Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3774670" data-attributes="member: 40961">You're right, it doesn't prevent people from just dying, because they could get hit by multiple hits in one round.&nbsp; There's only so much the rules can do.&nbsp; The rest has to go to DM judgment.&nbsp; And as for the risk of failure in attempting to escape after the &quot;first life&quot; is gone, it would depend on the method used to permit escape.&nbsp; I just think that there should be 1) a chance to try, and 2) something to try.&nbsp; Action points are one option.&nbsp; Second Wind effects are another.&nbsp; High mobility and the ability to flee is another.&nbsp; A once per day attack that you were saving but get forced to use on an orc mook is yet another.&nbsp; Each has its own likelihood of success, from 100% to an attack roll to who knows.&nbsp; This isn't a specific prescription, its a design philosophy.Action points are certainly one way to get this done.Personally, I think you've managed the remarkable feat of threadcrapping in the OP.Your choice to leave out the second half of my post was unreasonable.&nbsp; Your strategy of argumentation in the OP was to use me to demonstrate a position on how D&amp;D should function, then to move off on your own to list a number of ways my position could be enacted, and to demonstrate that the unsatisfactory nature of these options showed that my position wasn't a good one.&nbsp; This argument relies on the assumption that your list is at least reasonably comprehensive.But it wasn't.&nbsp; You left out one option simply by cutting off your excerpt where you did.Do you see why this bothers me?&nbsp; Its as if I wrote the following:&quot;We should do X, by method A.&quot;&nbsp; and you responded,&quot;Some people think we should do X.&nbsp; Here's a quote of one person who thinks that.&nbsp; But how can we do X?&nbsp; Available methods are B, C, D, and E.&nbsp; All of these are bad for the following reasons.&nbsp; Therefore we shouldn't do X.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 3774670, member: 40961"] You're right, it doesn't prevent people from just dying, because they could get hit by multiple hits in one round. There's only so much the rules can do. The rest has to go to DM judgment. And as for the risk of failure in attempting to escape after the "first life" is gone, it would depend on the method used to permit escape. I just think that there should be 1) a chance to try, and 2) something [I]to[/I] try. Action points are one option. Second Wind effects are another. High mobility and the ability to flee is another. A once per day attack that you were saving but get forced to use on an orc mook is yet another. Each has its own likelihood of success, from 100% to an attack roll to who knows. This isn't a specific prescription, its a design philosophy. Action points are certainly one way to get this done. Personally, I think you've managed the remarkable feat of threadcrapping in the OP. Your choice to leave out the second half of my post was unreasonable. Your strategy of argumentation in the OP was to use me to demonstrate a position on how D&D should function, then to move off on your own to list a number of ways my position could be enacted, and to demonstrate that the unsatisfactory nature of these options showed that my position wasn't a good one. This argument relies on the assumption that your list is at least reasonably comprehensive. But it wasn't. You left out one option simply by cutting off your excerpt where you did. Do you see why this bothers me? Its as if I wrote the following: "We should do X, by method A." and you responded, "Some people think we should do X. Here's a quote of one person who thinks that. But how can we do X? Available methods are B, C, D, and E. All of these are bad for the following reasons. Therefore we shouldn't do X." [/QUOTE]

Verification