable) penalty for dying and for retiring. Downside is that there are strange corner cases where what seems to me like a disproportionately high amount of XP can be lost for retiring, like the OP of this thread.

    2. remove the penalty for retiring. If we do this then we have to decide what to do about death. Keeping the penalty seems weird; it's better to retire. Removing the penalty for death also seems weird.

    3. Something in between. A reduced penalty of some kind, details yet to be specified. Pros and cons depend on the details.

    Do I have it about right?
    My games

    Check out Living 4th Edition, a community-run 4e D&D living world open to all. Now open for character and adventure submissions!

  • #19
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    CrimsonFlameWielder's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    26035 Moulton Parkway #140, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
    Posts
    936

    Ignore CrimsonFlameWielder
    I think you have it about right, Covaithe.

  • #20
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    FourMonos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    2,278

    Ignore FourMonos
    What about those who have paid the fee of lost experience previously? I know Mewness didn't retire his character completely, just changed his kobold to a different class which he felt better represented him. I've done this myself and lost xp. Also dimsdale, stonegod and others who wanted to try a new character concept?

    Does it fall into the "you knew what you were doing under the previous rules" section and that's just how it is?

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Proposal: change the rules for character approval
      By covaithe in forum Living 4th Edition
      Replies: 48
      Last Post: Tuesday, 13th December, 2011, 06:33 PM
    2. Slight change to combat round.
      By BeholderBurger in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 13
      Last Post: Monday, 14th June, 2004, 09:42 AM
    3. Slight change to combat round.
      By BeholderBurger in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: Monday, 7th June, 2004, 07:29 AM
    4. A slight change to maximise spell
      By Stalker0 in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: Friday, 6th February, 2004, 07:48 AM
    5. Slight change to Knockdown
      By SableWyvern in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: Monday, 3rd June, 2002, 05:43 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •