Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4062731" data-attributes="member: 3424">I wouldn't frame the issue in such absolute terms. Most of the time in 3e, the PCs weren't in much danger of death, either. The chance of rolling a 1 - the 5% chance of death - wasn't likely, but it encouraged a cautious style of play that some gamers feel is at odds with how bold adventurers should behave. Opening the door, reading the scroll, taking the gem off the plinth, etc. were all approached with caution even if 19 times out of 20, the outcome was no different from the character simply Just Doing It. What the rules seem to me to be doing is to replace the very small chance of a very bad thing happening with a larger chance of a not-so-bad (but still bad) thing happening. On average, the same amount of bad will happen to the character, but the character gets to act more like a daring adventurer, and to keep acting like a daring adventurer because one bad roll isn't going to kill him.This to me has nothing to do with heroism. There is nothing particularly heroic about either deciding to take 20 to search for traps on a door, or just opening it and walking through. There is nothing particularly heroic about either choosing to stay on a runaway mine cart, or choosing to drop off. I reserve the term heroic for more significant decisions on the part of the character: Risk his life to save the NPC, or run away? Give up a prized magic item to ransom a prisoner, or leave him to his fate? Agree to help a ruthless Duke expand his holdings in exchange for assistance against a more evil foe, or refuse his offer? Minor decisions of the sort previously mentioned have more to do with fun and flair than what I would consider to be heroism.I believe that the 3e rules encouraged caution (even if they did not discourage heroism), and if the 4e rules encourage a bit more risk-taking in between acts of actual heroism, I'd be all for them.</blockquote>

Verification