Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5856433" data-attributes="member: 51942">One thing I thought particularly jarring in the article: the notion that, from a designers perspective, having hitpoints as the sole measure of a characters "status" is a good thing.  It's not!It's almost invariably a bad thing when the game reduces to a (literally) one-dimensional grind.  It's a good thing when there are several options, particularly if the interaction between is complex enough to make the notion of the "best" choice too complex to precisely determine.So while having a simple "I win" button might not be ideal, I think tying it to hitpoints can be even worse in some cases.---One way of mitigating this might be fiddling with the resurrection rules: In 3e, death magic/disintegrate sometimes made resurrection harder.  What if we turn that around: should resurrection of those killed before their time be easier (as they're not ready to move on yet)?  Constant resurrection isn't for everyone, but I think most people could live with occasional resurrection merely to revert death spells, particularly when this means normal resurrection can be left at a campaign-appropriate level of difficulty.I guess in the end a combination of approaches is probably best; some save-or-dies might be gradual, others HP-dependent or surge-dependent, and resurrection could be tweaked to make these kind of abilities less effective.</blockquote>