Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3845462" data-attributes="member: 18549">On that note, I just finished posting something relevant over in the &quot;What's gold gonna be for&quot; thread, in which I argued that training rules should be an option.&nbsp; In general, I think that there are certain things that are valuable only to specific styles of play that should be included as options, but not built into the core.&nbsp; Training is one, save-or-die spells are another.&nbsp; A sidebar containing instructions for converting certain save-or-damage or save-or-penalty spells into save-or-die spells is all it would take to include them in the game for the people who want them.&nbsp; It is more difficult to remove them than it is to flag certain spells as potential save-or-die spells, due to the way that core spells are included in published materials.&nbsp; For example, if a wizard is printed with Finger of Death, here are two ways to handle it:First, Finger of Death could be save-or-die, and the DM could come up with some alternate effect or replace the spell.Second, Finger of Death could have an effect that is replaceable by &quot;or die&quot;.&nbsp; This could be true for all [Death] spells, to simplify the system.The burden on the first DM is greater than the burden on the second.&nbsp; If the majority of players wanted save-or-die effects, there might be a better argument for the first situation, but that does not appear to be the case, evidenced in part by the way that they're removing them from the game.&nbsp; I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that this might be part of the response to player feedback that they're always talking about with respect to 4E design decisions.&nbsp; It appears to me to be evidence that they've seen a consistent negative response to that kind of effect, and so are changing it to suit the majority of players.&nbsp; In that case, it makes sense to stick it in as an optional rule for those who enjoy that style of play from earlier editions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 3845462, member: 18549"] On that note, I just finished posting something relevant over in the "What's gold gonna be for" thread, in which I argued that training rules should be an option. In general, I think that there are certain things that are valuable only to specific styles of play that should be included as options, but not built into the core. Training is one, save-or-die spells are another. A sidebar containing instructions for converting certain save-or-damage or save-or-penalty spells into save-or-die spells is all it would take to include them in the game for the people who want them. It is more difficult to remove them than it is to flag certain spells as potential save-or-die spells, due to the way that core spells are included in published materials. For example, if a wizard is printed with Finger of Death, here are two ways to handle it: First, Finger of Death could be save-or-die, and the DM could come up with some alternate effect or replace the spell. Second, Finger of Death could have an effect that is replaceable by "or die". This could be true for all [Death] spells, to simplify the system. The burden on the first DM is greater than the burden on the second. If the majority of players wanted save-or-die effects, there might be a better argument for the first situation, but that does not appear to be the case, evidenced in part by the way that they're removing them from the game. I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that this might be part of the response to player feedback that they're always talking about with respect to 4E design decisions. It appears to me to be evidence that they've seen a consistent negative response to that kind of effect, and so are changing it to suit the majority of players. In that case, it makes sense to stick it in as an optional rule for those who enjoy that style of play from earlier editions. [/QUOTE]

Verification