Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5746235" data-attributes="member: 4892">Yes.Funnily enough *every* character they play is a ruthless, amoral, self-centered loner whose entire family died. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />IOW, if confronted with this justification (which I think is worthy), they just make sure they cannot be confronted with it so they don't have to deal with the penalty the rules tack on.In our 4E games these same players will roleplay their character either way. Taking prisoners and even letting the bad guys go if appropriate for their character.Then why can't you forego the -4 penalty and open yourself up to an attack? And why do you still get the -4 penalty against an unarmed opponent such as a wizard holding nothing more than a wand? Even if you attempt it against an unnarmed peasant (Com1) you still get the -4 penalty, why is that if the -4 is meant to represent dodging?True. They could have presented multiple rules for this in 4E easily. The prior edition -4 to hit could have been an option for grittier games. It's easily insertable.</blockquote>