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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4159053" data-attributes="member: 18490">If this kind of rule suits your campaign style, I say go for it. IMC I wouldn't use it. I like there to be some chance of the PCs not being able to one shot just anyone. I like the chance that they could try to one shot a guard and find out that he's not so easily killed. And I should point out that all of my guards usually have names, just in case the party decides to talk to them.The situation probably wouldn't arise IMC anyway. Most every guard the characters meet will likely be a minion, for the same reason that I use war 2 guards in my 13th level FR campaign. Most of the folks the party encounters aren't in their league. They can mow through common guards with relative ease. From a plot point, their presence just serves to slow the party down until a real response can be mustered. I'm expecting 4e to handle this better than 3e does. A higher level minion can still have a reasonable chance to hit and damage the party than a low level warrior does, but he's much more easily defeated.I guess my point is that I like to place minions where I want them and standard opponents where I want them, and I don't want a rule that changes this for me. Even if its a rule only I know about, I would be likely to follow it. Maybe we're talking semantics here, but if it were a guiding principal of GMing I would probably react better to it. I'm not opposed to altering an encounter to better fit the story, but calling it a rule (at least in my mind) implies that it is the standard, and not just something I can do to improve the story as it plays out.I hope this rambling discourse makes sense.</blockquote>

Verification