Death and Dying: Annoying new subsystem reduces fun.

[Celebrim]

A slippery slope argument isn't fallacious if you can demonstrate a direct inevitability between one step and the next- it's not fallacious to say that if I fall off a building, I'll keep falling.

Except, strictly speaking, that it is. Because, there are almost always some circumstance we can devise that prevents something from being inevitable. For example, you could have a hang-glider, be attached to a bunji cord, or quantum mechanics could rear its ugly head and suddenly all your rushing particles all line up and decide to rush away from the ground.

A slippery slope argument doesn't need to demonstrate strict inevitability. All it needs to demonstrate is that interupting the process is alot harder than continuing it. For example, suppose I was creating a sum by throwing a dice. If the number comes up 1-3, I subtract that number from the sum, and if it comes up 4-6 I add that number to the something. It's far from enevitable that my sum will get larger and larger, and at fine scales it does not in fact do so. But its pretty obvious that in fact, most of the time I'm on a 'slippery slope' regardless of the fact that the outcome isn't inevitable.

I can't argue against your personal experience. Since I don't know you, your personal experience is rather much an absolute conversation ender. You believe it, and there isn't anything I can say to make you believe that what you believe has happened isn't or didn't happen. I won't try. For all I know, you in fact aren't even trending toward this end state and are honestly relating to me an objective description of events.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really overturn my point, and in fact its well within my description that on a fine scale certain groups or individuals would be even running up the slope.

 

[danzig138]

D. If you've ever DM'd, you'd know why this is gold. It's the standard rule nearly all experienced DMs use --

Sorry, no. Been DMing for, let's see, coming up on 20 years now, and it's not gold - it's just a different rule. Less presumption please.

How often do NPCs have some spells already cast, or save spells for future castings, when fighting a party (PCs do both all the time)?

Frequently. Pretty much any time a spellcaster NPC has spells he'd need to have up.

How often do NPCs have feats or skills or other choices they have made which are sub-optimal purely because it is a prerequisite for something they plan on taking in the future (PCs do this all the time)?

Again, frequently. And often not because it's a prerequisite for something, but because I think it fits with the NPC.

How often do NPCs have a full adventuring pack, and have their encumbrance checked based on the items they typically carry as opposed to just their armor?

How often do they have a full adventuring pack? Depends on their circumstance. If they're in a tavern or inn, their pack is usually stowed away somewhere (like their room), but I typically have a list of its contents. Encumbrance is calculated and applied in the same manner as with the PCs.

And as pointed out, how often do you roll for their ability scores or give them full PC treasure?

How often do I roll for ability scores? Well, it depends. If I'm using a stat block out of the book, I usually use that. If the NPC isn't based on a stat block, I generate his scores in whatever method I used for the PCs for the campaign. Might be 3d6 in order, 4d6-1 as desired, or a set amount of points. If you're implying what I think you're implying, no, I never just assign sscores to NPCs arbitrarily. They typically have treasure equivalent to their station. A peasant won't have much, regardless of level. Mad Sorcerer Bob will probably have a full compliment of goodies based on his levels as if a PC, though he might use some of them up in the ensuing battle.

NPCs are inherently different than PCs. It's appropriate to treat them different, and to give them their own sub system of doing things that is different than the PC sub system.

That works for some people, as evidenced by these threads. I've always treated the NPCs like PCs that weren't run by the players.

As for the whole "Do you roll stabilization checks for every bad guy?" question - No, I don't. Because I didn't use that system for PCs either. When you hit 0, you made a Will save to remain conscious, but hurt. Every bad guy made the save. When you hit the negatives, you started losing hit points every 1d10 rounds, and yes, I tracked it for every bad guy.

Concerning the new rules presented. . . do i like them? No. Does it matter? Also no, since it's only another thing telling me 4E isn't designed for my playstyle, and that's perfectly okay. It look slike it's going to work for the playstyle of a lot of you, and that's cool, as long as the WotCorps don't come and take my books.

Some of the pro responders in the threads about this subject are being buttheads about it though, just short of copming out and saying "You're playing wrong!". I'd really rather see them actually just come out and say it, or back off the implications and veiled assumptions.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, one little bit of revision to that last statement. If the DM does decide to use this rule for all the NPCs, over the long run, it will make things significantly more difficult for the PCs. Dropping a bad guy, having him roll a 20 on his survival die and then be up and fighting at 25% hit points--that's got the potential to be pretty nasty. (I can think of a certain fallen eladrin in Age of Worms that would probably have TPKed my party if that had happened). And sooner or later you're going to have a session where that happens to the first three bad guys to get dropped in the first round that they've been down. If it was a tough fight to begin with, that could well be TPK time.

So, revise my previous post. If your DM is feeling nice, he'll have to go through this subroutine on everything he would ordinarily check death/dying for in 3.x. On the other hand, if your DM is feeling mean (or simply rejects the idea that NPCs should play by different rules than PCs), he could use it for everyone and that will make things a lot hairier. I'd expect to see in-combat coup de graces on a regular basis if it becomes a popular DMing tactic.

Here's to the law of unintended consequences.