# Players, DMs and Save or Die



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2007)

In this thread  there has been some debate over whether Save or Die effects (Bodak's glare, Finger of Death) should be in the fourth edition game. If you want to weigh in there, go ahead.

However, I'm wondering how many people who support SoD effects are players, and how many are DMs. I'm running a hypothesis:



Spoiler



DMs will support save or die effects more often than players, since players are more often effected by it.



So are you mostly player or DM, and do you support save or die or not?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 23, 2007)

So, apparently, those who are both players and DMs obviously don't support Dave or Die?

Might want to fix the poll.


----------



## Festivus (Oct 23, 2007)

Err, I am a player and a DM and I support save or die... but when I clicked where I *thought* it would be supporting that argument I find two options, both the same, not in favor of it.


----------



## Pygon (Oct 23, 2007)

I mostly DM, sometimes a player, and I think Save or Die effects are a normal (but not common) part of adventuring.


----------



## Betote (Oct 23, 2007)

I think it's no secret that most of the SoD supporters will be DMs. After all, everybody knows that players are just a bunch of whiners


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 23, 2007)

I usually DM.  I support save-or-die spell effects.  I like the dicey feeling they lend to the game.  When I play, I like them even more.  I like a chance-filled game, even if it means my character might bite the dust.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 23, 2007)

I GM more often than I play, and dislike Save or Die type effects in every system I run.

I'm more likely to PLAY D&D than run it, and dislike Save or Die type effects then, too.


----------



## WarlockLord (Oct 23, 2007)

I am a more of a player (slightly, but I couldn't say both because you need to fix the poll) and I think save-or-dies rock.  Cutting off heart arteries, killing people with fearsome phantasms, and domination are all fine with me.

And please, PLEASE stop trying to convert all of the cool effects to hit points. Hit points suck.


----------



## 3d6 (Oct 23, 2007)

I actually think DM controlled characters suffer save-or-die effects more often than PCs. Most encounters the PCs face will not have a save-or-die effect, as most monsters in the MM don't have a save-or-die effect to use. A normal adventuring party, on the other hand, will have a wizard and a cleric, both of whom have access to save-or-die effects. After 9th level, its quite possible that NPCs will be facing a save-or-die effect (or multiple save-or-die effects) each round in every combat. Its very annoying when a high CR monster designed to be the setpiece of an important battle dies in the second round because he failed his save vs. the fourth save-or-die effect in the combat.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 23, 2007)

Cannot vote; my preferred option does not exist (though I think it's trying to...).

Lanefan


----------



## KingCrab (Oct 23, 2007)

3d6 said:
			
		

> Its very annoying when a high CR monster designed to be the setpiece of an important battle dies in the second round because he failed his save vs. the fourth save-or-die effect in the combat.




In my old 2ed campaign many years ago, there was a long term BBEG spellcaster that was the plotwise center of my game for many adventures.  After travelling into his "lair" over several sessions, when they finally did meet him they got in a feeblemind spell in the first round of combat.  He rolled low and failed his save.  It was frustrating.  However, I still supported and support the save or die spells.  The caster got to a decent enough level and focused his efforts on that form of magic so he deserves to occasionally get something good out of it.

Why do I support save or die effects?  I like the mood the different afflictions bring to a battle.  These guys are stunned, these guys are stupid, these guys are chamed, and you don't want to know what caused the splatter that that guy used to be.  That's just fun and crazy.  Slowly dwindling hit points aren't as interesting.

Added: Just realize this post doesn't make sense unless you're using my definition of save or die which includes all the nasty effects that bypass hit points.  If one was to suggest leaving in the save or be held and then effectively killed, save or become an idiot and then again get killed, save or something else that can easily get you killed type spells but want to get rid of save or die, they'd have a better chance of talking me into it.


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 23, 2007)

Heads I win, tails you lose.

(Fortunately, the doubled-up option is the one I voted anyways.)
-blarg


----------



## Arkhandus (Oct 23, 2007)

D'oh, I voted wrong.  Y'know you got two copies of the same line in the poll, right?  I'm a player and a DM, and I prefer save or die effects being in the game, but there's no option for that in the poll; just two options for disliking SoD.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 23, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Dave or Die?



 C'mon, Dave isn't all that bad.

- - -

2/3 of the "mostly DM"s so far do *not* like SoD. I'm among them.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 23, 2007)

My option does not exist. So I voted "DM and support".


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 23, 2007)

As a DM of 20 years, even though they haven't actually come up, I hate the concept of save or die.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm more a DM, though I play enough. I think save or die is really important. The idea of slaying someone with a gaze (or petrifying, etc.) is a fantasy staple. Save or die effects should be high level and difficult to create (perhaps with a cost that prevents you from throwing one off every round like 3e finger of death). They shouldn't be ubiquitous, but they should exist.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 23, 2007)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> They shouldn't be ubiquitous, but they should exist.




Why?


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Oct 23, 2007)

DM for 16 years, hater of SoD spells for 15.9 years.  They seemed awesome until the first time I used one against a PC.  Total funkiller.

-TRRW


----------



## sidonunspa (Oct 23, 2007)

Festivus said:
			
		

> Err, I am a player and a DM and I support save or die... but when I clicked where I *thought* it would be supporting that argument I find two options, both the same, not in favor of it.





It sucks as a player...  

Example 1: here we are, playing some Dungeon Craw a few years back (3.0 days) and we clear the dungeon, save the girl, and stop the cult of the dragon from creating a new dracolich.

As we walk out of the complex a curse set upon us when we disturbed some skulls kicks into effect...

I roll a 1 and die.

A worthless death and made me (and everyone else at the table) feel cheated.

Example 2:  Phase Spider pops out and attacks my caster in the surprise round, I end up dead from constitution loss so quick that I can't do anything about it.  Oh ya, that was fun.


Any good story telling GM will find that save or die effects not only takes away from the story, but takes away from the fun of the game


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 23, 2007)

DM and player (more often DM), for ten years, originally liked SoD, and slowly came to hate it.

The most memorable SoD moments are always those were a PC or an important NPC dies in the first or second round of combat with no input whatsoever.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 23, 2007)

I dislike SoD, but there is a place for it. IMHO the DM should give the players plenty of warning, and make sure they have the ability to obviate the ability - if they think. They need to know that they're going up against something with a SoD ability. Think of Perseus in Clash of the Titans.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 23, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Example 2:  Phase Spider pops out and attacks my caster in the surprise round, I end up dead from constitution loss so quick that I can't do anything about it.  Oh ya, that was fun.



Technically, Peter, this last one isn't save or die. It's save or take con damage. Mind you, the con damage kills you pretty damn quickly, but it's not _technically_ the same.

I'm a DM, and I dislike save or die as well. Always have. When I kill PCs, I'd prefer to have them to go down fighting.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 23, 2007)

my option isn't available.

i'm a referee mostly now and prefer save or die. but when i'm a player i also prefer it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 23, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> So, apparently, those who are both players and DMs obviously don't support Dave or Die?
> 
> Might want to fix the poll.




I've edited the poll so that option 5 is player and DM who SUPPORTS save or die (which is logically what I think you wanted that to be)

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 23, 2007)

Although 'save or die' can kill a PC too quickly and robs someone of fun, I still find I viscerally dislike the change made to disintegrate so that it merely does some damage.

So I'm a DM and a Player, and I think I vote FOR save or die.

One caveat - I dislike the death effects that you can't bring someone back from. In one campaign I was able to bring back people from the dead but every time someone was killed it was by some kind of death effect and I couldn't. 

My hope for 4e? 'Save or die' effects that work on bloodied creatures.

Cheers


----------



## Stormtower (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm usually a DM, and I dislike save or die... with one qualification:

If the game is a deep immersion/shared storytelling type of campaign, save or die is usually more trouble than it's worth.  I do use Action Points to mitigate the risk and I will still (very) occasionally throw a SoD monster against a party, but they usually have fair warning and opportunities to turn back or prepare themselves w/Death Ward, etc... no bodaks for random encounters.

If I'm playing or running a campaign or module which is intentionally stated to be a high-lethality game, I have no problem with SoD at all, and it adds an interesting tension.   But I want that level of lethality to be spelled out before we sit down to play.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 23, 2007)

Stormtower said:
			
		

> If I'm playing or running a campaign or module which is intentionally stated to be a high-lethality game, I have no problem with SoD at all, and it adds an interesting tension.   But I want that level of lethality to be spelled out before we sit down to play.





I could deal with that, as in not get too attached to my character (if on the rare occasion I was actually a player).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm quite surprised by the poll results so far. It seems ENWorlders are strongly against SoD, by a 3-to-1 majority in the case of DMs. Looks like those Wizards of Seattle do their market research well.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 23, 2007)

Actually, to refine my earlier position.

I am against 'save or instant death'

I am for 'save and you will die in a round or two unless someone intervenes'.

the latter gives the opportunity for dramatic last words or actions as the PC crumbles to dust/turns to stone/heart is torn away/etc, not to mention it gives other PCs the opportunity to take steps to exacerbate the situation.

Cheers


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't mind save or die in moderation. But as a player I worry that DM fiat will nerf my SoDs.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 23, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> C'mon, Dave isn't all that bad.




I agree.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm primarily a DM and I'm against save-or-die.  I have a bunch of reasons, basically amounting to a conviction that game balance can never be obtained with save-or-die spells due to the way they bypass secondary defenses, but I'll leave those out of this post.  Here's just a personal anecdote.

I use spellcasters continually as bad guys, and not just as super strong big evil bad guys.  For example, in a recent war campaign, every unit of 10 hobgoblin troopers was set with one spellcaster adjunct, and a commander (sometimes a spellcaster depending on unit type).  I had to intentionally have all the bad guys choose sub optimal spells, because even spellcasters 5 levels lower than the party can kill off a character every couple of fights if there's enough of them.

I don't like locking bad guy spellcasters into climactic-battles-only roles.  I like to have them mix it up with the party on a regular basis.  The prevalence of save-or-die spells means that 1) my players automatically assume that evil spellcasters have them, which makes the player reaction a bit awkward, and 2) I have to create unrealistic spellcasters that eschew the best spells available to them for no apparent reason.  I'd rather avoid this.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 23, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I don't mind save or die in moderation. But as a player I worry that DM fiat will nerf my SoDs.



DM really does not need to. The vast majority of monsters had ludicrous fort saves or outright immunity to SoD.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Actually, to refine my earlier position.
> 
> I am against 'save or instant death'
> 
> ...



You know, exacerbate means "to make worse".  I think you meant alleviate or ameliorate.

PC 1: Help me!  I'm turning to stone
PC 2: *Stab*
PC 1: Argh!
PC 3: What did you do that for?
PC 2: Now he's not turning to stone anymore.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I've edited the poll so that option 5 is player and DM who SUPPORTS save or die (which is logically what I think you wanted that to be)
> 
> Cheers




and thats what you get for posting a poll 5 minutes before class starts...


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Oct 23, 2007)

As a DM I hate using SoD against my players. It feels heavy handed and robs characters of the chance to put up the good fight. I also dislike SoD when used against storyline important NPC's. I do like the SoPut on a Timer, effect that were spoken of earlier. But stright out "I rolled low so I drop dead" is right out in my book.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2007)

Totally up the pro/con camps as off 12:03 EST on 10/23

Pro: ~33%
Con: ~66%

(not accounting for all decimal percentages, just rough math)

Thats a 2/3rds which dislike SoD.

Interestingly, I expected more "DM only" to be pro SoD, while more "Player Only" to be anti-SoD. It seems the anti-sentiment is strong among both camps however.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 23, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know, exacerbate means "to make worse".  I think you meant alleviate or ameliorate.




No, no, I really meant stabbing your allies. Really.   

Cheers


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 23, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Interestingly, I expected more "DM only" to be pro SoD, while more "Player Only" to be anti-SoD. It seems the anti-sentiment is strong among both camps however.




What made you stick this in the 4e forum, anyway?

RC


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> No, no, I really meant stabbing your allies. Really.




It's the ancient art of inaccupuncture. If you stab someone repeatedly you may eventually jab them in the right pressure point to alleviate their condition.

Similar to this is reverse Feng Shui. With regular feng shui you rearrange furniture to bring health to someone's body and wealth into their home.  Reverse feng shui you use furniture to rearrange someone's body and then remove wealth from their home.

And don't even get me started on retrophrenology....


----------



## Stormtower (Oct 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What made you stick this in the 4e forum, anyway?
> 
> RC




Probably in response to the 4e design changes which are rumored to strongly de-emphasize or remove SoD effects from the game... IOW to see if an ENWorld polling sample matched the data which led WotC to make that particular decision.

Though I'm a 4e skeptic, removing SoD from the canonical game seems a step in the right direction for game balancing, and those who like SoD can always houserule their favorite spells and effects back in.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> No, no, I really meant stabbing your allies. Really.
> 
> Cheers



Well, you know, some groups I've played in...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 23, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know, exacerbate means "to make worse".  I think you meant alleviate or ameliorate.
> 
> PC 1: Help me!  I'm turning to stone
> PC 2: *Stab*
> ...



Given that _Revivify_ is on a lower spell level than _Stone to Flesh_, this would, at least in 3E, a sensible idea, if time is pressing.

And as a DM, I dislike save-or-die. PCs randomly kill BBEGs, and if I don't use them, my BBEGs give up a great deal of power. Not good.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## gizmo33 (Oct 23, 2007)

There's probably a correlation between DMs/Players that are ok with PCs dying and SoD effects.  I would expect anyone who doesn't like to kill PCs really doesn't like SoD.  Personally I don't care either way, they'd be easy enough to houserule back in (so far as I can tell), but I think they are a mechanic that's somewhat at odds with the concept of hitpoints.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What made you stick this in the 4e forum, anyway?
> 
> RC




a) the original (referenced thread) is here.

b) the idea is to see if the potential 4e buying pool is in favor of such removal or not


----------



## Patlin (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't like save or die spells as a DM because mostly random PC deaths are no fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 23, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> a) the original (referenced thread) is here.
> 
> b) the idea is to see if the potential 4e buying pool is in favor of such removal or not




Fair enough.

Dr. Awkward, I think I've had some of the same players as you....


----------



## Midknightsun (Oct 23, 2007)

As an oft-time DM, I hate SoD.  I want my players to sweat it out, to struggle for their victories, not be one-spelled into oblivion before they realize what happened.  Now, save or suck, I have no problem with.  Short term status effects that take the character out of play don't bother me so much, and can actually contribute to building tension.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 23, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know, exacerbate means "to make worse".  I think you meant alleviate or ameliorate.
> 
> PC 1: Help me!  I'm turning to stone
> PC 2: *Stab*
> ...




No joke, I was part of a game (in my army times) where one of our fighters had been given a sword that could resurrect a person. The scene went something like this...

PC1: Help me, I'm running out of Hit Points!
PC2: *decapitate*
PC3 (me): What the hell did you do that for???
PC1: Now I can resurrect him.
PC3:


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 24, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> It's the ancient art of inaccupuncture. If you stab someone repeatedly you may eventually jab them in the right pressure point to alleviate their condition.
> 
> Similar to this is reverse Feng Shui. With regular feng shui you rearrange furniture to bring health to someone's body and wealth into their home.  Reverse feng shui you use furniture to rearrange someone's body and then remove wealth from their home.
> 
> And don't even get me started on retrophrenology....




You, sir, win the internet.

I can't wait to show this to my best friend (he's an accupuncturist)


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 24, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> As an oft-time DM, I hate SoD.  I want my players to sweat it out, to struggle for their victories, not be one-spelled into oblivion before they realize what happened.  Now, save or suck, I have no problem with.  Short term status effects that take the character out of play don't bother me so much, and can actually contribute to building tension.



This raises an interesting point.  When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat.  I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat.  A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.

For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?


----------



## hong (Oct 24, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> This raises an interesting point.  When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat.  I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat.  A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.
> 
> For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?



 As it stands, there's typically no mechanical reason NOT to use instakill spells at the start. One reason to delay might be to cast a dispel first, in case your target has save buffs up. Other than that though, the earlier you take out someone, the less risk there is that they'll take you out instead.

Now typically, people often gloss over this in the interests of not short-circuiting the potential for a more involving combat. This is because we're not playing chess, Advanced Squad Leader or coin flipping, where the only thing that matters is the result. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't there.


----------



## Grog (Oct 24, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> This raises an interesting point.  When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat.  I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat.  A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.
> 
> For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?



They always get used right away in my games. It doesn't make sense to wait. What's the point of casting Finger of Death on a target with only 10 hit points remaining? A Magic Missile will work just as well at that point.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 24, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> This raises an interesting point.  When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat.  I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat.  A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.



Interestingly, 4e might promote that sort of usage by having save-or-die effects that only work on "bloodied" targets.


----------



## WarlockLord (Oct 24, 2007)

When I attack with SoDs, it usually takes about 3 rounds.

1 round to dispel magic the target(s)
1 round to debuff target saves
1 round to cast the spell.

This is how I usually have my BBEGs attack.  It gives the PCs a few rounds of battle before the dying begins.

As a DM, I can't say I care if the PCs instakill my BBEGs.  There are always more.  Oh, did you SoD the BBEG I spent two sessions building up? I bet you didn't know he had a necromancer brother.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 24, 2007)

Save-or-dies... they're totally cool with me.

AS A PLAYER: If my character dies from some save-or-die effect, then that's just bad luck. I can't overstate enough that ***it is unhealthy and immature to be so attached to a particular character that you feel resentful or "cheated" if you lose them to a save-or-die effect* And I can't help but thinking that this is a motivation on the part of a lot of the players. If the DM overuses save-or-dies and keeps killing your characters, then that's a problem with having an obnoxious killer DM, not a problem with the system. 

AS A DM: I understand that some DMs feel that save-or-dies may cause the potential destruction of their plot by killing some major NPC, etc., in a dramatic way. Well... **deal with it.** If a major NPC goes out to give a speech and gets in range of a Finger of Death and doesn't have some Death Ward magic in effect and fails their save, then you should have known that you risked it, and you should have a contingency plotline prepared. This is even stupider than complaining about the existence of Detect Lies and Know Alignment and Speak With Dead because you can't do that obviously-full-of-holes-and-not-meant-for-the-standard-D&D-setting murder mystery plot you were planning.

Only bad DMs drive the plot along on rails where it is "necessary" that the players accept the quest, or "necessary" that NPC X survives 'till the end. Not that a little bit of railroading isn't okay... but you have to be flexible. If the players kill your dumb end-of-the-dungeon dragon with a single failed spell, then you either let them enjoy their victory, or you have another monster waiting to take the dragon's place, so at least there's a fight scene.

D&D is about improvisation. It is about choices. It is about risk and randomness. You can never predict exactly whether your character is gonna die, you can never predict exactly whether your NPC is gonna die. You have to prepare for it, either as a DM or a player. If you don't, you are spoiling yourself.

SIDE NOTE: ....now, Save or Die effects that only work if the character is "blooded", that's a compromise I might be able to get behind...


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 24, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> As a DM, I can't say I care if the PCs instakill my BBEGs.  There are always more.  Oh, did you SoD the BBEG I spent two sessions building up? I bet you didn't know he had a necromancer brother.




So, SO true. A million zillion times true.

A good DM has either (1) the courage and quick-wittedness to let the players break their carefully constructed plot and roll with it or (2) the tenacity and quick-wittedness to somehow railroad them back into the plot, even if they *do* make some insanely unlikely roll or kill some important NPC/monster/whatever.

This is why I dislike railroading and "you must do this and this and this in this order" tube-structured, quest-structured linear adventures. They are always inflexible and a good party can always "break" them if they want to. Give me an oldschool module where there's just a dungeon map and let the PCs figure out how to defeat the dungeon and where to enter and so forth. Or give me a module where it's all about diplomacy and clashing factions and there's just a list of statted NPCs and no real structure and it's up to the PCs and the DM to figure out how they interact and how they meet eachother. This is the meat and drink of gaming. 

This whole discussion reminds me of that awesome KoDT comic where Brian sacrifices his own character to insta-kill the vampire lord who they were supposed to spend the entire campaign fighting.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 24, 2007)

Poll fixed...my option exists now...duly voted. 

ptolemy18, your last two posts just saved me a bunch of typing.  Thanks. 

Lanefan


----------



## hong (Oct 24, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> If you don't, you are spoiling yourself.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 24, 2007)

*shrugs*

Reading posts like ptolemy's, I can't help but suspect that his point of view is very... contingent?

I think that if save-or-die hadn't existed in previous editions, and if it were being introduced to the community now for the first time, basically everyone would be against it.

WOTC: Ok, ok.  Here's our latest from R&D.  You're gonna love this.  Ready?  Ready?
Gamers: Oooh oooh tell us tell us!
WOTC: Its a type of spell...
Gamers:  Oooh!  We love spells!
WOTC: That does something never before seen in D&D...
Gamers: *collectively draw in breath*
WOTC: When its cast on you, you roll a saving throw...
Gamers: *hold breath*
WOTC: If the target succeed, nothing happens at all...
Gamers: *turn slightly blue*
WOTC: And if you fail your character dies.  BAM!  DEAD!  You can't even use raise dead to get him back cause its a "death effect!"
Gamers: *choke and collapse*


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 24, 2007)

I've already made my feelings on why I don't like SoD effects on another thread.

I'd like to point out though, that I don't consider something like Flesh to Stone a SoD really.  It's *much* easier to overcome with something like Break Enchantment, a spell that's Cleric, Bard, Paladin, and Wiz/Sorc, and works on multiple targets with no expensive component.  In fact, if the Bard or Sorcerer has the spell, the PC might be back the very next round.  Yes, it's still a bummer as a player to be turned to stone, but it's *nowhere* as bad as being dead.


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2007)

On either side of the screen, I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of risk. SoD is a tool to make that happen. I do think it should be used sparingly and principally as part of climactic encounters.

My next D&D game will be playing in Necromancer Games' Rappan Athuk. Very lethal dungeon. But I'm excited.


----------



## Arkhandus (Oct 24, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> As we walk out of the complex a curse set upon us when we disturbed some skulls kicks into effect...
> 
> I roll a 1 and die.
> 
> ...




Meh.  Example 1, obviously nobody bothered to detect the Transmutation aura affecting the characters, even though spellcasters have plenty of marginally-useful cantrip/orison spell slots to use for Detect Magic, and nobody bothered to try Dispel Magic or Remove Curse to see if that would get rid of the effect.

This is only bad DMing if your party was low-level and had no access to Remove Curse or the like (which comes in at 5th or 7th-level, depending on class).  Not a problem with save-or-die (it could've just been a Fire Trap or something else lower-level, after all, that still could've blown up in someone's face and killed them with damage because they failed to detect or go around it).


Example 2, your *mage* would've died anyway if it was just a Goblin Rogue sneak attacking you, or an Orc Warrior rolling high on his greataxe's damage roll or maybe rolling a crit.  Or if you were higher level, an Invisible Stalker or Dire Tiger.  Still not a problem with save-or-die (or in your case, save-or-Con-damage).

Perhaps instead you'd rather eliminate all randomness?  It's certainly an option (say that all dice rolls automatically count being as 1/2 their maximum result).


And personally, I didn't find reading stories of Hercules, Perseus, or others was any less interesting just because creatures like the Medusa could kill or petrify enemies with a look.  It just made them challenges of wits more than just stupid brute force.  I have no problem with save-or-die as a player nor as a DM.  Crit happens, and SoD happens.

SoD just has the grace to wait until you're mid-to-upper-level and better-suited to thwart it if _reasonably prepared_ for adventuring.  And a lesson learned is a lesson learned; you may still be able to get Raised or Resurrected or Reincarnated, and you won't likely underestimate the importance of Fortitude saves, Death Ward, or similar things a second time.


