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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5622571" data-attributes="member: 48518">That's because the basis of the present example (propose by another poster) is that the DM wishes to impose one particular outcome to the encounter, i.e. that the NPC is dying and can't be healed. Like I said above, I would prefer not to do this kind of preset encoutner myself.On a typical game session though, DM and player should both end up picking up each other's propositions. But eventually, the DM has to decide on certain things that go against  the player's will. The player wants everything he tries to work, but the  DM gives out challenges that includes some of the player's propositions  not working. The player has to be aware of that and work for the best of the story even when his propositions are refused.Every single combatant wishes to pierce lung or heart, or behead his opponent, when he deals a sword stroke. However, in D&D there are no called shots. You have to explain, as a player (or perhaps you leave that to the DM also) why your sword stroke was not leathal to the enemy.This is precisely the same, to me, as explaining why one sword stroke was lethal, but allowed the NPC to survive long enough to still talk to the PC.If rigidity of the rules is what you're looking for, the situation doesn't prevent it: the NPC fell below 0 hit points (or -10, or whatever value your game uses as a death threshold), however the DM still allows that NPC to talk one last time. The rules remain unchanged for game purposes. So if it is a mechanical rule answer you want when you ask your DM why you can't heal the NPC, the DM can answer: because he's beyond the death threshold. I don't see how that is so far fetched.I feel that one problem with the present situation is that we're arguing about a cliche no one wants in his game at the outset. All I'm saying is: it's usually very possible to help the DM along when he makes a proposition, and likewise the DM should be attentive to the player when the latter makes a proposition; and sometimes they'll be conflicting and one of them will have to yield. In the present example of the cliche, the player yielded; but if the basic proposition had been different and the DM was the one yielding to the player's proposition, would it be different?</blockquote>

Verification