Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3826432" data-attributes="member: 24970">I agree with this poster, and this is the main reason I don't like the 4th edition style of &quot;defense targets&quot; instead of &quot;saving throws.&quot; If 4e is really going to do this, the only way I can see to make &quot;Save or Dies&quot; feasible is to have some kind of &quot;action points&quot; system (as I've heard they will) wherein players can spend action points to cause their opponents to miss their &quot;targets.&quot; This is the best compromise I can come up with.Anyway, though -- Save or Dies are totally acceptable. So you can go from being perfectly healthy to dying (or being petrified, polymorphed, whatever) with a single die roll -- well, sure! That's called risk. And risk equals fun. Anyone who objects to Save-or-Dies is either playing with a too-cruel DM (who overuses Save-or-Dies... I played 3.x for six years straight and only lost one character to a Save-or-Die) or is way too attached to their character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 3826432, member: 24970"] I agree with this poster, and this is the main reason I don't like the 4th edition style of "defense targets" instead of "saving throws." If 4e is really going to do this, the only way I can see to make "Save or Dies" feasible is to have some kind of "action points" system (as I've heard they will) wherein players can spend action points to cause their opponents to miss their "targets." This is the best compromise I can come up with. Anyway, though -- Save or Dies are totally acceptable. So you can go from being perfectly healthy to dying (or being petrified, polymorphed, whatever) with a single die roll -- well, sure! That's called risk. And risk equals fun. Anyone who objects to Save-or-Dies is either playing with a too-cruel DM (who overuses Save-or-Dies... I played 3.x for six years straight and only lost one character to a Save-or-Die) or is way too attached to their character. [/QUOTE]

Verification