Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[D.Shaffer]

If all damage is abstract as a way of saying "wearing down the enemy", then why shouldn't Sleep cause damage?

Because it does so in a way better represented as written?
Because having everything cause HP damage was boring and they wanted more variety?
Because they found in playtesting that having both the conditions and HP loss was broken for the level they wanted to give it?
Because they like it this way?

Take your pick.

 

[Thaniel]

Because it does so in a way better represented as written?
Because having everything cause HP damage was boring and they wanted more variety?
Because they found in playtesting that having both the conditions and HP loss was broken for the level they wanted to give it?
Because they like it this way?

Take your pick.

My bad. I wasn't aware that this had changed. Link?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The part that makes it circular is when it is claimed that you cannot judge if a book is worthwhile until you have read it. If you excise (ii), the argument simply ceases to exist. I already accounted for that several posts ago.

pawsplay says: I think the PHB will suck.
someone says: You can't make that judgment without reading it.
pawsplay says: why not?
someone says: Because you cannot judge its worth without familiarity.
pawsplays says: How can I become familiar?
someone says: By reading it.
pawsplay says: Didn't you just say that?

The argument was and is, "You cannot judge a book without reading it, because you cannot judge a book without reading it." That might be true, but it's not an argument.

How about, in order to judge a book, you must know what it contains. If you haven't read a book you don't know what it contains. If you don't know what it contains, you can't judge it. How do you find out what it contains? By reading it. Having read it, you may then judge it. Therefore, in order to judge a book you must read it.

Anyway, this is silly. You know full well that you're splitting hairs in order to butcher the point. The point being, if we don't know what's in the 4E books, it makes no sense to pronounce judgement on it, especially when what we're pronouncing judgement on is something that is likely to be in the rules...and in the case that this thread was started over, has actually been demonstrated to be in the rules, vindicating those who are defending the point.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This isn't really going anywhere, but I'll have one last go.

Yes, the argument falls over if you excise (ii).

Likewise for the following argument:

(i) All humans are mortal;
(ii) Socrates is human;
Therefore,
(iii) Socrates if mortal.

But the most famous of all syllogisms is not, therefore, a circular argument.

In your dialogue, someone asserts that you can't make that judgment without reading it. Pawsplay asks for a reason. Someone offers one, namely, that you cannot judge its worth without familiarity. Pawsplay asks how to become familiar, and is told that you can become familiar by reading it. There is no circularity. Each of the italicised propositions is a distinct proposition. The first such proposition is the conclusion of the argument. The second two are the premises. Each premise contributes to the argument, but neither entails the conclusion in isolation. What more do you want from an argument, besides the truth of the premises?

Again, well done, pemerton.

 

[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.

I like that. It stops all that lethal/non-lethal hp rubbish and does the trick. It's one of those things that is so obvious it makes you hit your own head and say stupid.

Might need to be played about with if we are going to have blackjacks. In what way would a blackjack be a benefit unless you have to make a skill like check to make sure you don't accidentally kill your opponent - a blackjack would be auto.

BlackJack.

Requires combat advantage. (You have to sneak to use it first.)

Successful strike gives combat advantage until the end of next turn. (You might need multiple strikes to knock someone out.)

Maybe a blackjack acts like a sleep spell on a single opponent.

 

[Wormwood]

It's one of those things that is so obvious it makes you hit your own head and say stupid.

Yep. 4e is full of simple little ideas that are obvious in hindsight but never occurred to me all the years I was wrestling with 3e.

 

[SSquirrel]

The argument was and is, "You cannot judge a book without reading it, because you cannot judge a book without reading it." That might be true, but it's not an argument.

M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

(Sorry I love Monty Python and this really sums up how this thread is getting)

 

[pemerton]

Again, well done, pemerton.

No worries.

 

[glass]

Just to clarify something that I think has got lost in the shuffle:

If by 'judge' you mean decide for yourself (privately) whether you want to buy it, then of course you don't need to read it -you can decide how you spend your hard-earned money any way you like.

OTOH, if by 'judge' you mean make pronouncements in public that the book does not contain something, then you really need to have read it. This is what the OP was doing.


glass.

 

[Kesh]

Just to clarify something that I think has got lost in the shuffle:

If by 'judge' you mean decide for yourself (privately) whether you want to buy it, then of course you don't need to read it -you can decide how you spend your hard-earned money any way you like.

OTOH, if by 'judge' you mean make pronouncements in public that the book does not contain something, then you really need to have read it. This is what the OP was doing.


glass.

Glass wins the thread.