The satyr druid in my Thursday game recently lost both of his polar bear animal companions (3.0 D&D, not stupid 3.5 one-magical-sort-of-animal-esque-pet-for-you D&D), one hacked apart by orcish barbarians and another more recently flash-frozen by a white dragon's breath.  He reincarnated the first as a human, by chance, and the second as a pixie.  He'll pick up new animal companions this week, but he now has two new comrades who aren't quite accustomed to being above animal intelligence.

But it'll be fun, and the party's cleric can Raise Dead if anyone else dies (assuming they don't just spend some of their new dragon-loot on paying for a Res or True Res).  They haven't faced any save-or-die effects so far, as they're a party of mostly-warriors and facing primarily warrior-type foes, but the campaign's only been going a few weeks.  And most of the party has gotten themselves awesome Fortitude saves anyway.


----------



## Arkhandus (Oct 24, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> On either side of the screen, I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of risk. SoD is a tool to make that happen. I do think it should be used sparingly and principally as part of climactic encounters.
> 
> My next D&D game will be playing in Necromancer Games' Rappan Athuk. Very lethal dungeon. But I'm excited.




Agreed.  And sometimes it's fun to go through an oldschool dungeon crawl.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 24, 2007)

Um, what?


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 24, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> On either side of the screen, I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of risk. SoD is a tool to make that happen.




Except there is still risk without SoD effects.  Unless you mean "I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of arbitrary death".


----------



## Roadkill101 (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm usually a GM and I don't like save-or-die.  Which is odd because I like to run grim and gritty style games where real world physics factor in heavily.  Thus death from a venomous snakebite is out the door.  I'd rather the venom result in some sort of handicap (typically as a mechanical penalty) to make the game more challenging.
If I do use a save-or-die effect, I make it known that the character(s) in question are facing a situation that may result in a fatality (where this knowledge is character knowledge, not just the players).


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And personally, I didn't find reading stories of Hercules, Perseus, or others was any less interesting just because creatures like the Medusa could kill or petrify enemies with a look.  It just made them challenges of wits more than just stupid brute force.  I have no problem with save-or-die as a player nor as a DM.  Crit happens, and SoD happens.



But the way SoD works, Hercules would actually get killed in at least 1/20 of those tales. In Heroic fantasy, the heroes (certainly the central ones, comparable to PCs) always survive those encounters.
So a less deadly system would work better for modelling heroic tales or fantasy.



			
				ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> So, SO true. A million zillion times true.
> 
> A good DM has either (1) the courage and quick-wittedness to let the players break their carefully constructed plot and roll with it or (2) the tenacity and quick-wittedness to somehow railroad them back into the plot, even if they *do* make some insanely unlikely roll or kill some important NPC/monster/whatever.
> 
> ...



You cannot seriously tell me that it's somehow a good thing if the BBEG dies in the first round of combat. No matter how you do it, it's still just about the most anti-climatic experience possible. Maybe in a comedy campaign, but everywhere else, it will feel really out of place.

If your argument is just "Well, a good DM can deal with it.", then great. A good DM can also deal with THACO and racial level limits, so we should bring them back, no?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 24, 2007)

Oh, I see, someone has fixed the poll. Unfortunately, my vote is now in the "fixed" vote. 
My correct vote was: I am both a DM and a player and I dislike Save or Die. I do _not_ support it.

Is there a way to "unvote"?


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 24, 2007)

One bizarre side-effect of this poll is that it shows how many people here are (or claim to be) "usually DM" as opposed to "usually player".

As of right now it's 150 DMs vs. 29 players vs. 100 who do both.  Looks like a player's market from here! 

Lanefan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 24, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Meh.  Example 1, obviously nobody bothered...




moderator/
Please do not attempt to pick holes in other peoples games or play styles. You might have handled a particular situation differently, and bully for you.

Saying 'obviously nobody bothered' is a put down, and we don't like people issuing put downs to other posters.

Thanks


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 24, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> As it stands, there's typically no mechanical reason NOT to use instakill spells at the start.




I can think of at least one good reason, by putting it in reverse:

A bunch of kobolds bursts in on the adventuring party. Does the wizard unleash disintegrate on one of the kobolds as his first action? Probably not, since he doesn't know how much of a threat they are yet, and he doesn't know what else is going to come up later in the day.

If the BBEG is in his throne room with his horde of demonic guards outside and the party stride in covered in demon ichor but otherwise unharmed, then sure - start with maximum effectiveness spells (although the most effective things to start with are often 'even the playing field' spells, to obscure vision or control the battlefield in some way); however, there will probably be many cases where the BBEG doesn't have as much knowledge as the DM about the PCs capabilities... and shouldn't be acting as if he does either!

Cheers


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> One bizarre side-effect of this poll is that it shows how many people here are (or claim to be) "usually DM" as opposed to "usually player".
> 
> As of right now it's 150 DMs vs. 29 players vs. 100 who do both.  Looks like a player's market from here!
> 
> Lanefan



DM's are usually more deeply interested in the game (thanks to the fact that they tend to spend quite some time with it all on their own), so they are a lot more likely to visit forums.
Few players I have met actually cared about design.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Oct 24, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> You cannot seriously tell me that it's somehow a good thing if the BBEG dies in the first round of combat. No matter how you do it, it's still just about the most anti-climatic experience possible. Maybe in a comedy campaign, but everywhere else, it will feel really out of place.
> 
> If your argument is just "Well, a good DM can deal with it.", then great. A good DM can also deal with THACO and racial level limits, so we should bring them back, no?



This.  Very this.

It's true that a lot of good DMs can deal with massive screw ups in their games.  And if that makes you a good DM, more power to you.  But good design prevents those massive screw ups from happening in the first place, and I've yet to see any reason not to cut this problem off at the source.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 24, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> But the way SoD works, Hercules would actually get killed in at least 1/20 of those tales. In Heroic fantasy, the heroes (certainly the central ones, comparable to PCs) always survive those encounters.
> So a less deadly system would work better for modelling heroic tales or fantasy.




But you know, the fun part about those myths is that hero always survives because he first researches the weakness of the monster, and then uses that against it. Like Perseus getting himself a mirror shield to turn the gaze of Medusa against herself. Or Hercules knowing that he had to cauterize every neck of the Hydra in order to keep more heads from growing. The basilisk was supposed to be killed instantly by the scents of weasels. Stuff like that is why the heroes survive the confrontations with monsters like that, not the fact that those monsters have only moderatley deadly abilities. That's why I like save-or-die effects, as long as they aren't used willy-nilly. But listening to some posters, it seems that giving the heroes a chance to research and prepare for the abilities of a monster is equal to making the abilitiy worthless and fit to be taken out of the game entirely.

Which always makes me wonder if they'd say the same about energy attacks, dragon breath, poison, and similar abilities that can be researched and countered with a little time and preparation.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 24, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Except there is still risk without SoD effects.  Unless you mean "I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of arbitrary death".




So because you get to make a few more dice rolls before you get critted, that is less arbitrary? Save-or-Die is simply taking the risky nature of D&D, represented by the survival of a character hanging on a die roll, to the edge, while stuff like _Death Ward_ takes it to the other extreme of 100% certain survival.
I keep wondering why there is so many people that want to cut off the two ends of the spectrum of survivability in D&D completely out of the game? It's not like they aren't viable possibilities in a game where humans research magic. I don't know about the rest, but I'm sure the first things mankind would research (if magic was available) would be how to instantly kill any opponent without risk to yourself, and how to protect yourself from such an attack. I'd like a tool in the game to represent that. I'd also like a tool to represent the "instantly dead" effects of mythical monsters. And I'd like *not* to sound like a stressed-out beginner DM who declares "The bodak overcomes your Fort Defense, you suffer 5000 points of damage from the bodak's gaze". Number inflation only makes the game sound silly.
And no Mega-Damage either, please.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm equally a Player and DM and I support Save or Die.

BTW it's weird how according to the poll there are 5 DMs for each player


----------



## Fieari (Oct 24, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> BTW it's weird how according to the poll there are 5 DMs for each player



ENWorld demographics differ from the rest of the population of D&D players.  It's been said that WotC forums get mostly players, while ENWorld gets mostly DMs/Independent Developers.

As for me on the poll?  Well, I voted DM + Support, but I have to clarify that it's less Save or Die that I support, and more Save or Incapacitate.  Petrification, for instance.  I can't really see a system for gradual petrification, and I don't want petrification to go away.  Likewise for magical sleep, blindness, and other similar things.

Save or Die is unneeded, because we have HP for that purpose.  You want SoD?  Just make the damage much higher than what that CR should be able to normally deal.


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Fieari said:
			
		

> As for me on the poll?  Well, I voted DM + Support, but I have to clarify that it's less Save or Die that I support, and more Save or Incapacitate.  Petrification, for instance.  I can't really see a system for gradual petrification, and I don't want petrification to go away.  Likewise for magical sleep, blindness, and other similar things.



Petrification in particular seems to work well with gradual Dexterity drain, either a relatively large amount at once, or a certain amount per round over time, depending on flavor.
And if you drain the 4E level adjusted Dexterity bonus, you even get easy scaling for free (to ensure that a Medusa can petrify a commoner instantly, but won't randomly instant-kill a demigod.)

Blindness can stay as it is, as far as I'm concerned, the real problems are the abilities that completely take a character out of combat, unless they can be freed relatively easily.


----------



## hong (Oct 24, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> So because you get to make a few more dice rolls before you get critted, that is less arbitrary?




Yes. The standard deviation of a sum is less than the sum of the standard deviations.


----------



## hong (Oct 24, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Which always makes me wonder if they'd say the same about energy attacks, dragon breath, poison, and similar abilities that can be researched and countered with a little time and preparation.




No, then you get whinging about players who read the MM.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 24, 2007)

In a way, the big issue for 'Save or Die' in 4e is likely to be that there are no saves...

In 3e, if the DM says "He casts destruction on you. Make a DC23 Fort save" you (and the rest of the party) are willing the dice to roll high as you make that save in a tense moment while you wait for the dice to stop rolling.

In 4e, do we want the DM to say "He casts destruction on you (rolls) and beats your Fort defence so you die"?

I don't think that would fly, would it


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 24, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes. The standard deviation of a sum is less than the sum of the standard deviations.




Yep. And if you look at the standard deviation of exactly one die roll, it's 0. Which proves exactly what in the question if one die roll vs. a few die rolls between death is more arbitrary?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 24, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In a way, the big issue for 'Save or Die' in 4e is likely to be that there are no saves...
> 
> In 3e, if the DM says "He casts destruction on you. Make a DC23 Fort save" you (and the rest of the party) are willing the dice to roll high as you make that save in a tense moment while you wait for the dice to stop rolling.
> 
> ...




Just a silly question, but why not? If the game enables me to crit with a fireball, and nothing keeping me from doing enough damage to outright kill half the characters on the playing field with two lucky rolls, why shouldn't I be able to kill one character on the playing field with one lucky roll?


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Just a silly question, but why not? If the game enables me to crit with a fireball, and nothing keeping me from doing enough damage to outright kill half the characters on the playing field with two lucky rolls, why shouldn't I be able to kill one character on the playing field with one lucky roll?



Because (hopefully), Fireballs are less dangerous in 4E and have less damage variance. AoE crits should have come up in playtesting.

And even if you take a large amount of damage from a critical hit and die, the difference is still that you died because you took damage beforehand. With a SoE, you just stand there, and the DM informs you that you just died, without even the illusion of input on your part.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 24, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> Give me an oldschool module where there's just a dungeon map and let the PCs figure out how to defeat the dungeon and where to enter and so forth. Or give me a module where it's all about diplomacy and clashing factions and there's just a list of statted NPCs and no real structure and it's up to the PCs and the DM to figure out how they interact and how they meet eachother. This is the meat and drink of gaming.





Agreed.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 24, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> And even if you take a large amount of damage from a critical hit and die, the difference is still that you died because you took damage beforehand. With a SoE, you just stand there, and the DM informs you that you just died, without even the illusion of input on your part.




Right, because no crit can take a character from full to dead in the blink of an eye.


----------



## hong (Oct 24, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Yep. And if you look at the standard deviation of exactly one die roll, it's 0.




Oh dear.


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Right, because no crit can take a character from full to dead in the blink of an eye.



Not in 4E, hopefully.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 24, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In a way, the big issue for 'Save or Die' in 4e is likely to be that there are no saves...
> 
> In 3e, if the DM says "He casts destruction on you. Make a DC23 Fort save" you (and the rest of the party) are willing the dice to roll high as you make that save in a tense moment while you wait for the dice to stop rolling.
> 
> ...



This is a very, very good point.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 24, 2007)

The standard deviation of a single roll of 1d20 is ~5.77, I think.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 24, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> You cannot seriously tell me that it's somehow a good thing if the BBEG dies in the first round of combat.



It's a good thing. If every boss fight plays out the same way that's both boring and lacking in verisimilitude.

I hate the rules of story. Story = predictable. I loved the ending of the first Tim Burton Batman movie where we're expecting a lengthy fight against the BBEG, the Joker. Instead he goes down in about 3 seconds. It's good because it's a surprise. Most movie BBEGs have to be killed 17 times before the fight's over.


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Except there is still risk without SoD effects.  Unless you mean "I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of arbitrary death".




Arbitrary? No.

Like I said in the post you are quoting, but chose to not quote, I think SoD should be used principally for climactic encounters. That's not arbitrary. Sure, it can be, if the DM chooses to deploy it that way... but they shouldn't. And creatures that encourage it being used in such a fashion (again, bodak) should be altered or eliminated.

Sure, there can be risk without SoD. But in my games... again, on either side of the screen... I want the whole spectrum of perceived risk, to include:
"no real risk"
"risk of PC death only if party is down on resources"
"risk of PC death after several rounds of engagement, but with credible chance to withdraw
"risk at any time you engage the foe in question"

I find that having the presence of factors that should be approached with care, only when it's important, and have you sitting on the edge of your seat from the moment the fight begins, to be a satisfying gaming experience when used in moderation.

Again, from both sides of the screen.


----------



## Psion (Oct 24, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Just a silly question, but why not? If the game enables me to crit with a fireball, and nothing keeping me from doing enough damage to outright kill half the characters on the playing field with two lucky rolls, why shouldn't I be able to kill one character on the playing field with one lucky roll?




Yeah, there was some speculation in another thread, both that there is no save or die, but attack and die, and that they have some special death damage or psychic damage.

The truth is, this information has not been offered up. We just don't know. I don't think they would just play semantics here, though.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, there was some speculation in another thread, both that there is no save or die, but attack and die, and that they have some special death damage or psychic damage.
> 
> The truth is, this information has not been offered up. We just don't know. I don't think they would just play semantics here, though.




Maybe its related to a condition track... like in Starwars Saga


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> *shrugs*
> 
> Reading posts like ptolemy's, I can't help but suspect that his point of view is very... contingent?
> 
> ...




*shrug* It's deadly game, man! :/ I play Call of Cthulhu too, you know! In fact that was the second RPG I played, after D&D. Players shouldn't be too attached to their characters and DMs shouldn't be too attached to their monsters.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> But the way SoD works, Hercules would actually get killed in at least 1/20 of those tales. In Heroic fantasy, the heroes (certainly the central ones, comparable to PCs) always survive those encounters. So a less deadly system would work better for modelling heroic tales or fantasy.
> 
> You cannot seriously tell me that it's somehow a good thing if the BBEG dies in the first round of combat. No matter how you do it, it's still just about the most anti-climatic experience possible. Maybe in a comedy campaign, but everywhere else, it will feel really out of place.?




There's something I consider a basic rule of gaming: don't allow any die roll to be made unless you're willing to work with the outcome. If you absolutely, absolutely don't want your BBEG to fall to some attack the PCs have, it's easy enough to give the BBEG whatever combination of magic and defenses and insanely high Saving Throws that are required to make them immune to it. After all, you're the DM -- you know exactly what the party is bringing to the table, so it's up to you to make the right challenge.

And if the BBEG rolls a 1 on his save and didn't have "Death Ward" up, or whatever... roll with it! For the most part, the players are probably gonna be *happy* that they defeated the big bad guy, even if some of them feel cheated out of the fight. Then, later that session or the next session, you can have the BBEG's ally come busting through the wall like the Kool-Aid Man and attack the party. Or you can have the fortress explode around them and collapse on them and they have to run out. Or you can have some evil cleric come back and resurrect the BBEG and now he's *really* angry. You have to admit that element of randomness into your games. You must looooove the randomness.

This is the whole reason why fights where the whole party gangs up on one monster are very "swingy." I used to construct adventures like that when I was younger but later on I learned that it is generally much more satisfying to have the PCs fight a bunch of foes at once. This is something that the designers of 4E seem to understand, too ("one monster for each PC, instead of one monster for 4 PCs"). 

In response to your first point about Hercules -- the reason Hercules always survives is that he is the only central character in his legend. Hercules dying is the equivalent of a fictional TPK. A better D&D~fiction model is some series of books that features a *team* of characters, like the Iliad, or Lord of the Rings or Band of Brothers. A few of the heroes can die, and the story continues. If you're running a 1 player-1 DM game, then yes, save-or-die is probably a bad idea. But if you're running a game with a bunch of players, then what is more dramatic than seeing your friend horribly cut down in front of you! *sob* And then you can avenge them and, if you're playing a Berserker in Iron Heroes, you can get a bunch of Rage Tokens and scream "Nooooo!" and... you get the idea.

So, in short: there's no real comparison between D&D and heroic fantasy which is centered around one solitary dude. There is a more valid comparison between D&D and heroic fantasy which is about a *team* of people. And frankly, just like the way I like my D&D, I prefer fictional series where the characters are mortal and fallible and die occasionally (even at inappropriate and shocking times -- "Oh my god! A sniper with Finger of Death just took Raoul's head off!"), rather than series where, at Book 80, the same guy from Book 1 is still "narrowly" outwitting danger. *snore* @_@ I'm going to have to part ways with a lot of people here by saying this, but -- I play D&D for fantasy adventure, not necessarily heroic fantasy. Sometimes heroic fantasy, yes, but sometimes just chaos and bloodshed and grittiness and mayhem. Mmm. That's what I like. And yes, I'd still much rather play D&D than Warhammer FRPG, all other things being equal.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a good thing. If every boss fight plays out the same way that's both boring and lacking in verisimilitude.
> 
> I hate the rules of story. Story = predictable. I loved the ending of the first Tim Burton Batman movie where we're expecting a lengthy fight against the BBEG, the Joker. Instead he goes down in about 3 seconds. It's good because it's a surprise. Most movie BBEGs have to be killed 17 times before the fight's over.




I agree.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In 4e, do we want the DM to say "He casts destruction on you (rolls) and beats your Fort defence so you die"?




This is why I don't like the elimination of Saving Throws... but it could work, particularly if they have some kind of "action points" thing, or feat, to give players a straw to cling to. I wouldn't mind that. Like, for instance, whenever you raise a level you get a "fate point" which you can spend to automatically avoid any one attack, or to make them less effective, you could use it to force your opponent to reroll. Obviously this is getting very different from existing D&D, but so is lots of stuff in 4th edition.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 25, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?




I used to dislike "save or die", but I've been convinced to look at it differently. I now tend to only use "save or die" in situations in which the PCs should be dead, & I try to ensure that PCs have fair warning. This way, it isn't a "random death"; it's a "random survival".

But there's still the question of what fair warning is. Going up against a high-level spell caster in a world in which high-level spell casters have may have access to instant death spells... It's fair to use those spells in the first round--or during the surprise round. Depending on the players, I might want to mention early on, however, that their characters would know of that possibility.

There are definitely gray areas. Luckily my players give be the benefit of the doubt & will forgive me when I'm not perfect.

I find that having things in the world that can side-step hit points & cause instant death makes the game-world feel more like the mythic/legendary/literary worlds we're trying to emulate _and_ makes the strategies more interesting.


----------



## hong (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> *shrug* It's deadly game, man! :/




It is?


----------



## hong (Oct 25, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Arbitrary? No.
> 
> Like I said in the post you are quoting, but chose to not quote, I think SoD should be used principally for climactic encounters.




In other words, you want to limit the potential for anticlimax to climactic encounters?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a good thing. If every boss fight plays out the same way that's both boring and lacking in verisimilitude.




You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen the word "verisimilitude" used in a gaming context without it referencing everything I dislike in an RPG.

The trend continues here.

If every boss fight plays out the same way because there's only one mechanic for removing participants from an encounter, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the game design.  Somehow, despite pretty much every major boss being immune to status effects, Final Fantasy Tactics managed to make each one a unique fight interesting unto itself, with a lot fewer variables to play around with than D&D.

Again, if module writers and individual GMs need multiple mechanics for participant elimination, that's an encounter design issue, not a game design one.  The solution is better encounters in published modules (IH-like Zones go a LONG way toward this) and better advice and examples for GMs who want to design their own - not anticlimactic game mechanics.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I hate the rules of story. Story = predictable. I loved the ending of the first Tim Burton Batman movie where we're expecting a lengthy fight against the BBEG, the Joker. Instead he goes down in about 3 seconds. It's good because it's a surprise. Most movie BBEGs have to be killed 17 times before the fight's over.




And the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith in the original Matrix is good because it's AWESOME.  The final fight between Vader and Luke in Return of the Jedi is good because it's AWESOME.  The final fight between Cloud and Sephiroth in Advent Children is good because it's AWESOME.  I'd rather bring the awesome every boss fight I can than every once in a while bring the surprise.

Besides, I can bring the surprise without mechanical support - if I want a surprise, I can make a "boss" who, despite having an important role in the campaign, is an incompetent fighter.  When the PCs finally pierce his webs of deception and get to him, expecting a climactic encounter - they roll over him instead.  And it's cool, because they'll get the climaxes elsewhere and this is one where they can look back at the trail of destruction this boss allegedly wrought and see how he fooled them.

Then when they DO encounter a climactic encounter, it can bring the awesome as needed.


----------



## Psion (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> There's something I consider a basic rule of gaming: don't allow any die roll to be made unless you're willing to work with the outcome.




This is a central tenet in my GMing philosophy. Or, as I generally put it:
"Don't roll the dice unless you are willing to pay the price."

This informs my stance on fudging. If you don't want someone to fail a roll, why make them roll it?

More germane to the topic at hand, I used to recall how people hated traps with death poison on them in older editions. The only thing I could think is if you didn't want a chance for a player to die, why would you put the deadly trap in?

This further extends to things like climactic battles. If the party loses, what happens? Are you willing to accept that. Or rather, if it's a possibility, what are you going to do to make that outome fun and interesting?


----------



## Psion (Oct 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> In other words, you want to limit the potential for anticlimax to climactic encounters?




I'm going to pretend this is a real attempt at discussion instead of just hong brand snark. I disagree that PC death is necessarily anticlimactic. Quite the contrary. It can be an extremely dramatic event. And death effects, doubly so. The presence of a character creature who you know can snuff your character's life out at any moment adds a palpable feeling of dread to a final encounter.

Now deploying save or die effects before dramatic juncture does fit the proper definition of anticlimactic. Being killed by a throwaway encounter with no great relevance to the ongoing narrative is, indeed, anticlimactic.


----------



## hong (Oct 25, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm going to pretend this is a real attempt at discussion instead of just hong brand snark. I disagree that PC death is necessarily anticlimactic.




Nobody said anything about _PC_ death.


----------



## Psion (Oct 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Nobody said anything about _PC_ death.




So is that to say then you simply don't want death effects in the hands of PCs? The "one round BBEG kill" is unacceptable to you?

I remember developing a disdain for the quick kills myself, but that usually stemmed from concentrated PC firepower and bad luck on the part of the villain in my games more than I've ever seen it result from death effects from PCs.


----------



## hong (Oct 25, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> So is that to say then you simply don't want death effects in the hands of PCs? The "one round BBEG kill" is unacceptable to you?




