Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Reynard]

I never said it was the same thing as a medusa or a finger of death. I was using it as an illustration that it's possible to take the "options, not restrictions" philosophy too far.

Or that it was the default method. And that's the problem. the argument against save or die effects, so far, has rested solely on one issue: the DM is a big fat jerk that wants to kill your beloved character. I am sure that happens, but I am sure that it is about as common, and welcome, as the Dm that gives +3 flameing swords out every time the PCs take out some giant rats. it is an extreme stereotype of a certain playstyle and is therefore meaningless in a larger discussion about the actualities of playing the game and maintaining any given group's ability to decide for themselves what is "fun" and "unfun".

 

[DandD]

And they can by using optional instant-death rules perhaps detailed in other books, for the niche of Game Masters and their gaming table who do like this sort of gameplay.

 

[Reynard]

If you want a save or die, you can just as easily put it back in. Where is the harm in taking them out?

Because if you take them out, there aren't rules for them. there's no spells that do it. Sure, if you are a grognard or whatever, you can do it pretty easy, but grognards will do what they damn well please, anyway (I should know, I am one of them). But removing them from the game wholly lessens the game by eliminating a possible element. Why do that at all?

 

[hong]

But it's not any such thing. I want the options to have a creature like a medusa in my game, or have a villain use a finger of death. If you don't care to have that sort of risk, then you are free not to use them. Those who want to use them, can.

To be precise, if I don't want to use that sort of creature, I probably also don't want to pay to include them in a book.

 

[Reynard]

And they can by using optional instant-death rules perhaps detailed in other books, for the niche of Game Masters and their gaming table who do like this sort of gameplay.

Why should it be optional, in a supplement? What is the actual harm of having them in the core books for those that want to use them? if anything, provide a little sidebar in the DMG that says, "Worried about Save-or-Die? Use this instead!"

But that is not what we are getting because there's a mandate to remove that which is "unfun" in order to make sure the game has the widest appeal possible. but by removing certian "unfun" elements -- which aren't "unfun" to many players -- the appeal is forcibly limited.

There's no benefit to the decision and no reason for it.

 

[hong]

Because if you take them out, there aren't rules for them.

Sure there are. You make them up. There's even a handy resource to help you do this; it's called the 3.5 SRD.

there's no spells that do it. Sure, if you are a grognard or whatever, you can do it pretty easy, but grognards will do what they damn well please, anyway (I should know, I am one of them).

Exactly.

But removing them from the game wholly lessens the game by eliminating a possible element.

Contrary to popular belief, adding the definite article before "game" does not make a sentence any more relevant to any individual game.

 

[Reynard]

To be precise, if I don't want to use that sort of creature, I probably also don't want to pay to include them in a book.

I have never, and will never, use a Grig. it is stupid, one of the dumbest entries in any monster manual ever. Can I ask that it not be included in the game, too?

 

[hong]

I have never, and will never, use a Grig. it is stupid, one of the dumbest entries in any monster manual ever. Can I ask that it not be included in the game, too?

Sure. And erinyes too, while we're at it.

 

[Reynard]

Sure there are. You make them up. There's even a handy resource to help you do this; it's called the 3.5 SRD.

That's wierd. i thought we were talking about the core 4E rules here?

Exactly.

Yest you seem to enjoy being deliberately obtuse on the subject.

Contrary to popular belief, adding the definite article before "game" does not make a sentence any more relevant to any individual game.

Actually, it does, because it means some people who might otherwise enjoy the game, but it and therefore make it strong and more likely to grow, won't. therefore, THE GAME is lessened because not as many people are playing it, for something that doesn't cause any problems by existing as one of the myriad of options available to any given group.

 

[Psion]

If you want a save or die, you can just as easily put it back in. Where is the harm in taking them out?

"Just as easily" as what?