Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RotGrub" data-source="post: 6405797" data-attributes="member: 6777078">Let me be clear,  I think that statement is true for the entire game. For this particular thread; however, we are talking about shared actions.    If you want to talk about other aspects of the game that also need to be fixed,  I'm more than willing to discuss solutions to those issues in a general thread about the topic.  We generally only tolerate things if they are seldom used or the rules become far too complicated otherwise.  Even still, we will opt for abstractions that don't cause make the game feel like a contrived boardgame.  Surviving is fine.   There is nothing wrong with that.  Heck even the 2e PHB provided examples of people who have fallen from great heights and still survived.  High level PCs surviving more often can also be justified by accepting that much of that damage is luck / fate based.  Of course, I have played with lower hit point totals and even save or die falling mechanics.   To a large extent 2e is a great system for that because the max hit point totals are far lower.  Now, if you came to my game upset about how unbelievable the falling rules are, I would work with you to fix it, but I will not under any circumstance accept one bad rule because other bad rules exist.   If you think a rule doesn't make sense I'll most likely agree with you. Of course, the falling rules are not used that often.  They don't consistently create a jarring issue every round, like the shared action rule does. In comparison, falling rules would be low on the hit list for things that need to be fixed.  I would strive to remove such rules at all costs.   You can point out a dozen other rules that don't make sense, but as I've said I'd house rule that crap away or I'll just refuse to play that system.  I'd rather play the system that strives to at least include rules that are believable and consistent.   It's also a fallacy to suggest that rules can't be believable AND balanced.   The two are not mutually exclusive.</blockquote>

Verification