Except for teh funny. Everything is acceptable for teh funny.



> I remember developing a disdain for the quick kills myself




Exactly.


----------



## WarlockLord (Oct 25, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In a way, the big issue for 'Save or Die' in 4e is likely to be that there are no saves...
> 
> In 3e, if the DM says "He casts destruction on you. Make a DC23 Fort save" you (and the rest of the party) are willing the dice to roll high as you make that save in a tense moment while you wait for the dice to stop rolling.
> 
> ...




I thought there were going to be action points in 4e.  One can infer a function allowing a PC to spend an AP to boost a defense.  Not that hard.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It is?




It is the way I prefer to play it, both as a player or a DM.

In the one six-year D&D3.x campaign I played in, I never managed to have the same PC survive for more than 4 (or was it 5?) levels in a row, and it was awesome. Not that I didn't want my PCs to live longer... but hey. Nothing's fun without a challenge.


----------



## hong (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> The more combat-centric D&D is, the deadlier D&D it should be




It should?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> *shrug* It's deadly game, man!





			
				hong said:
			
		

> It is?



I'm with Hong on this one - I've never risked death RPGing, and don't plan to in the future if I can avoid it!



			
				ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I play Call of Cthulhu too, you know! In fact that was the second RPG I played, after D&D. Players shouldn't be too attached to their characters and DMs shouldn't be too attached to their monsters.



I don't see what's wrong with players being attached to their PCs. For a lot of players, the game is all about developing that PC and using him/her as a vehicle for exploring the plot and/or themes of the gameworld.

For that sort of play, save-or-die can be terrible, because (unlike other conflict-resolution mechanics) it doesn't unfold in a way which is satisfactory for the player - ie there is no exploration of plot or theme involved in rolling a single save.



			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> I used to dislike "save or die", but I've been convinced to look at it differently. I now tend to only use "save or die" in situations in which the PCs should be dead, & I try to ensure that PCs have fair warning. This way, it isn't a "random death"; it's a "random survival".



I think that this is the best exposition on this thread of the "fair warning" approach to save-or-die. Done that way, I think it can be used without spoiling play, because the in-game events of receiving the warning, and then acting in response to it, _do_ permit the players to play their PCs - just the same as death through hit-point loss typically comes about in a non-deprotagonising fashion.

For this approach to be satisfactory, however, I think that acting in response to the warning has to be more interesting than just casting the appropriate buff and proceeding on one's way - having to use mirrors, for example, or fight wearing a blindfold, both of which introduce interesting tactical dimensions into the combat. Or perhaps the defence or workaround involves research or other adventuring that is interesting to actually play out.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It should?




Whoops, I edited that post immediately I put it up, because I recognized the flaw in that statement... ^_^ Yes, it's true, in D&D you're *supposed* to get in fights, so the fights have to be more or less surviveable, whereas in Call of Cthulhu or Warhammer FRPG the fights are so deadly that the focus is not so fight-centric. So yes. I erred. :/ (But of course more combat DOES make it more deadly, at least for the poor monsters...  )

But, anyway, my main point is -- a certain amount of random death is fine. D&D is a balance between story and randomness (i.e. losing that important NPC due to an unlucky  die roll). It is a balance between character-advancement and randomness (i.e. losing your character due to an unlucky die roll).

Seeing the players destroy your carefully controlled plot with some "game-breaking" effect or random die roll is 50% of the art of DMing. The other 50% is being able to bounce back and keep the story going without railroading the players in an obvious way.

If you don't like Save-or-Dies then fine. But there ought to be some insta-bad-news mechanic that doesn't rely on hit points. "Blooded" condition, level-contingent effects (i.e. "Baleful Polymorph works on beings of 6 HD or less if the caster rolls the Fortitude Defense roll; it only works on beings of 7 HD or more if the target is blooded"), "slow death" effects, whatever. Just don't make hit points the end-all be-all of everything. Too boring. Too predictable.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 25, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't see what's wrong with players being attached to their PCs. For a lot of players, the game is all about developing that PC and using him/her as a vehicle for exploring the plot and/or themes of the gameworld.
> 
> For that sort of play, save-or-die can be terrible, because (unlike other conflict-resolution mechanics) it doesn't unfold in a way which is satisfactory for the player - ie there is no exploration of plot or theme involved in rolling a single save.
> 
> I think that this is the best exposition on this thread of the "fair warning" approach to save-or-die. Done that way, I think it can be used without spoiling play, because the in-game events of receiving the warning, and then acting in response to it, _do_ permit the players to play their PCs - just the same as death through hit-point loss typically comes about in a non-deprotagonising fashion.




I agree, "Fair warning" is the best way. But that comes down to DMing style -- I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."

Some DMs and players like deadlier games (I would put myself among that number), and others don't. I would personally say that save-or-dies should remain in the game for those DMs and players who like them, since save-or-dies are ultimately something that you can eliminate simply by not stocking your adventure with certain monsters and spells. 

As for players being attached to PCs, I think it's good too, of course. I love all my characters and would gladly TELL YOU ABOUT MY CHARACTERS  if I thought I could get away with it.  But still, I'm ready to accept that they may die at any session I show up at. This, too, is a particular style of playing and DMing. I have little interest in games where there is no PC death and the same crew of PCs is "destined" to survive from 1st to 20th level. I prefer campaigns where life is cheap and unpredictable.  As long as the core rulebooks provide the tools for people to run "destined heroes" campaigns AND "life is cheap and unpredictable" games, and all the gray areas in between, I'll be happy.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."



Why not?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I agree, "Fair warning" is the best way. But that comes down to DMing style -- I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."




Looking at the description in the old MM, those warning signs would be something like "Roughly 500 feet ahead of you, you see a small herd of very weird animals. Massive bodies, long tails equipped with some sort of knob on the end, very long and thin necks that curve downwards to a head that is mostly under the surface of the swampy water they are grazing in. Bob, your wizard seems to have heard of such, roll for Intelligence to see if he recalls those beasts. John, same goes for your swamp ranger, but with a +2 bonus."  Coupled with the basically low chance of the catoblepas to actually raise its head enough to bring the death effect into play (25% when the group is still, 10% if the group moves fast), this made the beast into a curious, odd aberration that raised more story questions than combat challenges.

Looking at the new MM2, the description is still there, but there is nothing that keeps the DM from having the catoblepas gaze around at each character. Although it says that it tends to keep its head close to the ground, it uses its Death Ray in self defense. So basically that's another beastie that has become more deadly with the new edition.

It's funny, the more I compare the older editions with the latest one, the more I see why a lot of problems that pop up in 3.X simply weren't there in that extent in older editions. Not meant as an edition war remark here, mind you, just comparing. I wonder how much of the dislikes today would have been avoided if there had been some different decisions 10 years ago regarding the design of 3E.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Oct 25, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> The "one round BBEG kill" is unacceptable to you?




I'm a player - not a DM.

Short answer: Yes, it is unacceptable.

Long answer: There should be a climax to the story.  The non-fight between Batman and The Joker mentioned above works because The Joker wasn't a fighter (at least in the movie - I won't go into the comics because I don't read much Batman).  The climax wasn't the fight between the two but Batman getting to the Joker in the first place.

I see no problem with the big brawl in a campaign being with the 2nd In Command or with the big guard beastie instead of the BBEG.  A one hit kill on the brains behind the Evil Plot is fine; but there should be a climax to the story - not an anti-climax.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> *shrug* It's deadly game, man! :/ I play Call of Cthulhu too, you know! In fact that was the second RPG I played, after D&D. Players shouldn't be too attached to their characters and DMs shouldn't be too attached to their monsters.




But even Call of Cthulhu, noted for its deadliness, doesn't have anything really approacing save or die (I suppose you could argue that seeing Cthulhu himself is a "save or go insane" since the SAN loss is 1d100, but I digress).  The drama comes from the ever-increasing loss of resources/sanity, which causes a slow buildup of tension.  The problem with save-or-die, in my view is that there is no drama/tension.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 25, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I can think of at least one good reason, by putting it in reverse:
> 
> A bunch of kobolds bursts in on the adventuring party. Does the wizard unleash disintegrate on one of the kobolds as his first action? Probably not, since he doesn't know how much of a threat they are yet, and he doesn't know what else is going to come up later in the day.
> 
> ...



Well, given that the pro-save-or-die crowd are always telling us that SoD effects are fine because the players should have researched their enemies' capabilities, and too bad for them if they didn't, doesn't it work both ways?  Shouldn't the BBEG know exactly who these guys are that just killed all his demons, and what they're capable of?  Also, how many adventuring parties ever burst in on him, compared to the number of kobolds a party of adventurers might face in a day.  If it's the first time it ever happened, he'll probably react with a scorched earth-style response, since he has a reasonable expectation that there won't be another group of heroes showing up that same day to undo his evil plans.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 25, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I thought there were going to be action points in 4e.  One can infer a function allowing a PC to spend an AP to boost a defense.  Not that hard.




UA style action points? SWSE style action points? Eberron style action points?

All different implementations.

Conan style fate points? Spycraft style action dice? 

All different implementations.

Try to engage in constructive discussion rather than just attempting to be dismissive.

Thanks


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, given that the pro-save-or-die crowd are always telling us that SoD effects are fine because the players should have researched their enemies' capabilities, and too bad for them if they didn't, doesn't it work both ways?  Shouldn't the BBEG know exactly who these guys are that just killed all his demons, and what they're capable of?  Also, how many adventuring parties ever burst in on him, compared to the number of kobolds a party of adventurers might face in a day.  If it's the first time it ever happened, he'll probably react with a scorched earth-style response, since he has a reasonable expectation that there won't be another group of heroes showing up that same day to undo his evil plans.




Sorry that hyperbole didn't work for you. I'll put it more simply.

Just like an adventuring party won't always bust out their big guns straight away if they are not sure about the level of threat they are facing and what is coming next, so the BBEG shouldn't always bust out their big guns straight away if they are not sure about the level of threat they are facing or what might be coming next later on that day.


----------



## gizmo33 (Oct 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, given that the pro-save-or-die crowd are always telling us that SoD effects are fine because the players should have researched their enemies' capabilities, and too bad for them if they didn't, doesn't it work both ways?  Shouldn't the BBEG know exactly who these guys are that just killed all his demons, and what they're capable of?  Also, how many adventuring parties ever burst in on him, compared to the number of kobolds a party of adventurers might face in a day.  If it's the first time it ever happened, he'll probably react with a scorched earth-style response, since he has a reasonable expectation that there won't be another group of heroes showing up that same day to undo his evil plans.




Is the "pro-save-or-die" crowd always saying that?  I would think this comes down to a matter of play style.  Some people are willing to deal with a greater amount of uncertainty in their games than others.  Those folks who really rely on novel/story like constructs like "climax" and such AFAICT are somewhat uncomfortable when random dice rolls are effecting parts of the game in ways they don't like.  I think that's the core difference that I see and AFAICT/IMO your statement is overstating the general opinion as I see it.

I think there are too many variables to be sure about the rest of your post.  What the BBEG knows/doesn't know should depend on the circumstances.  Whether or not a BBEG reacts with a scorched earth-style response also seems highly variable.  And I would think his expectations about "another group of heroes" is also dependant on the circumstances.  All of this IMO is dependant on very widely differing circumstances and so I don't think there's much use in constructing a conclusion from it.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 25, 2007)

I find it really hard to fit myself into the confines of that poll.

I'm nominally 'pro save or die', but really by that I mean that I am 'pro save or face condition', and 'dead' is a condition and hense a potentially valid possibility IMO.  It also fits the source material.  There are times when you want 'Lord Voldemort' to throw out the killing curse.  Save or die is a valid literary effect, because die is a valid literary effect.  The saving throw just makes it more gamable.

But at the same time I'm not a fan of saving throws, because they make for two many unexpected stupid deaths.  This includes not just 'save or die', but things like 'save or be turned to stone' or 'save or by turned into a rabbit' or even 'save or lose a level' when the players don't have the resources to deal with those problems yet.  It also includes things like 'save or be paralyzed' when said character is likely to immediately by coup de graced if he fails.  It also often includes things like, 'Save or take 2d12 Con damage'.  

So, while I'm 'pro save or die' just like I'm pro energy drain and I'm pro ability damage and even in limited cases pro maiming and all sorts of other nastiness, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the exisiting rules don't need some work.

So what I really am is 'pro hypothetical save or die' but not 'pro current save or die'.  I'm sympathetic to the character that says, "I hate save or die.", because I've been there.  In fact as a player, I'm infamous as the guy who never ever ever passes a saving throw.  I'm sure I've done it on occasion, but it doesn't really stand out for all the 'save or go permenantly insane' (failed), 'save or lose CON permanently' (failed), 'save or be blasted by the fireball' (failed), 'save or be fried by the blue dragon' (failed), that I've gone through as a player, all of which under the circumstances amounted to 'save or die'.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 25, 2007)

I think a lot of it also comes down to two different world views of what a Player Character is: Avatar or Personality. (both terms are artificial, definitions below).

Avatars (like those in 2nd life) are just stand ins for the PCs. They may look or act like a dwarf or a wizard, but they are just pawns for what that specific player would do if he were an dwarf or a wizard. This is a very gamist approach: PCs (as avatars) don't have any function beyond representing the PC so they can be very disposable (sometimes literally replaced with a slightly renamed version of the same avatar). This game also tends to favor a high amount of puzzle solving and clue-gathering that rewards astute PLAYERS, not their avatars.

Personalities, on the other hand, are living breathing characters. They have unique goals, thoughts, and motivations that (aside from player as author) would differ from "what I'd do if I was in that situation". They can be brave or craven, good or evil. Often, they write themselves as living, breathing characters. The world is much more simulationist: storyline, character development, and interaction rule the day. Death is truly monumental (since that is the end of the unique personality) and often many layers of house rules stand before him and Final Death. 

This is not binary, its a slide scale. Most D&D (and even default D&D) shoots for something in between an avatar and a personality. However, each group (and each player) leans more to one side or the other. Without polling, I'm sure you can figure out which side you lean closer to (and I'm not quite sure what a "true neutral" would look like, so lets ignore it for now). 

However,  D&D's default set of beliefs work on the same slide-scale. Basic, OD&D, and 1e all leaned on the "PC as Avatar" model and created some truly amazing gaming (the ultimate Avatar module: Tomb of Horrors). 2nd edition (despite its rule-flaws) leaned heavier on Personalities and ushered in the era of great characters like Drizzt, Strahd, Soth, etc. 3rd tried to tow both lines and kinda failed at each. 4e seems to shift again to Personalities with a greater emphasis on longer stories (30 levels, no more 15 min workday) and character survival (more hp, scaling AC, no SoD). This, I think, is why lots of DMs (who continue to echo the 1e avatar ethic) are dismayed by the emphasis on PC survival and Personalities-styled DMs are overjoyed by it.

Pretty much, its different game styles, but the shift in the rules is causing a major paragon shift beyond rolling your own save or changes to devils. Its changing how the role of the PC in the world.


----------



## gizmo33 (Oct 25, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> because die is a valid literary effect.  The saving throw just makes it more gamable.




What's "valid literary effect" mean?  What's "gameable" mean in this context?


----------



## gizmo33 (Oct 25, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think a lot of it also comes down to two different world views of what a Player Character is: Avatar or Personality.




I don't see idea of a "Personality" style game as being inconsistent with PC death, although it may work out that way in terms of people's general preferences.  The problem I have with the "story driven" gaming style is what's deplayed here IMO, which is that somehow being a character means you can't get killed.  

Why does "having a personality" (instead of being an avatar) make it worse to get killed than when you're an avatar?  Novels have characters getting killed, sometimes very early in the story.  If you get killed during the adventure, think of your character as Boromir.  It doesn't mean that you should start playing in the avatar style.  It means that you can make up another character who joins later (like Faramir) and continues the adventure.  

I prefer to play "personalities" rather than "avatars" and yet I still think PC death should be part of the game.  I don't find the two to be in conflict, and the one doesn't reduce the other.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 25, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Besides, I can bring the surprise without mechanical support - if I want a surprise, I can make a "boss" who, despite having an important role in the campaign, is an incompetent fighter.



Age of Worms Spoilers:


Spoiler



At the end of the Age of Worms, prince Zeech challenges a PC to a duel for control of Redhand.  He's technically the "final boss", but he's pretty much not a challenge at all, more a plot device in the epilogue to the real climax.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 25, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I agree, "Fair warning" is the best way. But that comes down to DMing style -- I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."
> 
> Some DMs and players like deadlier games (I would put myself among that number), and others don't. I would personally say that save-or-dies should remain in the game for those DMs and players who like them, since save-or-dies are ultimately something that you can eliminate simply by not stocking your adventure with certain monsters and spells.




Well, part of the problem with that is that published adventures, supplements, and the like will use them if they're available, as is the case in 3E.  So if you don't like them, it's harder to get rid of them.  I've suggested that save-or-die be non-standard, and that any spell with the [Death] descriptor have a standard save-or-penalty effect that can easily be replaced with save-or-die if you've flipped on that particular switch in your campaign.



> As for players being attached to PCs, I think it's good too, of course. I love all my characters and would gladly TELL YOU ABOUT MY CHARACTERS  if I thought I could get away with it.  But still, I'm ready to accept that they may die at any session I show up at. This, too, is a particular style of playing and DMing. I have little interest in games where there is no PC death and the same crew of PCs is "destined" to survive from 1st to 20th level. I prefer campaigns where life is cheap and unpredictable.  As long as the core rulebooks provide the tools for people to run "destined heroes" campaigns AND "life is cheap and unpredictable" games, and all the gray areas in between, I'll be happy.



I agree with everything here, except the suggestion that save-or-die is a good addition.  If my character dies, it should be because I did something stupid, or we took on a challenge that was too big for us, or despite our best efforts things went south due to bad die rolls.  It shouldn't be because I happened to enter a room with a bodak.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 25, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Why does "having a personality" (instead of being an avatar) make it worse to get killed than when you're an avatar?  Novels have characters getting killed, sometimes very early in the story.  If you get killed during the adventure, think of your character as Boromir.  It doesn't mean that you should start playing in the avatar style.  It means that you can make up another character who joins later (like Faramir) and continues the adventure.




If a character dies at a dramatically appropriate juncture, sacrificing himself in a way that's heroic and awesome (and in Boromir's case, redemptive), then that's fine.  In fact, it can make for some of the best scenes around.

Character death happens sometimes in a personality-driven game - it happens when the player decides it's worth risking his character's life for something, worth taking the drama to that next level, or perhaps even worth deliberately sacrificing himself for the party.

But what if Boromir had gotten killed by some random goblin in Moria, achieving nothing and leaving his storyline unresolved?  What if Frodo or Aragorn got killed at Amon-Hen, instead?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 25, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Sorry that hyperbole didn't work for you. I'll put it more simply.
> 
> Just like an adventuring party won't always bust out their big guns straight away if they are not sure about the level of threat they are facing and what is coming next, so the BBEG shouldn't always bust out their big guns straight away if they are not sure about the level of threat they are facing or what might be coming next later on that day.



Right.  And my question is, given that, with regards to certain crucial encounters (bodaks, BBEGs, etc.), players are to be expected to do their research so that they know what they're facing, isn't it reasonable to assume that BBEGs are doing the same thing WRT their own enemies?  If they do, then they do, in fact, know the level of threat.  I also suggest that they will tend to believe that the PCs are the only threats that they will have to face that day, unless they get two or three adventuring groups attacking their evil strongholds each day.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 25, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Is the "pro-save-or-die" crowd always saying that?



That is their response in the other save-or-die thread to complaints about the automatic lethality of the bodak: that the PCs should have researched that enemy so that they know to have Death Ward active, for example.  They hedged this position by mentioning that the bodak shouldn't be some kind of wandering monster, but a creature which you can, in fact, learn about the presence of beforehand, so that preparation is possible.



> I think there are too many variables to be sure about the rest of your post.  What the BBEG knows/doesn't know should depend on the circumstances.



My point is simply that if the onus to deal with SoD effects is on the PCs and their preparation or lack thereof, then BBEGs should be taking similar preparations, including researching possible threats.  However, having researched those threats (i.e. the PCs), they will know that having a pile of SoD spells, plus perhaps some debuffs and dispels to ensure that the SoDs work, is totally reasonable.



> Whether or not a BBEG reacts with a scorched earth-style response also seems highly variable.  And I would think his expectations about "another group of heroes" is also dependant on the circumstances.



I'm arguing from the BBEG's perception of the likelihood of future threats.  If he believes that the heart of his carefully-crafted evil organization (i.e. him) is at lethal risk from a credible threat, it would be irrational to hold back, even if there was an outside chance of another threat later.  And if the PCs are the first to violate his sanctum, or even if they're not the first, but an invasion is a fairly rare event, he's not going to perceive the risk of another attack before he can recover his spent resources as a significant one.

I don't think that it's believable to suggest that a BBEG would not use SoDs because he can't gauge the threat the PCs bring, and might face more challenges later that day, so I don't think it's a good argument for the inclusion of SoDs, which is how it's being presented.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That is their response in the other save-or-die thread to complaints about the automatic lethality of the bodak: that the PCs should have researched that enemy so that they know to have Death Ward active, for example.  They hedged this position by mentioning that the bodak shouldn't be some kind of wandering monster, but a creature which you can, in fact, learn about the presence of beforehand, so that preparation is possible.




Damn, I'm a crowd?   Now that's a surefire way to make me stop garfing down those M&Ms and pretzels!  (Kidding, obviously...it'll take a lot more to make me stop THAT.  )



> My point is simply that if the onus to deal with SoD effects is on the PCs and their preparation or lack thereof, then BBEGs should be taking similar preparations, including researching possible threats.  However, having researched those threats (i.e. the PCs), they will know that having a pile of SoD spells, plus perhaps some debuffs and dispels to ensure that the SoDs work, is totally reasonable.




Agreed. If we're dealing with something with a reasonable intelligence, and the means to do some research about those pesky adventurers before they crash his lair, this should be a given. And even if it's just a way to _Detect Magic_ on them to detect ongoing spell effects while they still clean out the moathouse, and slot a _Greater Dispel_ into that empty spell slot from this morning, so that subsequent damage spells face less resistance and the meatshields with pointy sticks are less brawny.



> I'm arguing from the BBEG's perception of the likelihood of future threats.  If he believes that the heart of his carefully-crafted evil organization (i.e. him) is at lethal risk from a credible threat, it would be irrational to hold back, even if there was an outside chance of another threat later.  And if the PCs are the first to violate his sanctum, or even if they're not the first, but an invasion is a fairly rare event, he's not going to perceive the risk of another attack before he can recover his spent resources as a significant one.




Got to agree with you again. Something like a cultist leader or a master vampire of an area who had underlings and outlying cells clash with the adventurers before, and get eliminated, would definitely check out that threat, try to eliminate them as soon as possible, and break out the big guns if they come too close for personal comfort. At least if there are no story-specific constraints on him ("I CAN'T let loose with my 5th level spells, all the slots are tied up in this damn once-every-millenium ritual those pesky adventurers are disturbing right now!")


----------



## gizmo33 (Oct 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That is their response in the other save-or-die thread to complaints about the automatic lethality of the bodak: that the PCs should have researched that enemy so that they know to have Death Ward active, for example.  They hedged this position by mentioning that the bodak shouldn't be some kind of wandering monster, but a creature which you can, in fact, learn about the presence of beforehand, so that preparation is possible.




Well, I'm probably in a kind of "pro save-or-die" camp but I would not go as far as this, so I find this argument unconvincing (as you do also AFAICT)  (edit:  to be clear, by "argument" I mean the one about the bodaks that you're objecting to, not the one you're making).  In any case, just spot reading this thread I find the justification for save-or-die other than what's given here.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I don't think that it's believable to suggest that a BBEG would not use SoDs because he can't gauge the threat the PCs bring, and might face more challenges later that day, so I don't think it's a good argument for the inclusion of SoDs, which is how it's being presented.




