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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4044467" data-attributes="member: 710">Damage that brings you to negative hit points can achieve only 2 results in 4E: It can bring you to dying, and it can bring you to death. There is no further distinction. You can't be "deader then dead" and you can't be "more dying then dying" from damage. If WotC would have made a better rule, I would have defended it. If they made a worse rule, but one that still played better than the 3.x rules, I would have defended that as well. Indeed. (I assume, maybe there is some kind of variant that really sucks. Maybe you can post an alternative rule, but then, if I disliked it - or anyone else that likes the 4E rule - it could just "prove" that we're f4nboys and wouldn't know a good rule even if it hit us over the head...)Why are the rules inferior? Inferior to what? The -10 hit point buffer of 3.x, that was a wild gamble at high levels because many attacks either ignored it entirely (death attacks) or damage values made it unlikely to reach the "dying" zone at all? And I am tempted to invoke the corollary to Godwins law here. It defintiely is a totally useless attack on the rule. I know no videogames that uses dying rules that come even close to the 4E rules. Most games I played either make you drop unconcious and out of the fight until it's over, or just let your character die and you'll have to load from the last save game point - or maybe are ressourected at Position X and have to find your body and treasure...</blockquote>

Verification