Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4121160" data-attributes="member: 1054">"The DM can make it up" is always an answer to any question about any rules in any game, but, is it the BEST answer?A PC mind-controls a foe and sends the foe to fight the Bodak. The Bodak decides to eat some healing surges. The PC, noting that his forced ally is about to die from other wounds, uses a power to heal said ally (to keep him distracting the bodak as long as possible). Does the ally have healing surges left? "He does if the DM wants him to" is a valid answer, but not a good one. It puts the DM into deciding the conclusion of the story, not just the beginning of it. Yes, I've seen actual play where PCs heal 'enemies' -- either to keep using them for some purpose, or because (this was a PC I played) they have very strict codes against killing and will stop in mid-battle to stabilize a fallen foe. So I don't want healing rules that just work for PC/PC interaction or just NPC/NPC interaction. I want one set of rules that don't care who is the heal-er and who is the heal-ee. Everyone keeps telling me "4e is less work for the DM!", but I see it as a lot more work, because I have to make up a lot more rules on the fly for all the things it doesn't cover in the name of "simplicity". I have better things to do, as a DM, in play, than write rules. The players in my game want me to help them experience a fun and exciting adventure, not playtest my new house rules being produced as we go.</blockquote>

Verification