Can a dead character be healed by RAW? (Forked Thread: Bloodied vs. Dying)

[keterys]

I and I suspect a few others on these boards are stout defenders of Rule 0. This is not to say that a DM who is arbitrary and capricious in his or her rulings deserves anything less than a player walk-out, but I have, and will continue to, rule that oozes can't be knocked prone, insubstantial creatures cannot be forced to move by Strength attacks, and that bloodied and dying are mutually exclusive states of being. And "anything at all I feel like" at the time. "But the rules say I can/don't say I can't..." is the whine of the player who is quickly shown the door in my game. Oddly, I still happen to have a great bunch of players show up at my place every week for more of my arbitrary and capricious rulings...

Just to be clear - I'm not arguing that it's bad to change up the game. I love changing up the game. Actually, I sometimes get derailed and write up huge things of too much changing the game, then don't get to use them. Oops.

I just don't agree with changing it in ways that hurt the players without letting them know in advance, as a general rule. For example, if a player knows that physical melee types are often hindered in attempts to knock things prone or forced movement (as seems to be the case), they can avoid those powers or they might instead make a swordmage or sorcerer. If those decisions are sprung on them later in the campaign, it can marginalize a lot of their choices and potentially even change up their entire character. I could easily see a fighter with lots of forced movement and prone powers playing for a few levels, then the campaign turns into 'Against the Ghosts and Oozes' and he goes 'Err, wait, why do my Footwork Lure, Knockdown Assault, and Tide of Iron powers all suck now!?'

Now, the insubstantial thing could potentially help a shadar-kai PC - would you make them immune to Str-based forced movement from monsters after a shadow jaunt (ie, while insubstantial)? Does it apply to a cleric's Split the Sky, which is a Str attack that pushes with a clap of thunder? Or a rogue's Positioning Strike (Dex vs. Will)? I've seen a DM disallow Positioning Strike entirely because it seemed unrealistic, that was something.

Would a wizard's power that created a giant hand that flattened its target and held it flat against the ground be able to prone an ooze?

For those who like making all oozes immune to prone, how about making them immune to sneak attack? From a standpoint of either fairness or realism, is there a big difference between those decisions?

At any rate, the group decides what's most fun for it (or, if in a LFR game, has a lot less choice in the matter, sadly) - but I quite honestly think the game is a lot easier on both DM and players to just roll with like 99% of the system, than cut off options due to disagreements over realism.

And that's speaking as someone who mostly DMs home games - I have to play in LFR and am well aware of the penalties of strict adherence to RAW.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

Cheers!

 

[Nail]

At any rate, the group decides what's most fun for it (or, if in a LFR game, has a lot less choice in the matter, sadly) - but I quite honestly think the game is a lot easier on both DM and players to just roll with like 99% of the system, than cut off options due to disagreements over realism.

FWIW, I have also found that changing rules because I think they are "unrealistic" has lead to as many problems as changing it solved. For one thing, how I view "how things work" is simply different than how other folks see it.

Far better to just stick with RAW whenever possible.

 

[keterys]

Right - but if the entire group agrees that something is unrealistic and it's jarring or less fun, it is very much worth making the change for the group's sake. IME, it's best to kinda blink during the game session and go 'Wait, it works like what!? Err, let's talk about this after the session a little.'

 

[Nail]

Word.

 

[N0Man]

FWIW, I have also found that changing rules because I think they are "unrealistic" has lead to as many problems as changing it solved. For one thing, how I view "how things work" is simply different than how other folks see it.

Far better to just stick with RAW whenever possible.

I really want to throw in my support on this statement.

I can't tell you how many times the games from an otherwise good DM's have become tedious and frustrating because the DM arbitrary restrictions on players (that were more restrictive than the basic rules) for the sake of "realism".

I remember vividly house rules like:

DM: "Just leveling and getting new spells, feats, and skills automatically is too unrealistic. Everyone will have to receive training through the course of adventures in order to train ranks in the skills and feats you want, and you will have to have access of places of research to learn new spells... "

Player: "But... this adventure is mostly nothing but swamps and jungles in a kingdom where Arcane magic is forbidden by law... I'm level 3 now and I'm still stuck using the same spells I started with at level 1!"

Or...

DM: "My world has wild magic and dead magic zones, where your arcane spells may act differently or not at all. You won't be able to automatically no when you're in such a zone, but you might sense it, depending on the secret roll I make."

Player: "Great... but why aren't there dead zones where the prayers can't be heard by clerics, or where shields magically don't work for fighters?"

DM: That's just how arcane magic is, it's unpredictable and mysterious."