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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5719363" data-attributes="member: 11300">Most certainly yes. I just checked my Rules Compendium rather than PHB and they changed you to Adventurer:So yeah, you used mechanics that veered into definite houserule territory and thus you get the "Hussar": Fail... please try again. <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=":)" />Used cheaply, it becomes a cheap backstop for avoiding unwanted deaths. [Note the using of cheap here is meaning without player consent. With player consent however, it becomes a neat houserule and tool for negotiating the narrative. Kind of like Warhammer 3e's defeated options.]As there is no "nonlethal" damage in 4e, I think using this houserule for certain nonlethal attacks makes a lot of sense. It means you don't have the hassle of tracking a separate set of hit points and can have challenging encounters that can defeat the party without a TPK. For certain attacks it makes sense that they deal a more nonlethal-style of damage; give them a [nonlethal] damage type keyword. These attacks then allow for 3 saves (obviously you wouldn't call them "death" saves) and thus allow you to spring back in but if failed mean that it is short rest time (or any healing) before you can regain consciousness. So on the positive side, I think it is a fair houserule that adds a good option into the game that 4e does not currently have.For you to say this, either:a) You have had the extreme benefit of never having to have suffered rules lawyers in your gameb) You completely ignore them anyway.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />While that outlook is somewhat refreshing, it does mean however that you have doubly failed your own Wampa challenge. Firstly having to resort to a houserule or extreme probability to mechanically support the narrative, and secondly because that houserule defies the goalposts you initially set down. You thought it was ridiculous that the Wampa would be dealing subdual (actually nonlethal) damage as this would be the easiest way for 3e to mechanically provide the required narrative. Seeking to deny 3e the easy win, you have then forgotten/ignored this exact stipulation with your own easy peasy explanation successfully moving the goalposts in one direction, before allowing a houserule and thus moving the goalposts in another. As the host of this thread, is that really fair? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I thought the infection discussion by JC while somewhat strained to your ears was exploring a completely grey area where the 3e rules were silent. As such, I would have to concede that his ideas could not be automatically dismissed. With your houserule situation though, the rules are like pretty much all the rules in 4e: specific and crystal clear.I suppose in 3e if you had a PC who was in the negatives and through luck both good and poor could not achieve consciousness for several days, you could pull out the "infection" description as a reason why they were seemingly not healing and thus staying in a state where death was a constant threat.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification