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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5933151" data-attributes="member: 42582">While what Herremann says is true, I think jadrax also makes an important point.There is a tendency in many of these discussions to assume that, if the rules are written to default to process simulation (so, for example, Reaper can't kill, or a Warlord's inspiration gives temporary hp rather than hp recovery, etc) then both sides will be satisfied. As if those who approach D&D (and especially 4e) from the non-process-simulation angle do so accidentally, or without commitment to what they're doing.I think that such an assumption is contentious, and (from WotC's point of view) risky. It may be that many 4e players like the ambivalence in an ability like Reaper, which allows it to be narrated sometimes as a bruise delivered through armour, sometimes as a vicous stroke that causes the opponent to tire in avoiding it, sometimes as a deft manoeuvre that causes the defender to self-impale on the altar of spikes.One possible solution is to offer up a range of themes, some whose abilities are clear process simulation, some not. Another is to put forward an alternative "death rule" - there could be an optional rule that any killing strike requires a successful attack roll to be made - so Reaper couldn't kill, Magic Missile would require an attack roll to be made in this one special case, etc. A variant on this would be to allow a saving throw against any auto-damage that would kill.Anyway, I think tackling the issue at the source might be a better way to proceed than mucking around with individual abilities, pushing them towards or away from process simulation.</blockquote>

Verification