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="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 4062893" data-attributes="member: 13107">So ... to quibble, int 8 plus wis 8 doesn't quite seem to be darwin awards territory, but that's just IMO.I have a little problem with the description of the choice to jump out as being wrong.  Seems to have been a valid choice based on the information available, and certainly not wrong in terms of "did the character have fun with the decision".  The text is self-contradictory in this regard: Was the untrained check really "pulled out of their [expletive deleted]", in which isn't the decision to not attempt the jump seems rather correct?  (If the check was unfailable, or had no real consequence on failure, then as the player who decided not to take the jump I'd be a bit annoyed.)My biggest problem with the example is that it doesn't really support the conclusion.  That is, that "4E allows for more risk taking".  I agree with other poster's that the car ride could have been run perfectly well using 3.5E rules.Also the "physics of darkmantles" is partly by DM fiat.  But, in my approximation using the 3.5 rules, a 30mph collision is about a  30' fall, so 3d6 would be the expected damage, so a "splat" effect seems about right.To step up out of the particulars of the argument, what I'm seeing is a failure in the form of the argument that is being made.  The conclusion may be true, but the reasoning that gets us there doesn't actually support the conclusion.Thx!</blockquote>

Verification