Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 2638730" data-attributes="member: 2067">Wait, wait, am I being told that ranged save-or-die is somehow unfair?At the same level that you can have save-or-become-a-toad? Or save-or-paralyze? Or save-or-dominate?I'll admit it might be quite a bit early (spells don't do it 'till about another 3 levels), though since I'm letting the PC's have the same option (and they do have an assassin in their party who has used this option) it seems rather odd to say that NPC's can't use the same optiosn PC's can. Save-or-die is unfair? In general principle?Criminey, where's your love of resurrection? Where's your use of the tools available? This death isn't final or even really with lasting effects, from a mechanical standpoint. Considering the options available to them (cheap, readily available resurrection), this does no more than sap some of their rescources for a choice that they made, and make them well aware that they cannot take it easy. If they're not affraid of what they have done in disturbing a vast and powerful empire, if they're not taking precautions, why should I role-play the villains as if they're incompetent or somehow refrain from using the most powerful abilities at their disposal? A dragon who doesn't use the draconic intelligence to design a well-laid-out lair is quite obviously being played not up to par, right? Again, if the PC's have known for about 3 levels now that they can use ranged death attacks (and have made use of it), why should the NPC's have qualms about it? I'll readily admit that the feat shouldn't become available until about 13th-14th level, by the book, but how is this somehow me pulling a power play on them? They will be tested, they will have expended rescources, and they will probably come out ahead in the end.Yes, it is bad form to basically pull an "I'm the DM, so you suck!" on the PC's. But in the theoretical scenario above (which, admittedly, would require PC's to be pretty oblivious to the fact that they just pissed off an evil empire, which they might not be), how is it that this action fits into this category? The PC's have opportunities to thwart this event -- the scenario above is just one possible outcome, I haven't dictated anybody's actions. However, they don't nessecarily know it's coming -- and isn't that kind of the entire point of assassination? I mean, if an assassin let it be known that you were going to be killed in advance, gave you time to prepare and to become paranoid, wouldn't he be a pretty shoddy peice of assassin? They do, however, have knowledge that the pissed off an empire, that assassins exist in the world, and that ranged death attacks are possible pretty early on for assassins. Given that this knowledge isn't just there -- it's screaming in their faces -- how is this a DM power move that is killing them without recourse?Unexpected? Dramatic? Shocking? Yes. That's kind of the point of assassination, right? But this isn't "Rocks fall, everyone dies!" It's not without reason, it's not without in-world motivation, and it isn't even especially potent (500 gp and a day later, they're back in their original states, having only paid the cost of underestimating the empire). If I just wanted to get my rocks off on PC death, it's not hard to do, as you've noted. This is more enjoying the drama and the force of the situation, especially in the face of PC's who would have to (to present the scenario above) be rather careless after just challenging an empire's wrath.500 gp for laughing in the face of the greatest evil in the known world and trying to run away? When they could do the same thing? Power-mad DM? I'm not making the connection.</blockquote>

Verification