Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8477778" data-attributes="member: 7006">For me, the only downside to this though is you are killing off the tank, which means the wrong person is getting the raw end of the deal in my opinion.&nbsp; As I mentioned in my first post, my tables have enough players (and thus PCs with healing) that the odds of actually getting to that TPK are long.&nbsp; So even though the tank bites it, the ranger-type player never actually reaches the point where they too are at risk (let alone more than once and thus establishing the point). Instead, they get to still live while the tank has to either hope to get raised or make a new PC.I mean if I really wanted to try and make some sort of point it would need to be lots of fights where the enemies all seem to arrive out from the edges and go right after the rear-guard and ranged characters while avoiding the front-line.&nbsp; Which, if I was trying a 'me-vs-them' thing, then sure I could do that.&nbsp; But narratively I just can't justify that metagame enemy action occur so often as to try and stick it to the ranger.&nbsp; It makes little sense, so I don't do it.Truth be told... usually my way of coaxing those types of players along is to change up character creation format for each new campaign so that they can't play their tried-and-true archetype each and every time.&nbsp; The 'roll in order' stat method can do wonder in that regard when they roll high on STR and/or CON and playing melee in the upcoming game is the only real choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8477778, member: 7006"] For me, the only downside to this though is you are killing off the tank, which means the wrong person is getting the raw end of the deal in my opinion. As I mentioned in my first post, my tables have enough players (and thus PCs with healing) that the odds of actually getting to that TPK are long. So even though the tank bites it, the ranger-type player never actually reaches the point where they too are at risk (let alone more than once and thus establishing the point). Instead, they get to still live while the tank has to either hope to get raised or make a new PC. I mean if I really wanted to try and make some sort of point it would need to be lots of fights where the enemies all seem to arrive out from the edges and go right after the rear-guard and ranged characters while avoiding the front-line. Which, if I was trying a 'me-vs-them' thing, then sure I could do that. But narratively I just can't justify that metagame enemy action occur so often as to try and stick it to the ranger. It makes little sense, so I don't do it. Truth be told... usually my way of coaxing those types of players along is to change up character creation format for each new campaign so that they can't play their tried-and-true archetype each and every time. The 'roll in order' stat method can do wonder in that regard when they roll high on STR and/or CON and playing melee in the upcoming game is the only real choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification