NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnLynch" data-source="post: 6808787" data-attributes="member: 6749563">Yes it does. 1) Start your players at a higher level or 2) Do not place a bear or other CR 1/2 creatures in front of your level 1 PCs.Let's say this did result in death due to bad luck (it didn't, but it could have by RAW) and you then fudged things so that the death didn't occur. It only demonstrates that you will fudge things when you accidentally throw a creature that is too powerful for the situation at the players. That doesn't teach them the game is dangerous, it teaches them the opposite fact.A quick look at the bear tells us that if he hits twice he'll deal on average 12 damage. If you target the PC wizard with CON 10 this is an automatic death by RAW. Fudging things to remove that death is a failure IMO. Change the rules, not the rolls is a better philosophy than going with "I'll just fudge it whenever something happens that I don't like." IMOIf you want to show your players how dangerous the game is, do so in a scenario where fudging isn't necessary. Homebrew a creature or use one from the book that won't autokill the Wizard if both attacks hit. Or don't target the squishiest PC in the table. A critical hit on both attacks, but using average damage rolls (as RAW allows) will not result in an automatic death on the fighter. Therefore no fudging is even necessary in this scenario. Simply target a PC you know will be able to withstand the attack (a CON 12 fighter can withstand such an attack).I don't see anything "wrong" with it as you're being upfront about it, but it is a failure on the part of the DM to correctly gauge the situation and place an appropriate danger in front of the PCs to get the appropriate result. If you're using critical hits in your game, than they must become part of the consideration you use when placing dangers in front of the characters.Saying "use options A, B, C which all exist under the current rules or options X, Y and Z as houserules to get your desired effect" is not introducing a rule for every possibly circumstance. If you don't want a deadly game, use rules that make the game less deadly. That's not a 300 page tome filled with minutiae. It's a pretty simply guideline and the rules that would fulfill this are all fairly simple.A game where such a philosophy is being used is a game I will not enjoy. Thankfully you as a DM would be honest so there'd be no need for acrimony and I would simply avoid your table from the beginning. I like death being part of the game. I don't want a DM to arbitrarily take death away from me when I deal with the dangers that are presented before me. It takes away my player agency by denying me the opportunity to suffer the consequences of my failure. I'd rather play in a game where houserules are in place to remove the deadliness of the game rather than a game where fudging is employed after a situation has been placed in front of me.</blockquote>

Verification