Heart Attack

[The Souljourner]

Here's my point... if it is your intention to allow the PCs to save the guy, then you just allow them to save him. Obviously Restoration seems like an awfully stupid cure to a heart attack, whereas Heal makes perfect sense. Maybe a few Cure spells would work. My point is, the characters in the game don't know about constitution damage or hitpoints. They know the guy is having a heart attack. If they do something that you think should work/help, then let it work/help. Why does the DM, lord of all existance, need to roll a die to see if something totally unconnected to the PCs kills his NPC? You can just choose what happens.

I think DMs rely on the rules and rolling dice way too much these days. For combat, it's fine, because combat has a lot of inherent randomness. The rest of the world should be totally under your control. You shouldn't expect an NPC to live, and then roll a 1 on his fort save and have him die. As a DM you can just decide one way or the other. If it truly doesn't matter, then why are you bothering to decide that the guy has a heart attack in the first place?

-The Souljourner

 

[Tetsubo]

Probably because he wants some idea of what the PCs can do to interfere. Having someone die when the PCs ought to be able to save him is pretty annoying for the players.

Exactly. I want the PC's to have the *potential* of saving the NPC. But if they do nothing the NPC will die. I think I will go with the Stop Heart version. I don't own the book but the description given here will do nicely. I don't have a problem with "making stuff up". But I would rather have a mechanic that is fair and consistant. I prefer to pay out the rope and let the PC's hang themselves...