Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Water Bob" data-source="post: 5616548" data-attributes="member: 92305">That's the issue.&nbsp; Unrealistically, the rules don't say &quot;yes&quot;.&nbsp;In 3.5, a character is just as healthy and spry with 1 HP as he is at max HP.&nbsp; He's disabled with limited action at 0 HP, but he's not dying.&nbsp; And, when he reaches -1 HP, he's unconscious and dying, so he can't say anything.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree.&nbsp; Instead of -1 or less HP indicating totally unconscious and unresponsive, what if it meant &quot;incapacitated&quot;?&nbsp; A person could be incapacitated, conscious or semi-conscious, communicative, and dying all a the same time.&nbsp;I just re-watched one of my favorite movies the other day, Forrest Gump.&nbsp; Remember the scene where Bubba is dying in Viet Nam?&nbsp; He's laying there with a palm leaf held tight over his blown open innards, saying his last words to Gump straight up to the point where his stare becomes glassy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think the 3.5 player feels somewhat cheated when this happens, though.&nbsp; They know that, by the rules, they should be able to save the dying person very quickly.&nbsp;I don't want to turn this into an edition war, but it does seem to me that the 1E rule set encouraged DM fiat much more often than the 3.5 rule set, thus 1E players had a better time of accepting the scene the DM played out in front of them as opposed to a 3.5 game where players think, &quot;He's just doing that to advance the story.&nbsp; I guess I'll roll with it even though I know I can save the NPC.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Water Bob, post: 5616548, member: 92305"] That's the issue. Unrealistically, the rules don't say "yes". In 3.5, a character is just as healthy and spry with 1 HP as he is at max HP. He's disabled with limited action at 0 HP, but he's not dying. And, when he reaches -1 HP, he's unconscious and dying, so he can't say anything. I agree. Instead of -1 or less HP indicating totally unconscious and unresponsive, what if it meant "incapacitated"? A person could be incapacitated, conscious or semi-conscious, communicative, and dying all a the same time. I just re-watched one of my favorite movies the other day, Forrest Gump. Remember the scene where Bubba is dying in Viet Nam? He's laying there with a palm leaf held tight over his blown open innards, saying his last words to Gump straight up to the point where his stare becomes glassy. I think the 3.5 player feels somewhat cheated when this happens, though. They know that, by the rules, they should be able to save the dying person very quickly. I don't want to turn this into an edition war, but it does seem to me that the 1E rule set encouraged DM fiat much more often than the 3.5 rule set, thus 1E players had a better time of accepting the scene the DM played out in front of them as opposed to a 3.5 game where players think, "He's just doing that to advance the story. I guess I'll roll with it even though I know I can save the NPC." [/QUOTE]

Verification