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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 5830803" data-attributes="member: 20323">[MENTION=6677983][OMENRPG]Ben[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION] both made really good points.Maybe player "save or die" abilities should look different than monster "save or die" abilities? Different in that the players version is more of the instant death variety, while monsters version is more graduated/granular.The coup de grace rule example is a great one, and could arguably play out differently for PCs than monsters. The DM might be given the option to treat named NPCs as PCs - giving them "immunity" to one shot coup de grace (but not the associated damage of course).Hey, that assumes an assassin is fighting fair. I posted this up thread but it seems to have been lost. Assassins are about a play style that's all about setting up the kill, cheap shots, and anticlimactic deaths of bigwig NPCs. The assassin is all about not playing fair. So I'd imagine the situation where an assassin needs to kill one monster separate from a group of monsters would be fairly common.The sticky wicket is elite NPCs (since we're using 4e terminology). I don't want any PC to one-shot an elite NPC. Period. Ordinary monsters that's fine, your argument about 4e damage equivalency makes sense. But one of the things I really disliked about older editions (I'm thinking 2e and 3e) was the proliferation of SoD effects which then led to escalation of magic resistance, gamey references to "only effects creatures of 6 HD or less", and special lists of immunities that took up a paragraph.If you are introducing a SoD effect, for players or monsters, then elite NPCs need protection from the SoD effect, and that protection should not be complex, arbitrary, or stand out as rules trumping story.</blockquote>

Verification