Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[SSquirrel]

Disarming is ridiculously difficult. And Force Disarm? I think it was determined Vader needed something like an 18 to do that thing he did to Han on Bespin.

Vader is a 20 rollin fool tho!

 

[hong]

Yes, that is what I meant.

EDIT: To clarify, the reason it "begs the question" is because the question purported being answered is not answered. The argument "You can't judge the PHB without reading it" with the rationale, "Because you can't judge the PHB without reading it" begs the question.

I was not making a pretense in order to rhetorically state my question. The questions remains unanswered.

Example
Person A: You cannot judge the PHB without reading it.
Person B: Why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?
Person A: Because you have not read it.
Person A: But why? That would seem to beg the question, why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?

Summary of the use of begging the question referenced above:
Person 1: Why would you read the PHB when you have strong evidence you won't like it?
Person 2: You do not know if you will like it without reading it.
Person 1: How will I determine if I should read it?
Person 2: You must read it.
Person 1: So in order to determine if I should read the PHB, I must read it. That would seem to beg the question, why would you read the PHB when you have strong evidence you won't like it.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

You are my idol.

 

[pawsplay]

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

And so we meet again, hong. But you see... this time I have a new kitten.

 

[glass]

Yes, that is what I meant.

EDIT: To clarify, the reason it "begs the question" is because the question purported being answered is not answered. The argument "You can't judge the PHB without reading it" with the rationale, "Because you can't judge the PHB without reading it" begs the question.

I was not making a pretense in order to rhetorically state my question. The questions remains unanswered.

Example
Person A: You cannot judge the PHB without reading it.
Person B: Why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?
Person A: Because you have not read it.
Person A: But why? That would seem to beg the question, why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?

Summary of the use of begging the question referenced above:
Person 1: Why would you read the PHB when you have strong evidence you won't like it?
Person 2: You do not know if you will like it without reading it.
Person 1: How will I determine if I should read it?
Person 2: You must read it.
Person 1: So in order to determine if I should read the PHB, I must read it. That would seem to beg the question, why would you read the PHB when you have strong evidence you won't like it.

That may have been what you meant, but it bore no resemblance to what you said. And then it still doesn't fit -how much evidence you need before judging a new game is a matter of opinion not a matter of logic, so logical fallacies don't come into it.


glass.

 

[LowSpine]

You could make killing optional. For example, whenever a PC deals the "killing blow," the PC can choose to leave the mook mortally wounded or just unconscious and able to be saved.

Good idea.

Plus - what happened to surrender. When a creature kows it is going to die it is very likely to give up and surrender unless it is undead or an unintelligent animal (which would itself run away.)

 

[fedelas]

Simple. Clean. Intuitive.

This is the game I want to play.

Only problem I have is things like "nonlethal-fireball", but i can live with these or simply houserule it.

 

[carmachu]

I take it you have seen the complete playtest rules?

Seriously, why are you making assumptions that no other options exist because we haven't seen them yet?

Because thats all they've shown...kill, kill or be killed.

Why are you assuming there's something else without any evidence?

Add in they've removed many of teh good aligned, or rather arent stating them, becuase they arent opponents, or some such as they have said....and its not looking good.

 

[Insight]

Because thats all they've shown...kill, kill or be killed.

Why are you assuming there's something else without any evidence?

Add in they've removed many of teh good aligned, or rather arent stating them, becuase they arent opponents, or some such as they have said....and its not looking good.

Why are you assuming something doesn't exist merely because you haven't seen it? There are two sides to that coin, and you'd be better served not to pull at that thread.

How about we discuss things we know are going to be part of 4th ed rather than speculating (without evidence) what may or may not be in the rules?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Pro-4e posters like Hong are just as aggressive and combative as anti-4e like Ice Fractal.

No, Hong is one-of-a-kind. But he is teh funnay, so it's okay. Also, Ice Fractal is by no means the worst offender. The OP, however, is a particularly good example of just what I'm criticizing. My intention is not to make ad hominem attacks, but to point out why I tend to approve of the 4e fans more than the 4e haters.

I really think you're looking at the pro 4e crowd with rose colored glasses if you claim that they do not want to rally against 3e and are not trying to start a fight. Their posts are "hurting feelings" just as hard as anti 4e. Forgive me for ascribing motives, but I suspect this may not have been obvious to you because your feelings were not hurt by them.

Nobody has hurt my feelings. I'm making this argument from my observations, not in order to "get back at" anyone for some kind of perceived slight.