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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5277861" data-attributes="member: 18280">Absolutely.  How could it not be so?  Indeed, when you write Save or Die effects are, intrinsically, a single roll. That is the complaint people have with them. The fact that they do occur independant of other elements of combat.you have shifted the goal posts from being able to make choices that lead to the roll, to having those choices be part of combat.  Why is that?  I would say a DM is bad if the DM is not good.  Wouldn't you agree?  Let's see what you think a good DM would do in this situation:Of course, I am not at all certain that the RAW does say "see a Bodak & make a save".  "Meets its gaze" =/= "Sees the creature" as Plane Sailing pointed out.  I have seen many, many people and creatures in my lifetime without meeting their gaze.  Moreover, if we are to blame something in this case, and it is not the DM, why is it the SoD effect?  Isn't it the lack of DMing advice, if we accept your premise, that is to blame?  Or the specificly bad rules (again, if we accept your premise as to RAW) that prevent the DM from staging the SoD-effect monster better?And, again, when I am looking at your given reasons, I am looking to see whether they hold together in general, or should be accepted as the general case.  They are only referred to as "yours" in the sense that you brought them forward.There is nothing wrong with not liking SoD effects.  There is something wrong with expecting other people to accept, as a general case, a reason that falls apart when examined.  This is true for any phenomenon, regardless of what it is.  It is always okay for you to accept any reasoning that passes the bar of your skepticism.....in this case, I do mean you you, as well as the general you.  It is not okay to attempt to force others to accept reasoning that does not pass the bar of their skepticism.Your position may be correct.  Your statements, at least as far as I am concerned, do not demonstrate it to be so.  I am sure you feel the same about my statements.  Therefore, I again suggest we agree to disagree.RC</blockquote>

Verification