I think I must have misunderstood your post.  I happen to agree with what you've written here.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 25, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, given that the pro-save-or-die crowd are always telling us that SoD effects are fine because the players should have researched their enemies' capabilities



I believe that argument is a poor justification for SoD. Anthtriel delivers what I think is a killer blow in post #69 of this thread - it can be used to justify absolutely anything.

You could say that a class with a d20 for hit points, full BAB, spellcasting like a wizard and no drawbacks is fine because a good DM will see that it is unbalanced and introduce in-game penalties for all PCS of that class.

The 'good DM' defence is no defence at all.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 25, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What's "valid literary effect" mean?




It means that sometimes in stories, characters just drop dead.  I think that they do this because they tend to do that even more often in the real world were events seldom tie up into tidy little narratives with rising and falling actions, and epiphanies and climaxs in all the right places.  Sometimes characters just die in both literature and the real world, so it seems reasonable that there be a chance that a character just dies in a game.



> What's "gameable" mean in this context?




It means that no one is fully in control of the narrative, and things don't happen to player characters just because.  Things that are gamable don't have predictable or fixed outcomes.  (This played a big role in the pilot to DS9 IIRC.)  In stories magic often doesn't have a saving throw.  There is generally no hint that the magic can fail.  It just happens, and the character escapes it if he or she does usually through the power of plot and not any hint that there is chance the magic might fail under normal circumstances.  Saving throws are a way to keep the narrative somewhat outside of any player's control, especially when it comes to things that happen to another player's character.  It resolves a variation on the argument: "Kid #1: I shot you.  Kid #2: No you didn't, you missed."


----------



## gizmo33 (Oct 25, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It means that sometimes in stories, characters just drop dead.




I think I see what you're saying.  Is there any possible effect in an RPG that isn't "valid literary"?  I guess that's somewhat beside the point of the thread, but it's often a perpsective that I don't understand on what people say who approach the issue from the "SoD makes for a bad story" perspective (I'm not saying that's your perspective).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> In stories magic often doesn't have a saving throw.  There is generally no hint that the magic can fail.




Although it is a generalization I more or less agree with you.  The problem I have with most fantasy literature that I've read (from the perspective of making something of it for DnD purposes) is that magic usually is happening at the periphery of the reader's perspective.

Conan, though, has examples of places where the author is saying "if Conan were a lesser mortal, he would have succumbed to the hypnotism, but years of growing up in the sticks gave him superhuman will..." or something to that effect.  Frodo and his struggle against the Ring is probably another example.  

I don't think of saving throws as being at the top of my list of things that aren't in literature.  IMO they are there moreso than other DnDisms.  I'm not in the "RPGs should be a literature simulator" camp anyway, so I don't worry about it too much.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I believe that argument is a poor justification for SoD. Anthtriel delivers what I think is a killer blow in post #69 of this thread - it can be used to justify absolutely anything.
> 
> You could say that a class with a d20 for hit points, full BAB, spellcasting like a wizard and no drawbacks is fine because a good DM will see that it is unbalanced and introduce in-game penalties for all PCS of that class.
> 
> The 'good DM' defence is no defence at all.




That isn't a justification for save-or-die effects, that's one way how you can handle them to ensure the characters have more than one saving throw standing between them and a quick death. It offers more information about the monster to the DM, and at the same time gives the "knowledge" characters in the group to flex their minds before the fighters flex their muscles. It makes such a monster special, and gives it more flavour than just "dungeon fodder". It's not a "good DM defense", rather it's a "good monster design" defense. And an example where the often flaunted "fluff as limitation" worked better than slapping a CR on a monster. Not everything works like that, but neither does every "mechanics only" attempt.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 26, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think that this is the best exposition on this thread of the "fair warning" approach to save-or-die. Done that way, I think it can be used without spoiling play, because the in-game events of receiving the warning, and then acting in response to it, _do_ permit the players to play their PCs - just the same as death through hit-point loss typically comes about in a non-deprotagonising fashion.
> 
> For this approach to be satisfactory, however, I think that acting in response to the warning has to be more interesting than just casting the appropriate buff and proceeding on one's way - having to use mirrors, for example, or fight wearing a blindfold, both of which introduce interesting tactical dimensions into the combat. Or perhaps the defence or workaround involves research or other adventuring that is interesting to actually play out.




Yeah. In truth, my change on the "save or die" issue is more about when I play a PC than when I DM. It's my job as a player be wary of potentially instantly fatal situations & take precautions. If I don't, then I have to accept the consequences, be it my character's death or a less final setback. If I happen to be allowed a saving throw, & if I happen to make it, then I should count my lucky stars, learn my lesson, & do better next time.

& sometimes even when you're doing your best to be careful, you still might die. Because adventuring is a dangerous business. I know that going in. Sometimes you aren't the hero. Sometimes you're the guy who dies & doesn't get a story written about him. It's those PCs that fail (granting that death is only one of a myriad range of failures) that give me a sense of accomplishment when I end up with a PC who does become a hero.

& yes, there are other possible setbacks, but I _like_ death--even instant death--being one of them. It feels like cheating when my PC lives through something that should have rightfully killed him. Making a saving throw at least makes it feel a bit less like cheating.

None of which is meant to say that the way I play the game is "correct". I'm just explaining why I've come to like "save or die". & while I'll enjoy 4e less if it doesn't have it or a close analog.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, given that the pro-save-or-die crowd are always telling us that SoD effects are fine because the players should have researched their enemies' capabilities, and too bad for them if they didn't, doesn't it work both ways? Shouldn't the BBEG know exactly who these guys are that just killed all his demons, and what they're capable of?




Yes! Absolutely!



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think a lot of it also comes down to two different world views of what a Player Character is: Avatar or Personality. (both terms are artificial, definitions below).




Very nice post, Remathilis.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 26, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Very nice post, Remathilis.




Thanks!

Idea was to differentiate the two roles of a PC: monopoly token and literary character. Every PC is both in more-or-less quantities. However, the how the game (and hence the rules) view the PC's role is very different. Avatar's are the gamist element of the PC, Personalities the other. 

Personalities aren't death-proof little ego-children of wannabe drama students, but they are approached in much the same way an author approaches a protagonist of the novel. The player wishes to see what that character would do in these situation. He wants the PC to be a hero or a villain, fall in love, save a kingdom, fall from grace and/or redeem his sin. Its how that PCs interacts in the world (be it with other PCs, NPCs, monsters, villains, etc) that define him, not his AC or hp.

Avatar's are more or less the sum of their character sheets. They are stats, nothing more. They are easily replaced, mourned for no length of time, and rarely more interesting than the one or two defining traits their race/class combo gives. They advance in levels, get new items, and mechanically improve. Its the Player's wits, luck, and talent that define the avatar. He is just the stand-in for the Player. 

Since each player and each PC is a mix of these, it comes down to HOW MUCH you mix. I prefer a mostly personality-driven game, with Avatar elements to keep the game from becoming purely mellowdrama. Others, might prefer a more avatar-based game where PCs have some personalty and goals, but doesn't lament his death in the Tomb of Horrors. Each mixes something different. However, I'm pretty sure the game paragrim on a whole is shifting from "Avatar" to "Personality" and has been since 1e's twilight years. Certainly, WotC seems to be taking that shift beginning in 3e (more or less) and really ramping it up in 4e.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 26, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Sometimes you aren't the hero. Sometimes you're the guy who dies & doesn't get a story written about him.




This right here?  This is the ESSENCE of why I don't want save-or-die (or gameplay-dictated death AT ALL) in the game.

Why would I want to be the guy who dies and doesn't get a story written about him?  I wouldn't read about him, I wouldn't watch a movie about him, I wouldn't play a console game about him - but for whatever reason, I would play him in an RPG, investing more time, more thought and more effort into him than in any other medium?

Even worse, why would I want to GM a game for 'that guy?'  Why set up a series of events and antagonists and plot hooks - only to discover that the dice say the character those were hung on is 'that guy,' not an actual protagonist?

It makes no sense to me.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> This right here?  This is the ESSENCE of why I don't want save-or-die (or gameplay-dictated death AT ALL) in the game.
> 
> Why would I want to be the guy who dies and doesn't get a story written about him?  I wouldn't read about him, I wouldn't watch a movie about him, I wouldn't play a console game about him - but for whatever reason, I would play him in an RPG, investing more time, more thought and more effort into him than in any other medium?
> 
> ...



 Well, you know, D&D is character building.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> This right here?  This is the ESSENCE of why I don't want save-or-die (or gameplay-dictated death AT ALL) in the game.
> 
> Why would I want to be the guy who dies and doesn't get a story written about him?  I wouldn't read about him, I wouldn't watch a movie about him, I wouldn't play a console game about him - but for whatever reason, I would play him in an RPG, investing more time, more thought and more effort into him than in any other medium?
> 
> ...



Why *would* you GM for "that guy", instead of for the party as a whole???  The *party* as a unit is the story...the *party* is the protagonist...the *party* is what the story should be hung on, regardless of what characters pass through it.  The guy who shows up, takes a couple of hits, and dies has still done his bit for the party and played his part in the story...it just wasn't a very big one. And hanging your story on just one character is asking...nay, begging...for just the result you describe above: that that one key character will be the guy who pulls the short straw early.

And this is coming from someone who has played an awful lot of characters just like this...I call them one-hit wonders...that haven't survived their first combat, never mind their first adventure.  RFisher is exactly right: sometimes you aren't the hero.

Lanefan


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Why *would* you GM for "that guy", instead of for the party as a whole???  The *party* as a unit is the story...the *party* is the protagonist...the *party* is what the story should be hung on, regardless of what characters pass through it.




The party is a construct. The party is a meaningless concept outside the context of the dungeon. The party has no needs and wants, no feelings and desires. The PEOPLE making up the party have needs and wants, feelings and desires.

The sooner this concept of the "party" as a faceless, multi-tentacled hivemind dies a flaming death, and the focus of the game is returned to the actual characters who do things, surmount obstacles and achieve goals, the better.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The sooner this concept of the "party" as a faceless, multi-tentacled hivemind dies a flaming death, and the focus of the game is returned to the actual characters who do things, surmount obstacles and achieve goals, the better.




I'll agree with that statement wholeheartedly as long as you change it to "the actual characters who do things, surmount obstacles, achieve goals... or occasionally fail to achieve goals, suffer, and die tragically."

I think this is basically a question of what level of risk, danger and PC death you're willing to have in your campaign, and I say, as a player and a DM -- bring it on. Bring on that chaos and randomness and PC death. A tough-but-fair DM is the best kind. There is nothing more aggravating than playing in a RPG where the DM is a jerk and has it out for your character, but there is nothing more boring than playing in a RPG where the DM is obviously going soft on everyone and your characters never die. Dullest campaign ever.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> But even Call of Cthulhu, noted for its deadliness, doesn't have anything really approacing save or die (I suppose you could argue that seeing Cthulhu himself is a "save or go insane" since the SAN loss is 1d100, but I digress).  The drama comes from the ever-increasing loss of resources/sanity, which causes a slow buildup of tension.  The problem with save-or-die, in my view is that there is no drama/tension.




Actually, it does. There's tons of monsters in Call of Cthulhu who have something like 150% attack percentile and do 8d6 damage (in a game where PCs have on average 14 hit points), or Instant Death damage without a save. I think the rules for Cthulhu state that he "automatically kills 1d3 characters per round." :/ Not that Cthulhu is a model for D&D, of course.... and I don't think these monsters are supposed to be casually sprung on the players... but, being a horror game, Cthulhu is actually WAY deadlier than "save or die."


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, part of the problem with that is that published adventures, supplements, and the like will use them if they're available, as is the case in 3E.  So if you don't like them, it's harder to get rid of them.  I've suggested that save-or-die be non-standard, and that any spell with the [Death] descriptor have a standard save-or-penalty effect that can easily be replaced with save-or-die if you've flipped on that particular switch in your campaign.
> 
> I agree with everything here, except the suggestion that save-or-die is a good addition.  If my character dies, it should be because I did something stupid, or we took on a challenge that was too big for us, or despite our best efforts things went south due to bad die rolls.  It shouldn't be because I happened to enter a room with a bodak.




I'm not specifically in love with the existing mechanics of Save-or-Die. But I don't want D&D4E to be: (1) less deadly or (2) less random. (Or #3, less diverse in terms of character creation options and campaign styles, but that's for another thread.)

If Save-or-Die is replaced with something EQUALLY deadly and random, then I'll be happy as a clam.  But it's hard for me to think of what that might be, and if the idea is to eliminate "unpredictable" deaths of characters and NPCs/BBEGs/monsters, then I am opposed to that, in whatever form it's done. I don't want the game to be nerfed, and I like having a random element which has the potential to trump the best tactics.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I agree with everything here, except the suggestion that save-or-die is a good addition.  If my character dies, it should be because I did something stupid, or we took on a challenge that was too big for us, or despite our best efforts things went south due to bad die rolls.  It shouldn't be because I happened to enter a room with a bodak.




If your DM sets up an encounter which involves you randomly stumbling upon a bodak without warning, that's basically no different than an encounter which involves you randomly stumbling upon some monster which has an incredibly high attack bonus and does enough damage to kill your character in one blow. It's just called "having a killer DM," aka, in most cases, "having a bad DM." If your DM does stuff like that and you don't like it, then you are playing with the wrong DM. It doesn't mean the rules are wrong for allowing the existence of a creature which kills through a "save-or-die effect" rather than just crushing you under sheer weight of HP damage.

I'm not saying that dungeons should be crawling with bodaks, but the option should be there. Otherwise? The same killer DMs will create dungeons crawling with Ancient Red Dragons whose breath attack does 30d6+30 damage. I swear. It'll happen.  I'd do it. (Kidding.)


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I think this is basically a question of what level of risk, danger and PC death you're willing to have in your campaign,




No.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> This right here?  This is the ESSENCE of why I don't want save-or-die (or gameplay-dictated death AT ALL) in the game.
> 
> Why would I want to be the guy who dies and doesn't get a story written about him?  I wouldn't read about him, I wouldn't watch a movie about him, I wouldn't play a console game about him - but for whatever reason, I would play him in an RPG, investing more time, more thought and more effort into him than in any other medium?
> 
> ...




So you play games where you always know when your PCs and NPCs are going to die? :/ Sounds pretty boring to me.

And speaking personally, I do occasionally enjoy stories about the tragic fates of poor souls, cut down before their time. I love the democratically random element of D&D where there is always a SLIM chance that things will get totally screwed up even for the awesomest heroes or villains. Give me a down-by-law, hard-luck, unlikely hero any day. Give me a doomed figure like Marv (from Sin City) or Elric of Melnibone. Or an even more screwed up and unlikely hero. Like the Band of Brothers comparison I made earlier. If you want to know for sure that the hero you created will survive to the end of the game and win, then that's a console RPG, not a tabletop RPG. 

Capital-H Heroes get boring sometimes. Infallible destined Heroes even more so.

But on the other hand, heck, it's all up to you and your DM! You can play that kind of game if you want to, and I will play a different kind of game, inasmuch as it's possible for both of us to do this using the same ruleset. To each their own.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No.




Elaborate.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> If you want to know for sure that the hero you created will survive to the end of the game and win, then that's a console RPG, not a tabletop RPG.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> Elaborate.



 Wahoo factor.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




It is a negative thing. 

Without the risk of character death, D&D is no fun. Period.

At least to me. Maybe not to you or MoogieEmpMog. Different styles.

You obviously enjoy a tactical game, though, so I assume that risk of character death is part of the "tactical risk" in that game. Otherwise it's just a marilith-killing romp through the park with your friends every weekend. If "Save or Die" breaks your definition of "acceptable risk" then that's one thing. It doesn't break mine, though.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Wahoo factor.




I'm not sure what this means.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> Without the risk of character death, D&D is no fun. Period.




The trick is to learn more ways of losing. You seem reluctant to do so. Why is this?



> At least to me. Maybe not to you or MoogieEmpMog. Different styles.




Well, D&D is character building. Or so it seems.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The trick is to learn more ways of losing. You seem reluctant to do so. Why is this?
> 
> Well, D&D is character building. Or so it seems.




Look -- I lost 10 PCs in the last campaign I played in, a very nitty-gritty tactical campaign with lots of complicated fights, and I had a blast. When I died, every six months or so, I would just resume playing the next session with a new character one level below my dead character. If you prefer playing "perpetual character building" games where your character is never any serious risk of dying because you are so attached to them, then enjoy. It's not the kind of D&D I like to play and I want the rules to support the kind of D&D I like to play because I enjoy dramatic, grim, bloody, "everpresent risk of death" campaign styles. And yes, we got robbed by bandits, thrown in jail, had our magic items broken, and all the other non-death styles of losing too. I like the chaos. I like the risk. I like creating new characters. If you don't, you enjoy your kind of D&D game, and I will enjoy my kind of D&D game.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> Look -- I lost 10 PCs in the last campaign I played in, a very nitty-gritty tactical campaign with lots of complicated fights, and I had a blast.




Imagine how much more fun you could have had if you hadn't lost those 10 PCs. It just takes a little willingness to embrace change. Not much at all. Yes, I know change can be scary, but it can bring huge rewards.



> When I died, every six months or so, I would just resume playing the next session with a new character one level below my dead character. If you prefer playing "perpetual character building" games where your character is never any serious risk of dying because you are so attached to them, then enjoy.




Wait a moment. You spent all that time creating PCs, and you can't spend just a little time refashioning your paradigm? Have D&D players gone all soft or something?



> It's not the kind of D&D I like to play and I want the rules to support the kind of D&D I like to play because I enjoy dramatic, grim, bloody, "everpresent risk of death" campaign styles.




There is no risk. There is only the illusion of risk. And what makes up that illusion is under your control. Seize control of the illusion, I say!


----------



## ruemere (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Imagine how much more fun you could have had if you hadn't lost those 10 PCs. It just takes a little willingness to embrace change. Not much at all. Yes, I know change can be scary, but it can bring huge rewards.



Also, it may be a good idea to run a Warhammer type of a game for a change, where dying is not likely (t least until you run out of Fate Points), but your characters can be assaulted  in many inventive ways (crippling, tainting, insanity, poverty to name a few general examples).

Risking character's death is not the only way to play for high stakes.



> Wait a moment. You spent all that time creating PCs, and you can't spend just a little time refashioning your paradigm? Have D&D players gone all soft or something?



Precisely. Why kill when you can enrich the character's story with a little tragedy?

[...]

regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> Without the risk of character death, D&D is no fun. Period.




"No Save-or-Die" does not equal "No Death"

Even if it did...

"No Death" does not equal "No Consequence From Failure"

Have horrible things happen to other people; have friends and family mercilessly slaughtered.  Have the PC's home town obliterated.  Have the PC's spouce/lover/whatever fall in love with the main villain (that will mess with their head).  There are so many bad things that can happen that can't be fixed with a single spell (Raise Dead) and each of them opens up multiple new plot hooks. Sometimes having the bad thing happen to someone else will be more effective.  Killing off a beloved NPC might hurt more than killing off a PC.

Death only means the PC stops suffering.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Imagine how much more fun you could have had if you hadn't lost those 10 PCs. It just takes a little willingness to embrace change.  Not much at all.  Yes, I know change can be scary, but it can bring huge rewards.




Of all the insulting, denigrating, personal attacks that I've ever seen on the Enworld boards, that's absolutely the worst.  What makes something insulting is the disrespect it has for another poster, not the fact that it uses 'insult nouns' or 'emotional trigger words' or that it is said in a fit of anger.  And when it comes to disrespecting another poster, that's about as bad as it gets.

ptolemy18 is not an emotionally and psychologically crippled, closeminded, fearful coward just because he likes to play a game with a high risk of character loss, nor does it follow that he does not know what he is missing by playing a game where his character doesn't die.  He is expressing his choice of what makes an enjoyable game.  I don't see anything in his posts were he makes any sort of judgment about your motivations and mental state to justify this sort of ad hominem attack.  He just said he didn't like your style of play.  You are responding that if he doesn't there must be something wrong about his mental state.  I don't know where you get off or why that sort of thing is tolerated.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> It is a negative thing.




We differ.  If there were an infinite number of good console RPGs, I'd get my old console RPG group together and play them rather than D&D, no question.  That's pretty much what we did during the PS1 era, when there was, if not an infinite number, at least a more than adequate number; it was the best gameplay, and spun off the best roleplaying, I've experienced, by a wide margin.



			
				ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> Without the risk of character death, D&D is no fun. Period.
> 
> At least to me. Maybe not to you or MoogieEmpMog. Different styles.




Then it's not "period."



			
				ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> You obviously enjoy a tactical game, though, so I assume that risk of character death is part of the "tactical risk" in that game. Otherwise it's just a marilith-killing romp through the park with your friends every weekend. If "Save or Die" breaks your definition of "acceptable risk" then that's one thing. It doesn't break mine, though.




You assume wrong.

Shining Force is a tactical game, yet there's no permanent death due to gameplay.  Ditto Vandal Hearts.  Final Fantasy Tactics is, as the name implies, a tactical game; while there is a very slim chance of permanent death due to gameplay, you'd have to almost deliberately work to achieve it because it's so improbable.

While I'm opposed to gameplay death in general, Save or Die is particularly abhorrent to me because in most cases it can ONLY be addressed strategically, not tactically: either you have Death Ward or, if someone else survives, they use Raise Dead.  In both cases, the solution has to be found OUTSIDE the context of the encounter that poses the problem, pushing it outside the tactical scale.

The tactical risk is the risk of LOSING.  What happens AFTER you lose has nothing to do with tactical risk.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 26, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I love the democratically random element of D&D where there is always a SLIM chance that things will get totally screwed up even for the awesomest heroes or villains.




That's a good summary of one reason I hate save-or-die.  Its not a "slim" chance.  Its not a "slim" chance by the wildest margin.  Its an extremely high chance, if your campaign has you encounter certain incredibly rare creatures as "wizards" or "clerics" on an even semi-regular basis.

If run intelligently, a 3e enemy spellcaster after a certain level has about a 50% chance of killing your character each round.

The only way to avoid this is to run the spellcaster unintelligently.  For no explicable reason, have the spellcaster not memorize the spells that give it the best chance of winning.  And when the spellcaster DOES memorize those spells, have it cast them on the characters most likely to make their saves.

But a spellcaster who 1) memorizes save-or-die spells when they're available to him, and 2) casts them on the PCs likely to have the lowest saves versus them, is NOT a slim chance of a dead character.  

Its about a 50/50 shot.

I don't want the game to be set up so that running bad guys in the most obvious, straightforward manner makes you a "killer DM."  "Memorize the best spells and cast them against the most vulnerable targets" should be standard issue, not bad DM practice.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> While I'm opposed to gameplay death in general, Save or Die is particularly abhorrent to me because in most cases it can ONLY be addressed strategically, not tactically: either you have Death Ward or, if someone else survives, they use Raise Dead.  In both cases, the solution has to be found OUTSIDE the context of the encounter that poses the problem, pushing it outside the tactical scale.




Its worse than that.  You can't use Raise Dead to save someone who died to a death effect.

Seriously.  Its stupid, and no one pays attention to it, but its in the spell.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 26, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Of all the insulting, denigrating, personal attacks that I've ever seen on the Enworld boards, that's absolutely the worst.  What makes something insulting is the disrespect it has for another poster, not the fact that it uses 'insult nouns' or 'emotional trigger words' or that it is said in a fit of anger.  And when it comes to disrespecting another poster, that's about as bad as it gets.
> 
> ptolemy18 is not an emotionally and psychologically crippled, closeminded, fearful coward just because he likes to play a game with a high risk of character loss, nor does it follow that he does not know what he is missing by playing a game where his character doesn't die.  He is expressing his choice of what makes an enjoyable game.  I don't see anything in his posts were he makes any sort of judgment about your motivations and mental state to justify this sort of ad hominem attack.  He just said he didn't like your style of play.  You are responding that if he doesn't there must be something wrong about his mental state.  I don't know where you get off or why that sort of thing is tolerated.





