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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4153663" data-attributes="member: 57832">I apologize, then, for my own misinterpretation, and there is no dislike between us from my end.  I hope I haven't engendered any from yours.Actually, it rather is.  Allow me to clarify: there is a comparison, and a sub-point.  The comparison is between healing and raise dead.  Why are NPCs allowed one and not the other?  Not the fluff, really, not the mechanics, but what problem was this intended to fix?  This bring us to the sub-point:  who was having a problem with NPCs getting raised all the time?  In this edition and all previous ones, it was ultimately the DMs choice.  There were already limitations in place.  9th level Cleric (suspiciously close to Paragon level.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).  5,000 gp in diamonds.  Not cash, not a +3 Flametongue, not a suit of Mithril Plate of Etheralness.  Diamonds.  Plus an intact corpse no more than a week dead.  For Resurrection, the financing was even more stringent.  10,000 in diamonds and a 13th level Cleric.  Perhaps the king has a stash of diamonds and a high level cleric on retinue for such exigencies, but even a smidgin of verisimilitude suggests that the king won't be trotting out the cleric and a pile of diamonds every time some Tom, Duke or Baron gets themselves killed in a peasant uprising.I would say that part is an indicator that NPCs are dead at zero, full stop.  As a tactical option, I am not sure if that is what I would want in a game.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Having your followers/henchmen falling out every battle could end up a problem.That is correct.  I don't necessarily have a problem with this in 4e.  What sets me off is the notion that it is some great innovation.  Especially since the later few announcements seem to comprise the same notion.  A re-statement of how things are currently done so as to sound like a quantum leap of advancement.I should have included this in the quote above.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As a factor of the strict-ish separation of PC and NPC rules, that would be more or less accurate.  As an adjunct of the point that the rules are more streamlined, as well.  To me, having NPCs following different rules than PCs by design will add to the handle time, at the very least.  I have pointed out in other places how monster sub-systems will also add to handle time, and raise conflicts with players.  Bugbear strangling, for example, or kobold firepots.  Using rules to separate these things is problematic.Again, I apologize for my earlier comments, and I hope I have clarified my views on this.</blockquote>

Verification