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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 3023179" data-attributes="member: 12037">Everybody has been good about this, but I thought I'd point something out about the RAW thing, in case the RAW arguments are bothering anyone, or conjuring up rules lawyering players complaints.I have no problem with the DM going outside the RAW to create an interesting game. Going beyond the RAW to create interesting, and engaging, scenarios for the PCs to interact with are not only fun, but something I encourage.My problem with going outside the RAW in this case is that it is specifically ignored in order to kill the PC. A DM can kill PCs often and easily if desired. However, when creating situations in which PC death is already a high probability (as in a normal destruction trap) the only reason I can think to ignore the RAW in order to make it more deadly is because the DM is specifically looking to kill the PC.Save-less death is, IMO, not fun, and not fair. Saves, skills, and other PC abilities are built into the game in order to give them a certain amount of control over their own destiny in the form of a die roll. Ignoring these things only moves the game into a more dictated series of events. The DM says you die and you do, no chance of not dying. And, a monk not saving on a 19 is practially (95% chance assuming a 20 would have succeeded) save-less death.A save-less death, I might add, that doesn't exist under the RAW and the DM felt the need to include in the game for the sole purpose of punishing the PC, beyond anything they could do, for pulling a simple lever.</blockquote>

Verification