…Relax, Francis.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 26, 2007)

I play and DM and I am in favor of save-or-dies and their cousins the save-or-sucks, on the condition that they are all made to be less usefull against PCs and BBEGs. Save-or-suck spells should be mostly flavor spells and effects that are only really useful against mooks and summoned monsters.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 27, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> This right here?  This is the ESSENCE of why I don't want save-or-die (or gameplay-dictated death AT ALL) in the game.
> 
> Why would I want to be the guy who dies and doesn't get a story written about him?  I wouldn't read about him, I wouldn't watch a movie about him, I wouldn't play a console game about him - but for whatever reason, I would play him in an RPG, investing more time, more thought and more effort into him than in any other medium?
> 
> ...




Sure, I would _like_ to be the hero every time. There's a problem with that, however. I make mistakes. Sometimes I make big, there-goes-my-chance-at-hero-hood mistakes. Sometimes I make fatal mistakes.

I only see two ways to ensure I'm always the hero:
prevent me from making decisions that can lead me away from hero-hood
remove the consequences of mistakes I make
Neither makes sense to me.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> That's a good summary of one reason I hate save-or-die.  Its not a "slim" chance.  Its not a "slim" chance by the wildest margin.  Its an extremely high chance, if your campaign has you encounter certain incredibly rare creatures as "wizards" or "clerics" on an even semi-regular basis.
> 
> If run intelligently, a 3e enemy spellcaster after a certain level has about a 50% chance of killing your character each round.
> 
> The only way to avoid this is to run the spellcaster unintelligently.




That's not the only way. The other way out is for the players/PCs to be creative.

When the players/PCs know something is a slim chance, that's the game's way of telling them that they either need to avoid getting in that situation or find a way to change the odds in their favor.

At least that's the way I've come to see it.


----------



## hong (Oct 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Sure, I would _like_ to be the hero every time. There's a problem with that, however. I make mistakes. Sometimes I make big, there-goes-my-chance-at-hero-hood mistakes. Sometimes I make fatal mistakes.
> 
> I only see two ways to ensure I'm always the hero:
> prevent me from making decisions that can lead me away from hero-hood
> ...




Save-and-reload, aka resurrection, is the traditional way of handling this impasse. IMO save-and-reload is more hokey than plot protection, and brings more problems in terms of versimi verislimi verilism suspension of disbelief. Better to replace "dead" with "defeated" as a state, and let PCs accumulate sucks-to-be-me points for being repeatedly defeated.



> That's not the only way. The other way out is for the players/PCs to be creative.




To be precise, the way out is for the players/PCs to be more creative than the DM. Which is often hard to distinguish from "play the bad guy dumb".


----------



## hong (Oct 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Of all the insulting, denigrating, personal attacks that I've ever seen on the Enworld boards, that's absolutely the worst.  What makes something insulting is the disrespect it has for another poster, not the fact that it uses 'insult nouns' or 'emotional trigger words' or that it is said in a fit of anger.  And when it comes to disrespecting another poster, that's about as bad as it gets.
> 
> ptolemy18 is not an emotionally and psychologically crippled, closeminded, fearful coward just because he likes to play a game with a high risk of character loss, nor does it follow that he does not know what he is missing by playing a game where his character doesn't die.  He is expressing his choice of what makes an enjoyable game.  I don't see anything in his posts were he makes any sort of judgment about your motivations and mental state to justify this sort of ad hominem attack.  He just said he didn't like your style of play.  You are responding that if he doesn't there must be something wrong about his mental state.  I don't know where you get off or why that sort of thing is tolerated.



 Mang, this post is so anime.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Sure, I would _like_ to be the hero every time. There's a problem with that, however. I make mistakes. Sometimes I make big, there-goes-my-chance-at-hero-hood mistakes. Sometimes I make fatal mistakes.
> 
> I only see two ways to ensure I'm always the hero:
> prevent me from making decisions that can lead me away from hero-hood
> ...




Explain a mistake that's so big, you can no longer be a protagonist after making it.

To qualify, it of course has to be a bigger mistake than every mistake ever made by a protagonist in a fantasy book, film or electronic game - I'll limit it to fantasy to narrow the field a bit - who remains a protagonist till the end of the story.

Fritz Lieber's Swords stories - Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser often underestimated the opposition or leaped into a situation unprepared or otherwise stuck their necks out in ways that by rights should have killed them.

Robert E. Howard's Conan yarns - Conan was a bit more cautious, but still bit off more than he could chew and only escaped by luck and quickness on more than a few occasions.

The Lord of the Rings - Frodo put on the One Ring multiple times and ultimately wore it and would have used it had not Gollum bitten it off.

Jack Vance's Dying Earth - Cugel the Clever's entire life story was one bit of petty, thuggish foolishness after another, which he survived as much by blind luck as skill.

Lunar: Silver Star Story - Alex of Burg trusted Magic Emperor Ghaleon and led him right to the sanctuary of one of the four dragons of Althena, inadvertently turning Luna/Althena over to him at the same time.

Xenogears - Bart Fatima repeatedly did moronic things that put his and other protagonists' lives at serious risk.

That's just off the top of my head.  Fantasy is FULL of characters who make decisions that range from ill-advised (practically every action taken by a hero!) to downright moronic.  Most of those characters survive.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 27, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Save-and-reload, aka resurrection, is the traditional way of handling this impasse. IMO save-and-reload is more hokey than plot protection, and brings more problems in terms of versimi verislimi verilism suspension of disbelief. Better to replace "dead" with "defeated" as a state, and let PCs accumulate sucks-to-be-me points for being repeatedly defeated.




For whatever reason, I've seen very little resurrection.



> To be precise, the way out is for the players/PCs to be more creative than the DM. Which is often hard to distinguish from "play the bad guy dumb".




I can't entirely disagree with that.

When I DM, I often find it hard to outsmart the four other people at the table simultaneously.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Explain a mistake that's so big, you can no longer be a protagonist after making it.
> 
> To qualify, it of course has to be a bigger mistake than every mistake ever made by a protagonist in a fantasy book, film or electronic game - I'll limit it to fantasy to narrow the field a bit - who remains a protagonist till the end of the story.




I don't measure face-to-face role-playing games by books, films, or electronic games. At least not always. (^_~)

&, you know, I do enjoy _Toon_.

I don't know. I don't think it's about any one specific mistake. After all, I'm trying to explain why I like "save or die", not why I like "just die". (^_^)


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> That's not the only way. The other way out is for the players/PCs to be creative.
> 
> When the players/PCs know something is a slim chance, that's the game's way of telling them that they either need to avoid getting in that situation or find a way to change the odds in their favor.
> 
> At least that's the way I've come to see it.




You know, people keep saying this, and I genuinely don't know what they mean.  I don't know for sure that they know either.  I think maybe I'm getting blown off with a meaningless, dismissive comment.

Save-or-die is pretty simple.  There isn't room to "get creative."  The spellcaster casts the spell, you roll a d20, and if you roll low you die.  There's nothing else to _do._

Maybe you're thinking of specific encounters, and specific times you creatively solved them?  That's great and all, but its not a solution to the problem.

I remember this game session where we killed a spellcaster by sabotaging a dock, and dropping him into the water.  He couldn't cast and swim at the same time very well, and we clubbed him in the head like a baby seal.  That session was _awesome._

But can everyone see that "Yeah!  Do cool stuff like that!" is not an adequate answer to the basic problem that spellcasters are too dangerous to encounter regularly after certain levels?  You can't assume that every encounter with a spellcaster is going to be under circumstances like that unless the DM is giving you freebies.  

Its like saying that the Healer character class isn't weak in combat because this one time your healer PC pushed a boulder down a cliff and crushed a bunch of orcs and it was _totally awesome._  It may in fact have been _totally awesome_, but the exception does not disprove the general rule.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I don't know. I don't think it's about any one specific mistake. After all, I'm trying to explain why I like "save or die", not why I like "just die". (^_^)




Last campaign was a war campaign.  Enemy spellcasters were attached to enemy squads in bulk.  They made up about 1 out of ever 12 hobgoblin soldiers.

This meant that about 4 to 8 spells were cast on the PCs _per day_.  We'll call it 6 as an average.

Lets say I played the hobgoblins intelligently, instead of fun-but-really-stupid.

Casting against the PC with the lowest save versus the chosen spell would yield about a 50/50 chance of the PC failing the save, with the odds checked about 6 times per day.

.5^6=.015625
1-.015626

That's a 98.4375% chance that at least one PC would die on a given day.

So it might as well be "just die" in the long term.

Even if I made the hobgoblins a little dumber, and had them cast against targets with strong saves instead of the perfectly available targets with weak saves, things don't get much better.  A strong save often has about a 70% chance of success.  That yields an 88.2351% chance of at least one PC death per day.

If I reduced the hobgoblins selection of save-or-die to every other spell, it would just mean that those same odds would be invoked... every _two_ days.

This is all worth keeping in mind when discussing saving throws, I think.


----------



## pogre (Oct 27, 2007)

I used to insist SoD was critical to keep the game fun. However, in the last few years when it has happened IMC, whether to PC or foe, it has been decidely anticlimactic. I would throw in _disjunction_ as another fun-killer IMC.

I can see enjoyment in a killer campaign, but it would not suit my tastes for a long running campaign.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> But can everyone see that "Yeah!  Do cool stuff like that!" is not an adequate answer to the basic problem that spellcasters are too dangerous to encounter regularly after certain levels?  You can't assume that every encounter with a spellcaster is going to be under circumstances like that unless the DM is giving you freebies.




It's not about assuming anything about encounters. It's about planning & fleeing to make every encounter the best circumstance we can. Our plan doesn't always have to be that "cool", but we do need to plan.

(& honestly, I'm constantly blown away by my players ability to come up with interesting plans. They do it rather consistently.)

Yeah, you can either change the danger or figure out how to deal with it. I can enjoy either way. Since I start with the assumption that designers must've found ways of dealing with the danger because it must've worked for their games, I want to try to deal with it first & then decide whether to change it.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> That's a 98.4375% chance that at least one PC would die on a given day.




Right. In my group the question before the PCs would then be: How do we mitigate that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 27, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well, I'm probably in a kind of "pro save-or-die" camp but I would not go as far as this, so I find this argument unconvincing (as you do also AFAICT)  (edit:  to be clear, by "argument" I mean the one about the bodaks that you're objecting to, not the one you're making).  In any case, just spot reading this thread I find the justification for save-or-die other than what's given here.



Well, to be precise, the argument I'm referring to isn't really an argument _for_ SoD so much as it's a reason why SoD isn't as bad as people claim...because if you know it's coming (and you should) then you can render it harmless by casting the appropriate preparatory spells.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I believe that argument is a poor justification for SoD. Anthtriel delivers what I think is a killer blow in post #69 of this thread - it can be used to justify absolutely anything.
> 
> You could say that a class with a d20 for hit points, full BAB, spellcasting like a wizard and no drawbacks is fine because a good DM will see that it is unbalanced and introduce in-game penalties for all PCS of that class.
> 
> The 'good DM' defence is no defence at all.



Well, it's basically an application of the oberoni fallacy: there is no problem because we can fix the problem.

(as opposed to, there's a problem but we can fix the problem).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 27, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> This right here?  This is the ESSENCE of why I don't want save-or-die (or gameplay-dictated death AT ALL) in the game.
> 
> Why would I want to be the guy who dies and doesn't get a story written about him?  I wouldn't read about him, I wouldn't watch a movie about him, I wouldn't play a console game about him - but for whatever reason, I would play him in an RPG, investing more time, more thought and more effort into him than in any other medium?
> 
> ...



That's a good angle: from a narrative perspective, SoD turns the characters into redshirts.

"Good lord, it killed him in a glance!  It must be deadly.  Good thing we brought along Sergeant Getskilled.  Scotty, beam us up before any important characters die!"


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 27, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Mang, this post is so anime.



Hong, you've won the internet yet again.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 27, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> If your DM sets up an encounter which involves you randomly stumbling upon a bodak without warning, that's basically no different than an encounter which involves you randomly stumbling upon some monster which has an incredibly high attack bonus and does enough damage to kill your character in one blow. It's just called "having a killer DM," aka, in most cases, "having a bad DM."



Except that, as has been pointed out in the other SoD thread, a bodak is considered an appropriate encounter for four 8th level characters, but we can expect somewhere in the vicinity of 25% of the party to die.  Using it doesn't mean you're a killer DM.  This monster is dramatically different than all the other CR 8 monsters, and the reason it's different is its save-or-die gaze attack.  If you happen to choose to use a bodak because you need a CR 8 monster for a planar-themed adventure, you're probably going to kill PCs, perhaps without realizing that it's going to be so deadly until it's too late.

If the bodak were a CR 15 critter, and were being put up against 8th level characters, you might have a point.  However, judging by the official yardstick of monster strength, bodaks should be a mild challenge for those 8th level characters, not an auto-kill for at least one party member, on average.



> I'm not saying that dungeons should be crawling with bodaks, but the option should be there. Otherwise? The same killer DMs will create dungeons crawling with Ancient Red Dragons whose breath attack does 30d6+30 damage. I swear. It'll happen.  I'd do it. (Kidding.)



Again, what's the CR of an ancient red dragon?  I'll bet you $50 it's not 8.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> That's a good summary of one reason I hate save-or-die.  Its not a "slim" chance.  Its not a "slim" chance by the wildest margin.  Its an extremely high chance, if your campaign has you encounter certain incredibly rare creatures as "wizards" or "clerics" on an even semi-regular basis.
> 
> If run intelligently, a 3e enemy spellcaster after a certain level has about a 50% chance of killing your character each round.
> 
> ...



Precisely.  The problem with support for SoD is that its supporters are always trying to hide behind these hedges.  Hedges like "you should have prepared Death Ward," or, "they should be in the game, but if you _use_ them, you're a killer DM."  It gets ridiculous.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Right. In my group the question before the PCs would then be: How do we mitigate that.



By casting Death Ward and thereby removing SoD from the game, rendering the whole procedure (by both sides) moot.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 27, 2007)

Is it always possible though to have death ward cast on the entire party though?
And if it is then is there any point in having spells in the game that will always be negated?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 27, 2007)

If Save or Die absolutely has to stay in the game, here's what I do
(3rd Edition style)
Save or Die Effects only kill creatures if their level (PCs) or CR (monsters) is below the level (PC) or CR (monster) of the creature using the effect. 
Otherwise, they deal 5 points of damage per CR/Level of the creature using the effect. Only if this damage is sufficient to kill the targeted creature, it actually dies. 

The first Bodak you encounter would be deadly, but later, they are just nasty. (40 points of damage just by looking at them doesn't make them weak)

YOu might want to have a different effect than damage (Slow, Daze, Sicken, Nauseated) for non-deadly effects with similar catastrophic consequences as Save or Die.

Suddenly, the only time where Save or Die is relevant would then be if the PCs are actually engaging a creature more powerful then them, making it a lot more likely that the adventure "warned" them reasonably beforehand.

Still doesn't fix the other problems I have with Save or Die, but at least it eliminates all the low-level monsters and NPCs that can really wreck the game.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> However, I'm wondering how many people who support SoD effects are players, and how many are DMs. I'm running a hypothesis:
> 
> spoiler DMs will support save or die effects more often than players, since players are more often effected by it. /spoiler
> 
> So are you mostly player or DM, and do you support save or die or not?




As of 386 people voting, it came up 67.7% DMs dislike it, 66.7% players dislike it, and 62% DMs/players dislike it. So much for your hypothesis.


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 27, 2007)

I can see the argument: "Well, SoD sucks in random encounters, but it is fun to use it for BBEGs sometimes", similar to "Well, Flumphs/Red-Stripped-Spagetthi-Monsters are really not required most of the time, but it doesn't hurt to have them in the book".
Assuming that Flumphs can somehow ruin the game for newbie players.



			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> Right. In my group the question before the PCs would then be: How do we mitigate that.



Alright. This playsituation: You are in a dungeon. You keep open a door. Inside, there is some kind of cult, with 20 people in black robes scattered in a 18 x 48 metres room. What do you do?

This is a standard situation, and you have no way whatsoever to prevent the enemies from casting a spell on you.
And if there is a special situation, and you can somehow stop all of them from casting a single spell on you, then there was no challenge whatsoever in the first place. You cannot do that kind of stuff all the time.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> As of 386 people voting, it came up 67.7% DMs dislike it, 66.7% players dislike it, and 62% DMs/players dislike it. So much for your hypothesis.




Sometimes its ok to be wrong.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 27, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Is it always possible though to have death ward cast on the entire party though?
> And if it is then is there any point in having spells in the game that will always be negated?




Sure there is:

* Have a 7th+ level cleric memorize it once for every member of the party (forgoing other useful spells like Panacea, Neutralize Poison, Divination, Divine Power, Dimensional Anchor Restoration...)
* Or have a cleric cast Mass death ward at 15th level. 
* Or the party can chip in 21,000 gp for a wand of death ward (assuming it can be bought or made)
* Or 700 gp each for a scroll (again, assuming it can be bought or made)

A Persistent DMM cleric can have 24 hour death ward 24 hours, but everyone else is limited to 7-20 minutes at a clip.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Right. In my group the question before the PCs would then be: How do we mitigate that.




Easy. Stay home.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sometimes its ok to be wrong.




Yup.

I think the issue here is that all of the players at the table, DMs included, tend to like PC continuity and save or die can disrupt continuity.

Players and DMs also like PC deaths to have some meaning, and save and die rarely has significant meaning. Meaningless PC deaths are, well, meaningless. Hence, save or die is typically, well, meaningless.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Lets say I played the hobgoblins intelligently, instead of fun-but-really-stupid.
> 
> Casting against the PC with the lowest save versus the chosen spell would yield about a 50/50 chance of the PC failing the save, with the odds checked about 6 times per day.
> 
> ...




I have to laugh at funny math.  

How many hobgoblin spellcasters have ANY save or die spells in a war campaign let alone every single spell?

How many PCs allow the hobgoblin spellcaster to survive past the first two rounds so that 6 offensive spells (and save or die at that) per day can be cast by the Hobgoblins?

If you are going to try to prove a point, at least try to put up some logical numbers instead of extremist ones.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 27, 2007)

I completely understand the desires of the save or die camp. They want magic at high level to be deadly, they want a way to challenge players more than just "I take away some of your 200+ hitpoints" etc.

The problem is that there are many other ways to do this, and from those options, save or die is a horrible way to go about it.

Here are some examples:

Vile Damage: For those not familiar with BOVD, vile damage is basically damage that can't be healed by normal means. This means that damage you take in a fight can't just be whisked away by a heal spell. All of a sudden, that damage your fighter is taking is REAL damage, which creates a sense of urgency in the player.

Weakness Spells: Take a hypothetical spell called "Vulnerability" that on a failed save, means you take a -4 to AC and 10 more damage from each hit. A BBEG casts that on the front line guy, and suddenly his army of mook guards is a lot more threatening. Now the party has to decide if they should try to dispel the magic, take out the guards 1st, or kill the BBEG and hope that mooks don't do too much.

Status Spells with a twist: Take your standard petrification spell. Now instead of it working immediatley on round 1, it works over the course of 3 rounds (there's a spell treasury spell that already does something like this). But lets add a twist, if a character is petrified from more than 1 day, he's gone for good. The BBEG takes out a player, and then in the course of the fight, manages to teleport away with the statue. The rest of the party must fight off the mooks and then go rescue their friend before its too late.

The DM then says to the petrified player: Hey man, why don't you make a temp character I'll introduce for this adventure. You can play him until the party saves you, or if you fall, you might want to keep the new one.


The advantage of these kinds of effects is that they have a strong POTENTIAL to be deadly to a player. That potential is what creates drama and excitement. If a fighter is looking at his fellow frantically asking for backup because all the mooks do double damage against him, that's exciting. If he throws up his chracter sheet in disgust because he's dead and there's nothing he can do, that just creates tension.

Further, it helps create party unity. If a player dies, he's forgotten, often looted. The party might res him or not depending on the level. If a player takes a big effect in combat, the rest of the party may have to take up the slack, protecting that character. From a roleplaying standpoint, that creates bonding between the chracters, but it also creates bonds between the players as well. Nothing to make a player feel better than a high five and a thanks from a grateful player whose character you just saved.


In closing, save or dies are inefficient mechanics and should be dropped, but the niche they provide should not die. They should be replaced by better mechanics.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 27, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I completely understand the desires of the save or die camp. They want magic at high level to be deadly, they want a way to challenge players more than just "I take away some of your 200+ hitpoints" etc.
> ...
> In closing, save or dies are inefficient mechanics and should be dropped, but the niche they provide should not die. They should be replaced by better mechanics.




Of course I can't speak for the rest of the "save or die camp"  but from what I read here, you don't really understand my point of view on save or die effects, which is pretty much demonstrated by those "replacements" you are suggesting. All of those are already in existence in one form or another in the d20 system in the form of spells or magical effects....and they simply don't have the same effect or flavour as what you are suggesting they should replace. They are not different mechanics for the same niche, they are a different niche altogether. From my point of view, what you're moving for is an elimination of that niche, plain and simple. If that was your intention, I can't say from here.  

To put up two simple examples of what save-or-die effects can portray...

- Tales of Earthsea, the Ghibli movie. The final showdown between Cob and Arren. That is a save-or-die effect right there....sucks for Cob Arren made his save, though.

- Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The _Avara Kedavra_ curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.

That's two examples for save-or-die effects that affected the "heroes" of those stories, and killed one in one case. And, with the exception of them causing a bigass amount of Con damage or hit point damage instead, there isn't much that could simulate them better. I'm sure a lot will disagree and propose alternative methods, but from my point of view, there aren't that many, and cutting out save-or-die means one less option for the DM to portray certain effects.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 27, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> - Tales of Earthsea, the Ghibli movie. The final showdown between Cob and Arren. That is a save-or-die effect right there....sucks for Cob Arren made his save, though.
> 
> - Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The _Avara Kedavra_ curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.




While in Harry Potter world there is no save, its pretty much Power Word: Kill

I will agree to your point that there is no substitute to the actual 1 spell = 1 death other than save or die.

My point was that for many supporting save or die, what are they looking for? If they are in fact wanting to be able to destroy a player with a single spell, then save or die is the only real way to do that (other than just a crazy large amount of hitpoint damage).

However, this causes a lot of clash with the no save or die camp.

Still, there is a more primal aspect to the save or die, the concept that a single spell can change the course of a fight, that can cause a great surge in dramatic tension, that can show how powerful high level wizards are.

These concepts can be preserved in other forms of spells, ones that still give the hero a chance to overcome them with more than a single die roll. In this way, we can preserve some of the benefits of save or die spells while removing one of their great negatives in many people's eyes.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I have to laugh at funny math.
> 
> How many hobgoblin spellcasters have ANY save or die spells in a war campaign let alone every single spell?
> 
> ...




I should have made my point more clear.

In a given day of full on warfare combat, the players could reasonably expect to encounter 4+ hobgoblin spellcasters (and a lot more hobgoblin warriors, plus accompanying monsters).  I don't expect any individual enemy spellcaster to last more than one or two rounds, IF I give them save-or-die spells, because that trains players to assume that any spellcaster is automatically the biggest, most horrible threat on the battlefield at any given moment.

The way I really ran them, in the actual campaign, was to give them quirky but interesting spells.  A hobgoblin spellcaster with a skull helmet might cast animate dead, one with blood red robes probably casts fire spells, etc.  I carefully selected so that the players would NOT encounter any save-or-die spells, because doing so would wreck my ability to use the spellcasters with the frequency I wanted.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 27, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> - Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The _Avara Kedavra_ curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.
> 
> That's two examples for save-or-die effects that affected the "heroes" of those stories, and killed one in one case.




I understand your POV.

I do not agree with it, but I understand it.

Yes, save or die illustrates Sirius' situation here. No doubt.

But, Sirius is an NPC. Harry is the PC. If it would have happened to Harry, the (book and) movie would have sucked and the adventure would have been over. In fact, the movie may have never been made, at least in accordance with the book.

And in fact, in Harry Potter, it is called a Curse. And, a very powerful and rare one at that. In 3E DND, save and die spells exist all over the place. Even a first level Sleep spell is effectively save or die. The probability of it happening to a PC is high compared to the Harry Potter universe where such curses are extremely rare and almost never cast, so, apples and oranges.


Do you understand the problems with your example? The difference between a book and a game is that the author forces the outcome in the book. In the game, the outcome is random and when the rules allow for random death, it could be any PC or NPC that dies. Or even, a TPK.


The question becomes, how do we get rid of save or die for use against PCs (which totally suck except in the most extreme of meaningful and dramatic situations) and possibly keep them for use against NPCs (where it might be cool for the people at the table)?

One way is to have Action Points which allow for a save re-roll. PCs get them. NPCs do not (without a special feat or something for BBEGs).

This might seem contrived, but Fate Points, Luck Points, or Action Points are already contrived.


The problem for 4E is, saves are no longer rolled by the players. So, re-rolls might not be an option. However, an alternative is to allow players to roll their Will Defense or Fort Defense or Reflex Defense if the normal Defense is not high enough against a given magical attack, make a roll (i.e. use D20 + modifiers instead of 10 + modifiers for the defense). If they roll a 20, they auto-save. If they fail, they could still use an Action Point to re-roll again. They could blow through all of their Action Points trying this over and over again.

Death is still an option, but death by save or die tends to use resources instead of actually killing. For PCs.


Another technique is to have save or die spells in the game, but write them up as rare and mysterious spells that virtually no one has. PCs have a nearly impossible time getting them and only re-occurring villains of the highest caliber should ever have them. Make them Epic even. That might mitigate the issue somewhat. When PCs do face them, it should be as rare as artifacts so that the overall chance of an eventual save or die for a given PC is rather low.


Personally, I say just get rid of save or die. The nitch as you call it really does not need to be in the game since it is a nitch that really should only be used against NPCs. It's totally anti-climatic and lame against PCs and I do prefer there to be few special rules for PCs. IMO.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 27, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> - Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The _Avara Kedavra_ curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.




However, neither of them really fall into the protagonist setting. Instead, both are mentors and as such, need to die to allow Harry to fulfill his destiny without the aid of a more powerful ally (the same reason 



Spoiler



Snape


 has to die). Thus, Voldemorte's death curse, while an excellent example of a death effect, is more of a plot device type of effect.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Players and DMs also like PC deaths to have some meaning, and save and die rarely has significant meaning. Meaningless PC deaths are, well, meaningless. Hence, save or die is typically, well, meaningless.




QFT

Every example of a literary character's death that has gotten a mention (Sirius, Boromir) served a function to the story. Their deaths had greater impact on the work, and are examples of a character sacrificing himself for some greater good. 

I'd be interested to find any work of fiction where the author kills off a defined character (not a red shirt) for no larger reason and then forgets about him for the rest of the work (a truly disposable character). Effectively, that is the literary equivalent to save or die: a random meaningless death that adds nothing to the larger narrative and serves only to be a "sucks to be you" to the Player.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to find any work of fiction where the author kills off a defined character (not a red shirt) for no larger reason and then forgets about him for the rest of the work (a truly disposable character). Effectively, that is the literary equivalent to save or die: a random meaningless death that adds nothing to the larger narrative and serves only to be a "sucks to be you" to the Player.




Sorry, got to disagree here, simply because that negative connotation you give save-or-die effects is entirely yours. Basically, they are a tool, a mechanical way for the DM to represent those effects like the Avara Kedavra curse (or similar things, like a basilisk's gaze), and the fact that extremely powerful spellcasters (remember when a 5th level spell was a HIGH level spell in D&D?) can snuff out a life without much fuss. HOW they are used (or abused, as complained on by many posters here) is up to the DM, or the players who have the spell in their repertoire. It's completely valid for a DM to use save-or-die as a plot device, as something that signifies something special, etc. That's not a cop-out, that's a DM using a tool as he sees it fitting into his game.
That goes for most D&D rules, by the way...they are tools that can be used in the game to represent certain things or events. It is 3E that has started integrating and cross-depending rules so tightly that they seem to be required ALL for a good game.

So maybe 4E needs to make those effects more powerful (higher spell levels), rarer (only special monsters with save-or-die effects), and with more "DM handholding" (clarifying when those special monsters should be used, and what consequences a save-or-die effect can have on the game), but I doubt the game will really win something by taking them out of it completely.

And even if Sirius Black and Dumbledore were "only" NPCs/Mentors...it's still the closest method of replicating those effects. And really, if we HAD a Harry Potter RPG, should there be a clause to the Avada Kedavra, saying "Only to be used by NPCs against NPCs"? Because I can remember Harry and his friends dodging quite a few of those in OotP.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Avatar's are more or less the sum of their character sheets. They are stats, nothing more. They are easily replaced, mourned for no length of time, and rarely more interesting than the one or two defining traits their race/class combo gives.



I don't dissent too much from the overall tone of your post, but I did want to pick up on this passage, and express a small disagreement.

To me, this passage expresses a slighly narrow view of what the "character sheet" means. Suppose we ignore the fact that character sheets have not only mechanical information but lists of the PC's friends and contacts, in-game history, enemies, etc. And suppose we ignore those games in which much of that sort of information _is_ expressed mechanically, such as HeroWars, or arguably in AD&D 1st ed (via the henchmen mechanics).

Even just looking at the mechanical aspects of an attribute, skills and talents game like 3E or RM, the character sheet can contain information that is not easily replaced and subsitutable: area knowledge skills, for example (which only make sense in the context of a particular PC's history), or the character in one of my RM games who had maximum ranks in juggling (which only made sense in the context of that PC's history of begging for money on the streets of Greyhawk's Old City).



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the game paragrim on a whole is shifting from "Avatar" to "Personality" and has been since 1e's twilight years. Certainly, WotC seems to be taking that shift beginning in 3e (more or less) and really ramping it up in 4e.



To an extent. But my impression is that the 4e character sheet will actually take a turn away from "personality" to "avatar", because (I gather) many of the sorts of mechanical entries on a character sheet that only make sense for a personality (craft, profession, obscure performance skills, etc) will no longer exist, being handwaved away into character background.

I think that as far as D&D is concerned, 3E may represent the zenith of the notion that the mechanical aspects of a character are a _total picture_ of that character.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 28, 2007)

ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> If your DM sets up an encounter which involves you randomly stumbling upon a bodak without warning, that's basically no different than an encounter which involves you randomly stumbling upon some monster which has an incredibly high attack bonus and does enough damage to kill your character in one blow. It's just called "having a killer DM,"



Except that the bodak is CR 8, and so is (according to the game's mechanics) a roughly appropriate challenge for a party of 8th level PCs. So a GM who uses one against such a party isn't "breaking the rules of the game" in the way that deploying the monster you describe would be.



			
				ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> So you play games where you always know when your PCs and NPCs are going to die? :/ Sounds pretty boring to me.



There are other ways of "losing" - generally, by the PCs not getting what they want. And if all they want is to stay alive, such that dying is the only form of loss, then it sounds to me like a slightly shallow game.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 28, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Sorry, got to disagree here, simply because that negative connotation you give save-or-die effects is entirely yours.




::Looks up at the poll:: Well, not entirely...



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And even if Sirius Black and Dumbledore were "only" NPCs/Mentors...it's still the closest method of replicating those effects. And really, if we HAD a Harry Potter RPG, should there be a clause to the Avada Kedavra, saying "Only to be used by NPCs against NPCs"? Because I can remember Harry and his friends dodging quite a few of those in OotP.




Take the alternative: Harry and his friends "made" every one of those saves. What if Harry had failed a save? What if Ron did? What if (and this is complete ludicrous, bear with me) J. K. Rowling had NO control over whether Harry lived or died?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 28, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> To me, this passage expresses a slightly narrow view of what the "character sheet" means. Suppose we ignore the fact that character sheets have not only mechanical information but lists of the PC's friends and contacts, in-game history, enemies, etc. And suppose we ignore those games in which much of that sort of information _is_ expressed mechanically, such as HeroWars, or arguably in AD&D 1st ed (via the henchmen mechanics).




True, "character sheet" was meant to imply the characters mechanical elements. Some Players write more than that on a char-sheet. However, even some of that can be used to further my point: who were those henchmen he hired? Why did he hire them? Those things tell the story. The raw numbers "2 henchment, ftr2) do not (but they do imply them, I concede your point).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> True, "character sheet" was meant to imply the characters mechanical elements. Some Players write more than that on a char-sheet. However, even some of that can be used to further my point: who were those henchmen he hired? Why did he hire them? Those things tell the story. The raw numbers "2 henchment, ftr2) do not (but they do imply them, I concede your point).



And I wan't meaning to be combative at all. It's just to me that this is an important issue - the main reason I have played RM for so many years, despite its (in many respects) clunky action resolution mechanics, is because of the richness of a RM character sheet - just the distribution of skill bonuses across so many categories of human endeavour paints a picture of the PC which is intimately bound up with the campaign history. And when a new PC is brought in at high level, one of the things you want to do is look at that mechanical information and work out what sort of backstory it implies, and how that fits into the rest of the campaign. It's not just plug-and-play.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> ::Looks up at the poll:: Well, not entirely...




Since I was referencing your specific post...yeah, that is your personal negative connotation I was talking about.  I'll readily agree that there are plenty who also don't like save-or-die, for various reasons, and that the connotation of "meaningless" and "random" pops up in other posts as well, though. That okay?  

Got to say, though, it surprises me that there is a 2:1 ratio. Judging from the volume of anti-save-or-die posts, I was expecting a bigger difference.  



> Take the alternative: Harry and his friends "made" every one of those saves. What if Harry had failed a save? What if Ron did? What if (and this is complete ludicrous, bear with me) J. K. Rowling had NO control over whether Harry lived or died?




Then it wouldn't have been an author-controlled book indeed. It would have more in common where there is an element of chance involved in every scene that features the heroes...something like a 20-sided die, for example.
And if it had been an RPG scene in the Ministery of Magic instead of a book/movie scene, and all the kids had survived, it would have shown that a) they were DAMN lucky with their saves and b) those death eaters were damn unlucky, or lousy shots.  And after the Sirius Black scene, all the players would have been sweating like hell at every saving throw.


----------



## Grog (Oct 28, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And if it had been an RPG scene in the Ministery of Magic instead of a book/movie scene, and all the kids had survived, it would have shown that a) they were DAMN lucky with their saves and b) those death eaters were damn unlucky, or lousy shots.  And after the Sirius Black scene, all the players would have been sweating like hell at every saving throw.



But that's not what would have happened. If the Harry Potter series had included D&D style save-or-die, what would have happened is that Harry would have encountered a random Death Eater, it would have pointed at him, and he would have dropped dead right there. It would have been a crappy ending to the story, and the "players" wouldn't have been sweating anything except what their next characters were going to be.


----------



## WarlockLord (Oct 28, 2007)

Speak for yourself.  I hate Harry Potter.  Whiny, teenage, angst-ridden...sorry.  But I see the point Grog is getting at.

What if we included save or dies, but...

We had a system of "coolness survival points" that recharged everyday, and each could be spent to gain 1 reroll on ANY roll you make (or force an attacker to reroll an attack).  Not too many, around 1 or 2 a day.  (This is what I was getting at with my earlier post.  I'm sorry if I sounded snarky and dismissive, the only game I play is D&D and I thought the Eberron points the same as the UA.  No idea how Spycraft, Saga, or Conan work.)  This way one could still have the kills, but you would have less of a chance of dying, and BBEGs could also have these? Sure, it's liable to spamming, but SoDs would probably be 1/day spells, and I suspect casters will have _very_ few of those.  

Also, these spells could require sacrifices.  If, every time you cast Finger of Death, you took 1 point of Con damage because the spell is so difficult, one would probably see less spamming of BBEGs, especially if a difficult escape is required.  And a BBEG would be extremely careful about using this thing, and ue it only as a last resort, rather than spamming phantasmal killers (which would require the sacrifice of 1 point of Wis as you tap into the insanity of the Lovecraftian entities that populate your gameworld).  And with this system, there should never, ever, EVER be anything like the soulmeld Strongheart Vest.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 28, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And if it had been an RPG scene in the Ministery of Magic instead of a book/movie scene, and all the kids had survived, it would have shown that a) they were DAMN lucky with their saves and b) those death eaters were damn unlucky, or lousy shots.  And after the Sirius Black scene, all the players would have been sweating like hell at every saving throw.




Which is great if your PC is Harry, Hermonie, or Ron, and really disappointing if you PC is Sirius...


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And even if Sirius Black and Dumbledore were "only" NPCs/Mentors...it's still the closest method of replicating those effects.




Nope. Totally false.

The curse effect in Harry Potter is "save if the author wants you to save".

The save or die effect in DND is not "save if the DM wants you to save". Instead, it is "save if you roll high enough".

Two totally different mechanics and nowhere near each other except for the potential result.

To 100% emulate the curse in Harry Potter, a spell would have to read "Saving Throw: Death if the DM decides, Life if the DM decides, player does not get to roll". That's not save or die. Not even close.

If the DM wants the player to save after he has an NPC cast a save or die spell at the player and the player rolls a 1, the DM has to go through hoops (i.e. make crap up) to suddenly figure out a way to prevent insta-death.

So, the literary examples are all totally invalid because all of the literary examples are totally controlled by the author whereas DND is not totally controlled by the DM. The players and the dice do have a say in DND results, not just the DM.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 28, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> We had a system of "coolness survival points" that recharged everyday, and each could be spent to gain 1 reroll on ANY roll you make (or force an attacker to reroll an attack).  Not too many, around 1 or 2 a day.  (This is what I was getting at with my earlier post.  I'm sorry if I sounded snarky and dismissive, the only game I play is D&D and I thought the Eberron points the same as the UA.  No idea how Spycraft, Saga, or Conan work.)  This way one could still have the kills, but you would have less of a chance of dying, and BBEGs could also have these? Sure, it's liable to spamming, but SoDs would probably be 1/day spells, and I suspect casters will have _very_ few of those.




If you change 'reroll' to 'automatic success,' then I don't have a problem with this.  Star Wars Saga Edition basically does this - you can spend a Force Point to convert 'dead' to 'knocked out.'

What it does is put the situation I described earlier (characters will or can die when it's a situation their players consider dramatically important enough to sacrifice them, or at least risk death) in mechanical terms.  If you absolutely MUST use your last action/force point to get something done, then by golly, it's something important enough for you to risk your character's life.

If it's just a reroll, though, it remains far too random for my tastes.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 28, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, the literary examples are all totally invalid because all of the literary examples are totally controlled by the author whereas DND is not totally controlled by the DM. The players and the dice do have a say in DND results, not just the DM.




The players certainly do.  Whether the dice do (or SHOULD) is what's under discussion here.

Certainly there are RPGs where NEITHER the GM nor the dice have the power to outright kill a PC without the player's consent.  Dogs In The Vineyard is an iconic example - if the players don't escalate the conflict to lethal levels, it CANNOT become lethal.  More subtly, Star Wars Saga Edition achieves something similar via its implementation of action points (well, Force Points due to the setting).

In the current version of D&D, the dice have more power than either the players or the GM.  In past versions, the GM had more power than either the dice or the players.  In Dogs, the players have more power than either the GM or the dice (arguably).  Burning Empires attempts to balance the three powers.

Where power should be invested - in the rules, in randomness, in the game master, in the other players - is, of course, one of the critical questions when designing an RPG, and there really isn't a 'right answer.'  Just the answer that's most right for the most players (among those who would or might be interested in your game in the first place).  Where D&D is concerned, that's a fairly large and diverse group of people, so I don't envy the designers the need to grapple with such questions.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In the current version of D&D, the dice have more power than either the players or the GM.  In past versions, the GM had more power than either the dice or the players.




Could you quote rules for this? Having played all of the editions of DND, I do not remember rules that the GM could throw dice rolls or player decisions out the window.

Nor do I see that 3E/3.5 is more dice controlled than previous versions. For example, initiative was re-rolled every round in previous editions. Lots more dice rolls there.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Where D&D is concerned, that's a fairly large and diverse group of people, so I don't envy the designers the need to grapple with such questions.




The designers really do not have a say unless they get rid of DMs, dice, or players. If they put save or die spells in, the DM can always yank them out. If they leave save or die spells out, the DM can always put them back in.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> QFT
> 
> Every example of a literary character's death that has gotten a mention (Sirius, Boromir) served a function to the story. Their deaths had greater impact on the work, and are examples of a character sacrificing himself for some greater good.
> 
> I'd be interested to find any work of fiction where the author kills off a defined character (not a red shirt) for no larger reason and then forgets about him for the rest of the work (a truly disposable character). Effectively, that is the literary equivalent to save or die: a random meaningless death that adds nothing to the larger narrative and serves only to be a "sucks to be you" to the Player.




So what meaning is found in the game when you are full attack splatted in one round? Is it the method of death, the death, the lack of meaning in death that makes it bad?


I think there needs to be some change since in 3/3.5 e save or dies were just the best way to attack in the game.  You had a high chance of success at ending the fight  in one action, that is fairly insane.  

I don't like the idea of just removing them though, spells like polymorph, sleep,flesh to stone, or less cool to me but even true save or dies like finger of death are great spells that would be a crime to remove.  If you remove all save or dies you  minds as well just say I hit them with a magic attack for X damage every round.  Because the I used fire this round instead of lighting wow factor will wear off quickly.  

Personally I'd like them to switch all save or dies to something like the power word kill system but with a save/attack roll vs the correct defense on top of the must have less than X HP system.  That way if balanced right save or dies don't end the fight in the first action, they end the fight 1 round earlier than they would of otherwise if successful and 1 round later if they fail.

So how many people who are voting against save or dies
Are against all PC death?
Are against save or Dies no matter how they are changed?
Are just against save or dies because of how they are currently implemented?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 28, 2007)

You know guys, discussions like this will end up in a "it's great" vs. "it's crap" line of arguments sooner or later anyway, this one is a good example of it. People ask for examples from other media where a main character is simply dropped by something like a death effect, because to them D&D shouldn't invalidate the "plot sanctity" of their character. They are provided, and suddenly it's either "those are only NPCs" or "those are not save-or-die but author fiat" (which makes me wonder how that reflects on all the DM fiat discussions), and only one of two examples is actually addressed (I wonder what you'd come up with for the second...Arren not being a main character, or the spell not being save-or-die?). You try to discuss how that death effect killing that "NPC" could impact the main characters then if it had been a scene in an RPG, and you get told how much it must have sucked for the player if that NPC had been a PC  ...or that the current save-or-die mechanic would have killed the main characters off randomly and without meaning when in other places you get told that they are useless and unrealistic because even John Commoner has at least a 5% chance of surviving them no matter how bad his Con score. People prefer to throw "but it's RANDOM and ARBITRARY and totally ANTI-CLIMATIC" in the fray when the point brought up is that save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance (one poster arguing that, when the PCs are high enough level they should be encountering hundreds of 9th level clerics still sticks out in my mind), which just makes me wonder what kind of game trauma they must have experienced to get to the conclusion that, as soon as save-or-die effects are in the rules, DMs start killing PCs left and right. Some even insist it SHOULD be that way per RAW, which is kinda weird, looking at the population percentages in the DMG for the "default" setting, where a cleric of high enough level _might_ turn up in a Large Town or higher...and that would be one of 9th level, not hundreds.

So for the time being, I'll simply assume this discussion having reached another impasse, and bow out for a bit. Maybe it'll be worth coming back to it in a few days or so. Seeing as 4E is finished in its basic structure anyway, it's nothing I can change by trying to keep this side of the fence up anyway. And whatever happens in my games isn't depending on the discussions here either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 28, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Sorry, got to disagree here, simply because that negative connotation you give save-or-die effects is entirely yours. Basically, they are a tool, a mechanical way for the DM to represent those effects like the Avara Kedavra curse (or similar things, like a basilisk's gaze), and the fact that extremely powerful spellcasters (remember when a 5th level spell was a HIGH level spell in D&D?) can snuff out a life without much fuss.



But does he really need the ability to snuff out the life of PCs and BBEG, or is isn't it sufficient being able to kill a random NPC or PC henchmen with a single spell?

There are even a few spells in D&D that already do this - The Cloud spell (forgot the name) that kills anyone with 9HD or less. 
I think they're okay as a "Die" spell (they aren't event Save or Die, IIRC), because, well, they are there to show off the NPCs or PCs power over "moral humans". But against the real powerful ones, it's just not enough. 
Such a spell would meaningless for any challenging encounter, but it gives a sense of absolute power for a character. 

But if you can regularly use such spells on PCs and BBEG, you too often risk damaging the flow of storytelling or player participation.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 28, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> So how many people who are voting against save or dies
> Are against all PC death?




No.

All GAMEPLAY death (for PCs or major NPCs), yes.

I would like to see what is currently 'death' in D&D become 'removed from the encounter' (unless appropriately treated, allowing the character to return to participation), and ideally a 'last stand' mechanic that encouraged players to turn on their metaphorical 'death flags' in the most dramatic encounters.



			
				Ahglock said:
			
		

> Are against save or Dies no matter how they are changed?




No.

They're currently too effective at mid-high levels, but conceptually I have no problem with a 'save or be removed from the encounter' effect.



			
				Ahglock said:
			
		

> Are just against save or dies because of how they are currently implemented?




No.

Not JUST because of how they are currently implemented, but partly so.  Right now, they are both a) poorly balanced with other effects, probabilistically speaking and b) tied to a system that permanently removes protagonists from the story.  I'm against both of those elements.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 28, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> So what meaning is found in the game when you are full attack splatted in one round? Is it the method of death, the death, the lack of meaning in death that makes it bad?




A full attack action can be very lethal, but there are A LOT more chance of survival. You have to hit on a majority of those attacks (and the probability of each of those hits are dependent on the attackers to hit roll, defenders AC, and other situational factors). It also depends on the weapon/damage rolls vs. the defender's hp. You need a full round action to use this (which unless you're some insane archer build, requires at least a round to get into attack position.) Lastly, if your so inclined, a DM can fudge the damage output much more subtlety to fit his scenario (dropping a PC into negatives and moving on, leaving him with a few hp left, etc). So it very possible if not likely you can survive a full attack by virtue of a good AC, good hp, poor attack bonuses, poor damage rolls/ability, movement, negative hp/dropping, or DM fiat). 

Compare that to save or die. The defender gets ONE die roll, vs a caster's set DC. Barring spell resistance (a rarity for PCs) that is the only defense the PC gets vs death. His hp doesn't matter, since the damage on that single attack instantly does character hp +10 damage. The caster can do it from range as a standard action. He can do it as long as he has spell slots to dedicate to the effect. Lastly, the DM cannot fiat the roll if he chooses to, since the spells effect (death) is set. So the PC CAN ONLY survive by rolling high and hoping his save bonus is better than his opponents save DC).

For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to *once per day* make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 28, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> All GAMEPLAY death (for PCs or major NPCs), yes.
> 
> I would like to see what is currently 'death' in D&D become 'removed from the encounter' (unless appropriately treated, allowing the character to return to participation), and ideally a 'last stand' mechanic that encouraged players to turn on their metaphorical 'death flags' in the most dramatic encounters.




I understand the idea I think I'd hate to play in it.  Last night was my first time of running a full Saga adventure.  I had retrofitted the sunless citadel into star wars, and the end boss was a 4th level dark side force user.(fighter class)  He crit and brought one of the party members to what would of been -10 in one shot.  In saga it was brought to 0 and dropped on the condition track by exceeding his fort save in damage.  This meant death but the player spent a force point and hung on.  I'm not sure I would like this in a D&D game but for star wars it seemed to fit the space opera high heroics setting. 

 I guess it would be cool to add in multiple death rules so you can tie a death rule to the genre of fantasy you are running.  -10 HP dead, hero points to hang on, no game paly death except when players turn on death flags, and others.  And if one wasn't labeled as the  core system with others as options I think that would even be better. 

Overall though I think I like the idea that in every encounter I can be killed.  When I think I won't be killed I lose any emotional investment in the game and I'm just rolling dice. 



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> They're currently too effective at mid-high levels, but conceptually I have no problem with a 'save or be removed from the encounter' effect.
> 
> ...




So the true save or dies you are not a fan of this since they do remove you from the campaign, but something like stone to flesh, sleep, polymorph, knocked to on deaths door is fine if balanced correctly?
I think I understand what you want but again I don't think I would like it.  But I'd love it if it was one of the death options in the game so multiple styles of heroic fantasy were represented.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> A full attack action can be very lethal, but there are A LOT more chance of survival. You have to hit on a majority of those attacks (and the probability of each of those hits are dependent on the attackers to hit roll, defenders AC, and other situational factors). It also depends on the weapon/damage rolls vs. the defender's hp. You need a full round action to use this (which unless you're some insane archer build, requires at least a round to get into attack position.) Lastly, if your so inclined, a DM can fudge the damage output much more subtlety to fit his scenario (dropping a PC into negatives and moving on, leaving him with a few hp left, etc). So it very possible if not likely you can survive a full attack by virtue of a good AC, good hp, poor attack bonuses, poor damage rolls/ability, movement, negative hp/dropping, or DM fiat).
> 
> Compare that to save or die. The defender gets ONE die roll, vs a caster's set DC. Barring spell resistance (a rarity for PCs) that is the only defense the PC gets vs death. His hp doesn't matter, since the damage on that single attack instantly does character hp +10 damage. The caster can do it from range as a standard action. He can do it as long as he has spell slots to dedicate to the effect. Lastly, the DM cannot fiat the roll if he chooses to, since the spells effect (death) is set. So the PC CAN ONLY survive by rolling high and hoping his save bonus is better than his opponents save DC).
> 
> For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to *once per day* make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?




There are plenty of creatures of appropriate CRs that can either easily be smote in one round of full attacks by the fighter or kill a party member in one round of full attacks, especially if its low hid die class like rogue or sorcerer.  DM fudging can come in a lot of ways, damage may just be easier.  I can say the Medusa is trying to lock its gaze with yours, oh it failed, and only when I think the fight has gone on long enough so maybe HP attrition would of killed him have the Medusa's gaze lock on.  Still I'm not even trying to claim save or dies are balanced right so the one roll argument is meaningless to me.  Also I don't fudge at all so either way whether its a failed death save or my fire giant just goes to town on the rogue it can easily equal one dead PC.

I'm not sure that is a better comparison, but in answer probably not.  Not because of the effect but because in 3e it breaks the system of how classes work.  Spell casters have depleting resources and once a day effects, fighter types do consistent damage and can go all day.

   In 4e where that seems to be changing, assuming it was balanced no I wouldn't have a problem with that.  In fact I think it would be really cool.  Some Last boy Scout action, "Can I have a light, and if you punch me again I'll kill you."  gets punched.  He steps up one shot punch and he kills him.


----------



## Grog (Oct 28, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> People prefer to throw "but it's RANDOM and ARBITRARY and totally ANTI-CLIMATIC" in the fray when the point brought up is that save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance



Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 28, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Overall though I think I like the idea that in every encounter I can be killed.  When I think I won't be killed I lose any emotional investment in the game and I'm just rolling dice.




That's a good example of why this is essentially a playstyle issue and that people have completely opposite responses to the same thing. For some people (myself included), knowing that the PC won't be killed actually helps emotional investment, since they're able to focus more on the character and its development and roleplaying it without having to worry about all of that going to naught because the character suddenly dies.


----------



## Agamon (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Interestingly, I expected more "DM only" to be pro SoD, while more "Player Only" to be anti-SoD. It seems the anti-sentiment is strong among both camps however.




As a 'usually DM', I hate Save or Die.  The 'bam, yer dead' aspect is disruptive and anti-climactic.  And it leads to die-raise-die-raise silliness.  

I find it works against PCs more than NPCs, too.  Baddies tend to have pretty good saves compared to PCs.  I've had 5 PCs die to save or die events so far in my AoW game, and though they try, the PCs have only killed one baddie with anything close to a save or die effect (PC hit a mind flayer with a drow poisoned shuriken, I rolled a one to save.  It didn't kill it, but the PCs did after it fell unconscious).

I don't really like play over 10th level, and this would be one of the main culprits.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 28, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> There are plenty of creatures of appropriate CRs that can either easily be smote in one round of full attacks by the fighter or kill a party member in one round of full attacks, especially if its low hid die class like rogue or sorcerer.  DM fudging can come in a lot of ways, damage may just be easier.  I can say the Medusa is trying to lock its gaze with yours, oh it failed, and only when I think the fight has gone on long enough so maybe HP attrition would of killed him have the Medusa's gaze lock on.



So we're moving from save-or-die to die-because-I-say-so?

You can't really fudge save-or-die, because if you do you're either removing them entirely, or you're just deciding at some point that the player dies.  Either way, you've removed save-or-die from the game.  In the latter case, you're just deciding arbitrarily to kill a PC without even the recourse to a saving throw, which is pretty much the opposite of what most people consider to be fair use of DM fiat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to *once per day* make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?




Actually, let's make that more mechanically realistic.

Kill Feat: -6 to hit. If the attack roll hits, it does +1000 hit points of damage. Once per day.

That is more or less what save or die typically is (the -6 is to get the chance to succeed more or less in the same ballpark at mid to high level). One roll against death.

I do not see the appeal to give spell casters these huge cannons. And, they are not limited to once per day. They could do it several times per day.

Why should spell casters get save or die spells and Fighters not get avoid or die abilities?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.




Yes. Level one Wizard or Sorcerer can have a Sleep spell which for all intents and purposes, is nearly save or die. The level is pretty darn low.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 28, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Personally I'd like them to switch all save or dies to something like the power word kill system but with a save/attack roll vs the correct defense on top of the must have less than X HP system.  That way if balanced right save or dies don't end the fight in the first action, they end the fight 1 round earlier than they would of otherwise if successful and 1 round later if they fail.




Interesting concept.

Instead of Save or Die, it becomes Save or Coup De Grace. Weaken him first and then throw in the killing blow. But, it does become a bit formulaic and only delays Save or Die to latter rounds. Not quite a good enough solution.


Another possibility is gradual death / turn to stone effects. It takes 3-5 rounds to turn the PC to stone and each round he gets stiffer and stiffer (similar to Heat Metal with varying effects each round). But, at least the PCs (and NPCs) have time to react and possibly counter the effect. This is also good as high level area effect type spells because although it doesn't take the opponents out right away, it does force them to use up resources and waste actions (dispels and such).

This type of multi-round gradual concept could remove save or die as a specific game mechanic, but allow the same cinematic effects. Somewhat satisfying both camps (except for the real extremists). The PC could still die or get turned to stone or get sucked into another dimension, but it's not bang you're dead.

Thanks for helping me think outside the box.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 28, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Why should spell casters get save or die spells and Fighters not get avoid or die abilities?




Agreeing again, but I'll just toss this out. Its possible that in 4e, fighters and rogues COULD have something like this, thanks to the at will/per encounter/per day paragrim. I would certainly hope it happens at epic levels though.

I like your revision to my hypothetical feat though, so lets finish it off...

Killing Blow [General]
Requirements: Weapon Focus (any), Bab +9
Benefit: Once per day, you can make a special killing attack as a standard action. You must declare you are using this feat before you make your attack roll. You make one attack at your highest attack bonus, but with an additional -6 penalty. If you hit, you deal your normal damage  plus 1,000 points of additional damage. If you miss, your attempt is wasted for the day. This feat has no effect on creatures immune to critical hits. 
Special: a fighter can take Killing Blow as a bonus feat.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Overall though I think I like the idea that in every encounter I can be killed.  When I think I won't be killed I lose any emotional investment in the game and I'm just rolling dice.



This is something I don't quite get. Most novels I read and movies I watch - not to mention most of my own real life and that of my friends - don't have the threat of death as the trigger for emotional investment.

Even when I think of fanastic genres, like superhero comics or fantasy adventures, it's typically not the threat of death but the threat of some other sort of loss or failure that is the basis for emotional investment.

Only in war stories of a certain sort (in which sheer survival, rather than achieving some goal, is the main focus) does the threat of death become the emotional crux. Does D&D have to be like this?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 29, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In the current version of D&D, the dice have more power than either the players or the GM.  In past versions, the GM had more power than either the dice or the players.  In Dogs, the players have more power than either the GM or the dice (arguably).  Burning Empires attempts to balance the three powers.





			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Could you quote rules for this? Having played all of the editions of DND, I do not remember rules that the GM could throw dice rolls or player decisions out the window.



Right. But earlier editions of D&D had far fewer and less detailed action resolution mechanics, and also less intricate character build mechanics to interact with them. As a result, the GM had a lot of power to determine whether or not PC's actions succeeded or failed, independently of any information on the character sheet, and independently of any dice rolls. White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors are both modules which are written with an understanding that they will be played and GMed in such a fashion.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I like your revision to my hypothetical feat though, so lets finish it off...
> 
> Killing Blow [General]
> Requirements: Weapon Focus (any), Bab +9
> ...




The pro- save or die people would throw a gasket at their game if their DM had an NPC with this feat and used it against their PC.

DM: "He hits. You're dead."
Player: "What do you mean I'm dead?"
DM: "He hit you for 1032 points of damage. You're dead."

They would blow a fuse.  

But, they love save or die. <shakes head>


----------



## FireLance (Oct 29, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> They would blow a fuse.
> 
> But, they love save or die. <shakes head>



But, arguably:

1. The PCs should have done their research on the NPC and discovered that he was so highly skilled that he could kill anyone with one strike of his sword.

2. The PCs should be walking around with _delay death_ from the Spell Compendium, which temporarily prevents death from hit point damage, or with _heavy fortification armor_, which negates critical hits. Even if they don't have access to such spells or equipment, they should be ready to take action (e.g. fighting defensively) to minimize the chance of the NPC hitting them.

3. The PCs should not randomly encounter the NPC. The players should deliberately decide to take on the NPC, or he should be part of a dramatic and climactic encounter.

4. In any case, the players should stop being such whiny crybabies and accept that their characters could die at any time regardless of any measures they take to prevent it.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 29, 2007)

To complete the analogy, a character killed by the damage from that special attack should be bisected multiple times, rendering him impossible to raise without Resurrection.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 29, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So we're moving from save-or-die to die-because-I-say-so?
> 
> You can't really fudge save-or-die, because if you do you're either removing them entirely, or you're just deciding at some point that the player dies.  Either way, you've removed save-or-die from the game.  In the latter case, you're just deciding arbitrarily to kill a PC without even the recourse to a saving throw, which is pretty much the opposite of what most people consider to be fair use of DM fiat.




  How is deciding when to deploy a save or die any different than seeing a 20 and saying oh he missed?  Either you fudge or you don't.  If you fudge you can fudge anything.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 29, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Interesting concept.
> 
> Instead of Save or Die, it becomes Save or Coup De Grace. Weaken him first and then throw in the killing blow. But, it does become a bit formulaic and only delays Save or Die to latter rounds. Not quite a good enough solution.
> 
> ...




it may be a bit formulaic but I like the gamble of not knowing if the target is weak enough yet, also it fulfills two purposes for save or dies, it gives you an all or nothing method of ending the fight sooner(but not by much), and it allows you to finish suckers in flashy ways from the get go.

I kind of like the multi-round spell idea it works great for the PCs and intelligent NPCs but against a wide range of creatures they wont have any way of dealing with it unless the spell is giving a save each round or something.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> How is deciding when to deploy a save or die any different than seeing a 20 and saying oh he missed?  Either you fudge or you don't.  If you fudge you can fudge anything.



 I give my players Fate Points. They fudge so I don't have to. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 29, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is something I don't quite get. Most novels I read and movies I watch - not to mention most of my own real life and that of my friends - don't have the threat of death as the trigger for emotional investment.
> 
> Even when I think of fanastic genres, like superhero comics or fantasy adventures, it's typically not the threat of death but the threat of some other sort of loss or failure that is the basis for emotional investment.
> 
> Only in war stories of a certain sort (in which sheer survival, rather than achieving some goal, is the main focus) does the threat of death become the emotional crux. Does D&D have to be like this?




You live under the threat of death right now.  You may not be running around and crying oh god no I might die, but guess what eventually you will die, your friends and family will die as well.  You know this, we all know this, its part of life, eventually you die.  For me the threat of death has to exist in the game or it loses to much touch with life.  I'd feel like I was in a crappy Ann Rice novel.  

As for comics, novels, movies it depends on the genre.  Many books, comics, etc we know the hero wont die in the comic as long as its profitable, but they do a good job of emotionally tricking you into thinking the risk is there.  More pulp adventure style genres don't bother, Indiana Jones you never even think about it.  Cop shows and movies, mafia movies, harder action movies they do there best to create the feeling that the threat of death is there.

I don't expect everyone to like the type of game I play and run, I do hope that there are adequate rules to cover multiple styles of play in 4e including mine.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I give my players Fate Points. They fudge so I don't have to.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Saga has force points that I guess work similar.  Its the first time I have dealt with them and so far I'm somewhat pleased.  I'm not sure I'd like them in a D&D game I run but I may give them a shot though 5 points for each level seems a bit excessive .


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> it may be a bit formulaic but I like the gamble of not knowing if the target is weak enough yet, also it fulfills two purposes for save or dies, it gives you an all or nothing method of ending the fight sooner(but not by much), and it allows you to finish suckers in flashy ways from the get go.




It's not too much of a gamble. If the Fighters already did 100 points of damage, it's a fair bet that the Power Word Kill-like spell is going to finish the job.

But like I said, shifting when it happens (round 5 instead of round 1) is not really resolving the issue.



			
				Ahglock said:
			
		

> I kind of like the multi-round spell idea it works great for the PCs and intelligent NPCs but against a wide range of creatures they wont have any way of dealing with it unless the spell is giving a save each round or something.




Isn't that the point? Who really cares if it takes 3 rounds to kill NPC monsters? What matters is that PCs do not die without some chance of affecting their own fate.

NPCs do not play the game and do not care about their fate. If the DM gets upset about a special NPC dying, then it's time to look around for a new DM.

Players do play the game, and they often care about the fate of their PCs.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Saga has force points that I guess work similar.  Its the first time I have dealt with them and so far I'm somewhat pleased.  I'm not sure I'd like them in a D&D game I run but I may give them a shot though 5 points for each level seems a bit excessive.



 The Fate points that I use might be more like SW Saga's Destiny points -- the Force point system seems more like Action points, IMHO. (You get very few Destiny points, while you get a lot of Force points.)

But yeah, similar idea in any case. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> How is deciding when to deploy a save or die any different than seeing a 20 and saying oh he missed?  Either you fudge or you don't.  If you fudge you can fudge anything.



(roll 20)
"He hits you."
(fail to roll confirmation.  Roll damage.  Get 27.)
"He does 20 points of damage."

Save-or-die is binary.  You can fudge it to ON and you can fudge it to OFF.  Other types of actions aren't binary.  They encompass a wide variety of outcomes.  When fudging them, you can nudge, you can shove, or you can shovel.  They don't fall prey to the law of the excluded middle the way save-or-die does.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 29, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> That's a good example of why this is essentially a playstyle issue and that people have completely opposite responses to the same thing. For some people (myself included), knowing that the PC won't be killed actually helps emotional investment, since they're able to focus more on the character and its development and roleplaying it without having to worry about all of that going to naught because the character suddenly dies.



If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:

1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.

2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.

3. I'll likely retire the character anyway after playing it for a while and bring in something different, particularly if the character concept isn't working for me; in other words just what I'd have done on its death, except without the death part.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I've got a bunch of retired PCs running loose in the world. 

Lanefan


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 29, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:
> 
> 1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.[snip]




Fair enough, but this point has absolutely ZERO to do with save-or-die effects.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 29, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:
> 
> 1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.
> 
> ...



Well, obviously, this just means that you can't handle a no-death style of play. And that's perfectly fine, really. However, I don't think it's fair for you to hold the rest of us back because of it.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 29, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but this point has absolutely ZERO to do with save-or-die effects.



Only partly true, in that I feel it's relevant to the corollary discussion of in-game PC death in general that the save-or-die mechanics issue is just a part of.

Lanefan


----------



## Grog (Oct 29, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> But, arguably:
> 
> 1. The PCs should have done their research on the NPC and discovered that he was so highly skilled that he could kill anyone with one strike of his sword.
> 
> ...



So now it looks like we're back to the argument that save-or-die is fine, so long as the PCs don't actually have to save or die.

I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually _make the roll_ and have his character either save, or die?


----------



## Grog (Oct 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> You live under the threat of death right now.  You may not be running around and crying oh god no I might die, but guess what eventually you will die, your friends and family will die as well.  You know this, we all know this, its part of life, eventually you die.  For me the threat of death has to exist in the game or it loses to much touch with life.  I'd feel like I was in a crappy Ann Rice novel.



Are you seriously comparing the risk of death faced by an average person living in a civilized country with the risk of death routinely faced by characters in fantasy games and fiction?

Because if you are, um.... Wow. Don't even know where to start with that.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually _make the roll_ and have his character either save, or die?



Speaking just for myself as a DM: never, if the player doesn't want to do it.

Generally good play on the part of the players should ensure that the PCs become aware that a potential encounter involves a save or die ability and at least one of the following:

1. The ability to avoid the encounter; or
2. The ability to obtain a counter to the ability.

Of course, if the players choose not to avoid the encounter (lured by the promise of a greater-than-average reward, for example), then they have elected to raise the stakes. If so, let the dice fall where they may!


----------



## shilsen (Oct 29, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:
> 
> 1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.
> 
> ...



 Fair enough. It's an issue of play style and personal preferences, as I said. But you're conflating "my character won't die" and "my character won't face any risks in the game," which are not at all the same thing (though, of course, both can exist in the game). I run a game, and I know many others here on ENWorld do, where PCs are constantly being challenged, taking significant risks, have to deal with the repercussions of failure and the consequences of their choices/actions, and generally being put through the wringer. It's just that death isn't one of the risks (there's a faint chance of it happening), but there are a whole lot more out there, most of which I find significantly more interesting. My players and I joke that if the PCs died more often they'd be happier, since then they'd stop suffering. But I'm too mean to kill the PCs.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Sheesh, leave the thread for a day and suddenly there's so much stuff to comment on...you people make thread abstinency really hard.  



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But does he really need the ability to snuff out the life of PCs and BBEG, or is isn't it sufficient being able to kill a random NPC or PC henchmen with a single spell?
> 
> There are even a few spells in D&D that already do this - The Cloud spell (forgot the name) that kills anyone with 9HD or less.
> I think they're okay as a "Die" spell (they aren't event Save or Die, IIRC), because, well, they are there to show off the NPCs or PCs power over "moral humans". But against the real powerful ones, it's just not enough.
> ...




Actually, a spell like you describe wouldn't give a sense of the absolute power of the caster against the characters at all. It's more akin to the 9th level fighter casually throwing an axe and beheading the low-level henchman standing directly beside the BBEG, just to show off. That's a relative sense of power. What's the use of the opponent using a _Cloud Kill_ in the face of his attackers if all he accomplishes is killing off their torchbearers, mules, henchmen and sidekicks? He'll just get the heroes more pissed off at him.  It would indeed be meaningless for any challenging encounter.

And there are various ways, if you want to preserve the flow of storytelling, to do so without having to take out save-or-die effects from the rules.  Same goes for player participation. A few are routinely discussed in this (and the older) thread.




			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to *once per day* make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?




You mean like the _Death Attack_ the assassin has, only without the 3-round observation time and without the paralyzation option, and not at 6th level but at 9th? Why should I have a big problem with that?  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.




Huh, you're serious with that?  It's so amazing how people on an internet message board, who are usually able to read between the lines of the most simple and unambiguous posts like there is no tomorrow, suddenly want verbatim quotes for a concept that suffuses the whole game we're all discussing about. Are we even talking about the same game here? Let's make a deal, shall we? You read the DMG, especially the first chapter about *being* the DM, and then you quote me the section of the rules that says that a DM cannot, under any circumstances and at any time, with or without player participation, use or change *every frelling rule in the game* after some consideration in a way that he believes will result in a better game experience for everybody, or that he believes will fit his campaign or campaign setting better than the RAW. If you can quote me that, I'll get back to you.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Agreeing again, but I'll just toss this out. Its possible that in 4e, fighters and rogues COULD have something like this, thanks to the at will/per encounter/per day paragrim. I would certainly hope it happens at epic levels though.
> 
> I like your revision to my hypothetical feat though, so lets finish it off...
> 
> ...




Looks nice...I'd have done it slightly different. Add a prereq, like _Power Attack_ (or better, a feat that allows you to add your Int bonus to damage...isn't there something like that somewhere in one of the splatbooks?), make it a full-round action instead of a standard one and leave out the -6 modifier instead, and simply state that it kills the target instead of that over-inflated amount of hit points. Also leave out that bit about "no critical hit creatures"....if kill, then kill. Although...maybe except incorporeal creatures. And tie the limit to some ability modifier.
Otherwise, why not?



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The pro- save or die people would throw a gasket at their game if their DM had an NPC with this feat and used it against their PC.
> 
> DM: "He hits. You're dead."
> Player: "What do you mean I'm dead?"
> ...




Assume much? How about doing us all (and yourself) a favour and not try to know better what reaction certain people would have? Speak for yourself only...not that you could, since you're not part of the pro-save-or-die crowd, but it'd help the credibility of your posts.  



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> I give my players Fate Points. They fudge so I don't have to.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Found the post...work like Destiny Points in SW Saga? And how do they work? I'm curious, because I've been trying to find a good way to introduce Luck and Fate points into my games without making them overpowering everything else.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So now it looks like we're back to the argument that save-or-die is fine, so long as the PCs don't actually have to save or die.
> 
> I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually _make the roll_ and have his character either save, or die?




Funny...lets ask this again, only differently. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually _make the roll_ and have his character either save, or suffer a dragon's breath weapon damage?

If what you're aiming at is the argument that a monster ability (or spell effect) that can be countered by careful research by the characters and some thoughts put into protective measures is meaningless in the game and hence can be eliminated without a lot of fuss...I'm seeing a lot of melee monsters in the immediate future of D&D, but no monsters with special abilities.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Take the alternative: Harry and his friends "made" every one of those saves. What if Harry had failed a save? What if Ron did? What if (and this is complete ludicrous, bear with me) J. K. Rowling had NO control over whether Harry lived or died?




Then it would be a game, and not a story.

RC


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So now it looks like we're back to the argument that save-or-die is fine, so long as the PCs don't actually have to save or die.



I think it was meant as satire.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.





