Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3823355" data-attributes="member: 30001">So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects?&nbsp; Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)?&nbsp; Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round? Why does this sort of reasoning keep occuring?&nbsp; Rule X is bad because it fulfills some set of criteria.&nbsp; Rules Y-Z seem to fit the same criteria and yet escape notice.&nbsp; Somewhere, I think, in all of this are a big pile of assumptions.&nbsp; Not only are these assumptions not stated by the individuals making the case, but they also seemed to be based on play styles or house rules that are not expressed in the RAW either.&nbsp; For example, taking 4 rounds to kill a PC instead of 1 is better maybe because the DM can fudge and cheat to prevent it from happening.&nbsp; If this is the standard practice of those advocating this change, I think it would be fair to state that up front, instead of arguing as if this makes sense from the perspective of the RAW when the practice of fudging to save the lives of PCs is not an aspect of the RAW.&nbsp; I don't want a DM who fudges all of the time to design the game system that I use.(Edit:&nbsp; in other words, to address your point/sarcasm Cadfan, I think it's fair to question the philosophy backing a rule change when that philosophy seems to cover much more ground than the rule in question.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3823355, member: 30001"] So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round? Why does this sort of reasoning keep occuring? Rule X is bad because it fulfills some set of criteria. Rules Y-Z seem to fit the same criteria and yet escape notice. Somewhere, I think, in all of this are a big pile of assumptions. Not only are these assumptions not stated by the individuals making the case, but they also seemed to be based on play styles or house rules that are not expressed in the RAW either. For example, taking 4 rounds to kill a PC instead of 1 is better maybe because the DM can fudge and cheat to prevent it from happening. If this is the standard practice of those advocating this change, I think it would be fair to state that up front, instead of arguing as if this makes sense from the perspective of the RAW when the practice of fudging to save the lives of PCs is not an aspect of the RAW. I don't want a DM who fudges all of the time to design the game system that I use. (Edit: in other words, to address your point/sarcasm Cadfan, I think it's fair to question the philosophy backing a rule change when that philosophy seems to cover much more ground than the rule in question.) [/QUOTE]

Verification