			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Huh, you're serious with that?  It's so amazing how people on an internet message board, who are usually able to read between the lines of the most simple and unambiguous posts like there is no tomorrow, suddenly want verbatim quotes for a concept that suffuses the whole game we're all discussing about. Are we even talking about the same game here? Let's make a deal, shall we? You read the DMG, especially the first chapter about *being* the DM, and then you quote me the section of the rules that says that a DM cannot, under any circumstances and at any time, with or without player participation, use or change *every frelling rule in the game* after some consideration in a way that he believes will result in a better game experience for everybody, or that he believes will fit his campaign or campaign setting better than the RAW. If you can quote me that, I'll get back to you.




That's an extremely long-winded way of saying, "no, I can't provide such a quote."  Of course, it tries to make it Grog's fault that no such quote is forthcoming, because the rules are clear that the DM can change everything, including the _default assumptions_ concerning the frequency that PCs will encounter save-or-die effects, despite these effects not being called out as worthy of special treatment by the DM.  That there are default assumptions, and no suggestion that they should be tampered with, but Grog has not made the intuitive leap that these default assuptions should be tampered with, demonstrates only Grog's low quality as a DM.

 
(No offense meant, Grog.  Just a rhetorical device.)


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 29, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:
> 
> 1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.
> 
> 2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.



You know, there are things you can lose other than your life. In particular: People your character cares about (for roleplayers), your equipment (for munchkins) and your social status ("Oh, look over there, it's the guy who cannot even deal with a bunch of kobolds!")

Most DMs of campaigns probably agree that you should die when you slice your own head off, or when you try to storm the enemy's fortress by yourselves, but those are extremes that only come up if there is something fundamentally wrong with the group.



> 3. I'll likely retire the character anyway after playing it for a while and bring in something different, particularly if the character concept isn't working for me; in other words just what I'd have done on its death, except without the death part.
> 
> 4. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I've got a bunch of retired PCs running loose in the world.



So you get all the mechanical "benefits" of a death without actually dying. Unless there are "heroic death" rules, then you get all the "benefits" and get to have a great final scene on top of it. What's not to like?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> You mean like the _Death Attack_ the assassin has, only without the 3-round observation time and without the paralyzation option, and not at 6th level but at 9th? Why should I have a big problem with that?




Kinda, except an assassin's death attack has a fortitude save to negate, requires three rounds to use (so worthless unless you have ambush), must be a melee attack, and must meet all the prerequisites of a sneak attack. 

So, in other words, not really all that much in common after all, since a death attack is WAAY harder to use in standard combat. 



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Looks nice...I'd have done it slightly different. Add a prereq, like _Power Attack_ (or better, a feat that allows you to add your Int bonus to damage...isn't there something like that somewhere in one of the splatbooks?), make it a full-round action instead of a standard one and leave out the -6 modifier instead, and simply state that it kills the target instead of that over-inflated amount of hit points. Also leave out that bit about "no critical hit creatures"....if kill, then kill. Although...maybe except incorporeal creatures. And tie the limit to some ability modifier.
> Otherwise, why not?




The idea was a melee equivalent to _finger of death. _

_Finger of death's_ casting time is 1 standard action. So is the feat's use.

It deals huge damage (as opposed to a death effect) to make sure death ward isn't the obvious answer. (since only deities have 1000s of hp, no mortal could withstand it) My original draft had damage = opponents hp +10, since it didn't matter the opponent's hp total, if this hit, he was going to die. 

No-crits creatures are immune to death effects (like undead and constructs) so I thought the feat should do the same. 

There is no real restriction on learning _Finger of Death_ or _Slay Living_, so the feat requirements are token, (mostly to keep it toward fighter types) and the penalty to hit is a formality to deal with how easy it is to outscale Bab to AC. 

Oh, and 1/day, most casters don't usually have more than one SoD per day, but I guess tying it to an ability score (int? Int's good) would work (and better represent a sorcerer's ability with SoD effects)


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 29, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:
> 
> 1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.
> 
> ...




I'm not for a game where death DOESN'T happen, I just want death to be rare. Rare enough that a reasonable PC who follows reasonable tactics will survive and true final death is a monumental event (even if its not climatic, it means I didn't go down without a fight). However, SoD robs me of that feeling of going down without a fight AND makes death much more common. Lose lose.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So now it looks like we're back to the argument that save-or-die is fine, so long as the PCs don't actually have to save or die.
> 
> I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually _make the roll_ and have his character either save, or die?




IMHO?

Never.

Assuming that the player knows that there is something with a potential SoD effect in a given area, the DM should never force the players to take their characters into that area.  The players ought to be making choices, including what level of risk they are willing to undertake, and how they will use their resources to best ameliorate that risk.  If they face something that they know has a SoD up its sleeve, then they should either decide to use magic to counter it, or to take their chances.

It is not a matter of the characters _having_ to make the save; it is a matter of the characters _choosing_ to make the save (or choosing to be in a situation where such an occurance is inevitable or nearly so).

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Sheesh, leave the thread for a day and suddenly there's so much stuff to comment on...you people make thread abstinency really hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a spell like you describe wouldn't give a sense of the absolute power of the caster against the characters at all. It's more akin to the 9th level fighter casually throwing an axe and beheading the low-level henchman standing directly beside the BBEG, just to show off. That's a relative sense of power. What's the use of the opponent using a _Cloud Kill_ in the face of his attackers if all he accomplishes is killing off their torchbearers, mules, henchmen and sidekicks? He'll just get the heroes more pissed off at him.  It would indeed be meaningless for any challenging encounter.



Okay, I guess absolute isn't such a useful word. I assumed "absolute" would be the scale of the world, not the scale of the adventurers, but probably both are relative measurements.

I am not sure if I posted it on this thread or somewhere else, but what would you say to the following rule: 
Save or Die exists, but to work as Save or Die against a creature, the caster must have a CR/Level higher than that of the target. (Ignoring for a moment that this would make all Save or Die spells as useful as Cloudkill to PCs). This at least would address the main concern where Save and Die spells in the hands of weaker creatures easily break the game.



> And there are various ways, if you want to preserve the flow of storytelling, to do so without having to take out save-or-die effects from the rules.  Same goes for player participation. A few are routinely discussed in this (and the older) thread.



But they didn't convince me that taking the source of the problem - the save or die spells - out of the game wouldn't be a lot more easier. 

---
Assassins Death Attack, by the way, is no way close to any Save or Die spell I know. The ability has basically no combat application. You need to wait 3 rounds and ensure that your target is entirely unaware of your presence. I think the 3 rounds waiting time alone make it an ability that also removes the major criticismn to Save or Die - you can do something about it (like not failing Listen and Spot checks all the time). (From the 3.x skill rules, this chance isn't high enough, but it's a lot closer to repeatedly, over 3 rounds, taking damage until your hit points drop to -10...)


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Assume much? How about doing us all (and yourself) a favour and not try to know better what reaction certain people would have? Speak for yourself only...not that you could, since you're not part of the pro-save-or-die crowd, but it'd help the credibility of your posts.




Assume much?

IT WAS A JOKE! A parody. Note the smiley. A true joke and a subtle one, but still.

Seriously dude, you have to get off the caffeine and join the anti- save or die crowd.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> The idea was a melee equivalent to _finger of death. _




I honestly don't see any difference between having an X% chance of dealing enough damage to kill you in one melee round and having an X% chance to killing you with one spell.  Nor does the damage have to be 1,000 hps.  The damage simply has to pass the threshold of any given character.

So, if I am 1st level, and I face an ogre, I am facing a death effect.  I can tell you with great certainty that I have had PCs while I was DMing face ogres at levels where one blow provided an X% chance of death.  I have faced the same sort of things as a player.  No one cried bloody murder.

In 3e, this scales upwards to nearly all levels.  There is almost always a monster of appropriate CR who has an X% chance of killing you in one round.  If it wins initiative, that means an X% chance of killing you before you can take any action at all.  Again, both as player and DM, I can say that no one cries bloody murder in my group when facing such creatures.

IMHO, there is no difference between a monster that has a 10% chance of dealing 40 hp damage each round (when you have 30 hp) and a spell that has a 10% chance of killing you.  Except, perhaps, that the monster might last longer, and thus have more chances of killing you.

The number of dice rolled doesn't, IMHO, matter one whit -- what matters is (1) the % chance of dying that those dice represent, and (2) whether or not you can take action in between those die rolls.

As such, there are many, many melee encounters that are already equivilent to _Finger of Death_ in 3e D&D.  At least, IMHO there are.  As such, I doubt very much that the feat you describe would be more than a blip on the radar for my group.....and it seems to me from the playtest reports like some of the 4e fighter abilities might be (to some degree) similar to what you describe.

4e might remove "SoD", but I very much doubt it will remove the SoD _effect_ from the game.  As 3e disguised THAC0 by flipping it around, I very much expect that 4e will disguise SoD by making you roll more dice to gain the same effect.  And it will give PCs Action Points so that they can fudge their saves.


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking- That's an excellent explanation of why I think save-or-die is unnecessary.

If you want an encounter in which there's a very real chance a character will be killed by a single die roll, you can just toss him against an enemy that's out of his league.

We don't need a special category of abilities that are defined as being in a character's league for the purpose of making available encounters which are not, in fact, within a character's league.  See what I mean?  If a CR 4 enemy is equivalent to a save-or-die to a level 1 character, we don't need a special CR 1 monster that replicates that.

That's also one of the reasons I think save-or-die is inherently incompatible with a system of determining game balance.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 29, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:
> 
> 1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.
> 
> 2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.



The problem here is you, not the lack of PC death. You're continuing to play in a game which is unsuited to your preferences. What you should be doing is:

1. Quit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking- That's an excellent explanation of why I think save-or-die is unnecessary.
> 
> If you want an encounter in which there's a very real chance a character will be killed by a single die roll, you can just toss him against an enemy that's out of his league.




Or, we could just use SoD and an enemy that is in his league.....Thus having a very real chance that a character will be killed if the players handle the encounter in some ways, and a very real chance of victory if they handle the encounter in others.

(BTW, are you claiming that an ogre is out of the league of 4 1st level PCs?    If so, I know players who would disagree with you....myself being one!)

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 29, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> DM: "He hits. You're dead."
> Player: "What do you mean I'm dead?"
> DM: "He hit you for 1032 points of damage. You're dead."
> 
> They would blow a fuse.



Noob players. Haven't they heard about the Frenzied Berserker PrC?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or, we could just use SoD and an enemy that is in his league.....Thus having a very real chance that a character will be killed if the players handle the encounter in some ways, and a very real chance of victory if they handle the encounter in others.
> 
> (BTW, are you claiming that an ogre is out of the league of 4 1st level PCs?    If so, I know players who would disagree with you....myself being one!)
> 
> RC




Or, you can have a 9th level wizard cast finger of death at a 16th level PC and be killed by a foe 7 levels below its league. 

The ogre is a challenge for 1st level PCs. He's a threat to fourth level PCs, he's a nuisance to 8th level PCs. The ogre (barring freaky die-rolls) isn't killing a 10th level PC. He certainly isn't doing it in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. However, a 10th level wizard CAN kill a 20th level PC in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. Don't you see how that doesn't scale?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I honestly don't see any difference between having an X% chance of dealing enough damage to kill you in one melee round and having an X% chance to killing you with one spell.  Nor does the damage have to be 1,000 hps.  The damage simply has to pass the threshold of any given character.




Again, its the IFs that matter. IF the opponent hits. IF he doesn't roll a 1. IF he does enough damage to knock me to -10 or worse. That's more than the IF I don't roll low of a SoD



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, if I am 1st level, and I face an ogre, I am facing a death effect.  I can tell you with great certainty that I have had PCs while I was DMing face ogres at levels where one blow provided an X% chance of death.  I have faced the same sort of things as a player.  No one cried bloody murder.




No, you're facing death. Death from a creature that needs to hit an AC, deal high enough random damage, and has to move into position to do it. I get some actions to mitigate it (not close in, use missile weapons, tanglefoot bags, etc). I don't with SoD other than foresee the possibility of it and negate the effect.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In 3e, this scales upwards to nearly all levels.  There is almost always a monster of appropriate CR who has an X% chance of killing you in one round.  If it wins initiative, that means an X% chance of killing you before you can take any action at all.  Again, both as player and DM, I can say that no one cries bloody murder in my group when facing such creatures.




However, I have an AC. I have hp. I can be merely knocked into negatives and healed by the cleric. If I SoD and fail, I have one chance to keep in play. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IMHO, there is no difference between a monster that has a 10% chance of dealing 40 hp damage each round (when you have 30 hp) and a spell that has a 10% chance of killing you.  Except, perhaps, that the monster might last longer, and thus have more chances of killing you.




Do you KNOW that monster does 40 without fail? If you're facing a foe that does 1d4+39 hp, you're facing an unbalanced monster. Otherwise, that creature has to close in, hit, and roll that 40 hp. I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure the odds of the creature closing in, hitting, and doing 40 damage is slightly lower than the odds of me rolling low on one die roll. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The number of dice rolled doesn't, IMHO, matter one whit -- what matters is (1) the % chance of dying that those dice represent, and (2) whether or not you can take action in between those die rolls.




OMG, yes it does. Want proof? Let's make a $100 wager. I give you 1d20, I'll roll 3d20 and take the highest number. Highest roll wins. deal? 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As such, there are many, many melee encounters that are already equivalent to _Finger of Death_ in 3e D&D.  At least, IMHO there are.  As such, I doubt very much that the feat you describe would be more than a blip on the radar for my group.....and it seems to me from the playtest reports like some of the 4e fighter abilities might be (to some degree) similar to what you describe.




Such as?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 4e might remove "SoD", but I very much doubt it will remove the SoD _effect_ from the game.  As 3e disguised THAC0 by flipping it around, I very much expect that 4e will disguise SoD by making you roll more dice to gain the same effect.  And it will give PCs Action Points so that they can fudge their saves.




Good. More dice, more checks to get past, more ways to mitigate disaster. Death happens, but its rare and not dependent on a single die roll. 

Sounds like we finally agree!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> He certainly isn't doing it in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. However, a 10th level wizard CAN kill a 20th level PC in a SINGLE DIE ROLL. Don't you see how that doesn't scale?




OK, first off, what matters IMHO is what can be done in a single round, and what the % chance of accomplishment is, not how many dice are rolled.  ALL CAPPING a "SINGLE DIE ROLL" doesn't do it for me.  If three dies result in a 5% chance of death, of 1 die roll results in a 5% chance of death, there is absolutely no difference AFAICT.

As to scaling, I'll certainly agree that all effects don't scale equally.....but this is hardly exclusive to SoD effects.  If this was not so, there would not be character parties or character builds that are stronger or weaker than their level....some wildly so.

Overall, though, I play a game in which the players, through their actions, determine the level of "balance" that they want.  Typically, they hope to unbalance things in their favour.  I don't buy into the idea that the DM should artificially re-balance things because the PCs have tipped them into their favour.  Nor do I artificially re-balance them if the PCs get in over their heads.

Things like elegance, balance, and scaling are fine in theory, and when they don't interfere with the game that I am trying to run they can be useful.  But, ultimately, if elegance interferes with the desired experience, it goes out the window.  Likewise, balance and scaling.  Let the players decide what they want to risk, and what rewards they want to pursue.  Let them decide what enemies they need to mollify for now, and which they can afford to ignore.  If their decisions lead them into a point where they need to SoD against a 10th level caster, so be it.

I am not writing a story when I run a game.  The story is the result of the game.  Some stories are stories of victory and triumph (even over incredible odds), while others are stories of how half the party got massacred when they split up in dangerous environs and started just knocking on doors.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Again, its the IFs that matter. IF the opponent hits. IF he doesn't roll a 1. IF he does enough damage to knock me to -10 or worse. That's more than the IF I don't roll low of a SoD




IF the chance of winning initiative, hitting, and doing enough damage to kill you, is equal to the chance of your losing initiative and blowing your save, THEN the odds are equal, no matter how many dice are rolled.


RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That's an extremely long-winded way of saying, "no, I can't provide such a quote."




Nope, it's a long-winded, and admittantly equally snarky, way of saying "No, and I shouldn't need to provide such a quote, seeing we're talking D&D." I apologize for the snark...eye for an eye went out of fashio 2000 years ago, after all. I'm not apologizing for the assumption that somebody who argues D&D has understood the basic premises of DMing D&D as they are laid out even in the most recent version of the DMG in very prominent and hard to overlook strokes.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IF the chance of winning initiative, hitting, and doing enough damage to kill you, is equal to the chance of your losing initiative and blowing your save, THEN the odds are equal, no matter how many dice are rolled.
> 
> 
> RC




Wanna take me up on that $100 wager then?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Kinda, except an assassin's death attack has a fortitude save to negate, requires three rounds to use (so worthless unless you have ambush), must be a melee attack, and must meet all the prerequisites of a sneak attack.
> 
> So, in other words, not really all that much in common after all, since a death attack is WAAY harder to use in standard combat.
> 
> ...




Okay, see, I agree with a most of your reasonings you put up here...and incidentally, you put forth a good example of what I'd like the 4E "preview books" to be like.  

Standard action...check. Wasn't 100% sure about the full-round attack myself, since it would have precluded movement, and always doing it with ranged weapons wouldn't fit with all fighter concepts.

The damage thing...I don't know, I'd still go with "kills the target" instead of huge amounts of damage. May be silly, but as soon as you bring up hit point damage, there's plenty of things that come into play...damage reduction being one of them. Also, can you actually reduce a character to more than -10 hit points? And what's with abilities that kick in at negative hit points? And no worries about _Death Ward_...from what I gather from the text, it won't really work against this feat, even if you don't define any hit point damage. From the spell...
_"The subject is immune to all death spells and magical death effects. The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrifaction, or other effects, even if they might be lethal."_ So since this feat doesn't make the user's attack magical in any way, it won't be affected by this spell either.  

I just noticed, maybe limit it to a certain range for ranged attacks...maybe 2 range increments? Or the full "maximum" range of 5 increments? Just pondering.
The rest of your reasoning...I can live with that. Thanks for that feat idea. 

Just one more point...since a spell provokes an AoO when used in melee, how would you replicate that in the feat use? Maneuver with AoO risk? Just curious.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IF the chance of winning initiative, hitting, and doing enough damage to kill you, is equal to the chance of your losing initiative and blowing your save, THEN the odds are equal, no matter how many dice are rolled.
> 
> 
> RC



But then, who says that this is actually something the Anti Save or Die crowd likes, either?
I certainly don't like it. I think it also indicates that something is wrong with the monster (at least if used against the party) and that it wasn't balanced that well. 
But I think few melee monsters have such a high odds at killing you outright. It still happens (and it still sucks), but with Save or Die spells, it's still more likely to have a sudden Death nobody could do something about (within the encounter). 
And more importantly - weaker monsters basically never have a chance to reach this effect with mere melee attacks. That works only for Save or Die effects.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I hope you realize that "I give you 1d20, I'll roll 3d20 and take the highest number. Highest roll wins." is not the same % chance of result.

If there is a series of three die rolls, and there is a 50% chance that the sequence of rolls results in death, and there is a single die roll with a 50% chance that the result is death, the result is still 50%.

If this is not clear and obvious to you, there is little I can do to bring this discussion forward.

(Likewise, if we were rolling X and Y dice, respectively, with the same % chance of either your total or mine being higher, then the odds of either of us winning such a bet would be 50%......not good enough odds for me to take you up on it.  Like my players, when I gamble I prefer to hedge my bets.)

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But then, who says that this is actually something the Anti Save or Die crowd likes, either?
> I certainly don't like it. I think it also indicates that something is wrong with the monster (at least if used against the party) and that it wasn't balanced that well.




Since I postulated earlier that quite a bit of anti-SoD is really anti-D, I certainly wouldn't say that this is something the anti-SoD crowd necessarily likes.  OTOH, I think it is worthwhile to point out that _finger of death_ and its ilk are not the only things that have this effect in the game (a point that at least some of the anti-SoD crowd seems to be unaware of).


RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Well, it's definitely interesting to see that some people actually equate _Sleep_ (and probably _Hold Person_ and similar spells) with save-or-die effects. I guess in that context, we'd have to eliminate save-or-be-helpless spells as well.

At some point, the "magic is SOOO overpowered" complaints tend to encompass half the spell list in the PHB...we're on a good way there already.


----------



## Grog (Oct 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Huh, you're serious with that?  It's so amazing how people on an internet message board, who are usually able to read between the lines of the most simple and unambiguous posts like there is no tomorrow, suddenly want verbatim quotes for a concept that suffuses the whole game we're all discussing about. Are we even talking about the same game here? Let's make a deal, shall we? You read the DMG, especially the first chapter about *being* the DM, and then you quote me the section of the rules that says that a DM cannot, under any circumstances and at any time, with or without player participation, use or change *every frelling rule in the game* after some consideration in a way that he believes will result in a better game experience for everybody, or that he believes will fit his campaign or campaign setting better than the RAW. If you can quote me that, I'll get back to you.



So in other words, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." Thank you for admitting that, even if it was in a very roundabout way.

Now, given that we've established the fact that there are no special rules governing the use of save-or-die effects in the game, and given the fact that as PCs rise in level, the level-appropriate NPCs and monsters they encounter will have access to these abilities more and more often, we can conclude that barring either house rules or the DM intentionally restricting his or her use of certain enemies, the PCs will face an increasing chance of random and arbitrary death based on a single roll of the d20 as the game progresses to higher and higher levels.

You may think that's a good thing. I don't.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I hope you realize that "I give you 1d20, I'll roll 3d20 and take the highest number. Highest roll wins." is not the same % chance of result.
> 
> If there is a series of three die rolls, and there is a 50% chance that the sequence of rolls results in death, and there is a single die roll with a 50% chance that the result is death, the result is still 50%.
> 
> If this is not clear and obvious to you, there is little I can do to bring this discussion forward.




"Which is heavier, 50 pounds of gold or 50 pounds of feathers?"

"Why the gold, obviously!"


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 29, 2007)

On a completely unrelated note:

@Grog

Does the name E'ci ring a bell to you?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So in other words, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." Thank you for admitting that, even if it was in a very roundabout way.
> 
> Now, given that we've established the fact that there are no special rules governing the use of save-or-die effects in the game, and given the fact that as PCs rise in level, the level-appropriate NPCs and monsters they encounter will have access to these abilities more and more often, we can conclude that barring either house rules or the DM intentionally restricting his or her use of certain enemies, the PCs will face an increasing chance of random and arbitrary death based on a single roll of the d20 as the game progresses to higher and higher levels.
> 
> You may think that's a good thing. I don't.




Sorry, apparently we *ARE* talking about different games.  Doesn't have much use discussing it with you, then. Happy gaming.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So in other words, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." Thank you for admitting that, even if it was in a very roundabout way.




If you think DMs need a rule to establish an enjoyable gaming session, then I don't think there is much use in having this conversation.

More to the point, its pretty irrelevant.  You've morphed the discussion from the question of save or die to the question of save or die as it is implemented in a particular edition of the game.  You are arguing a completely different topic than the people you are talking to, and celebrating the fact that you are making points completely unrelated to anything that they care about.



> given the fact that as PCs rise in level, the level-appropriate NPCs and monsters they encounter will have access to these abilities more and more often, we can conclude that barring either house rules or the DM intentionally restricting his or her use of certain enemies, the PCs will face an increasing chance of random and arbitrary death based on a single roll of the d20 as the game progresses to higher and higher levels.




It's worth noting that in 1st edition, the opposite was largely true.  Because the DC's of saving throws largely didn't scale, the higher level you reached the less threat any particular 'save or die' situation represented and the more secure you could be.  Since even ordinary poison was a 'save or die' situation in 1st edition, the number of save or die situations didn't really increase over time either.   Or in other words, one can believe that 'save or die' is a problem in the current edition, without believing that the problem is 'save or die' itself.



> You may think that's a good thing. I don't.




Whatever.


----------



## Grog (Oct 29, 2007)

Okay, I've seen two votes from pro-SoD people for "The PCs should _never_ have to save or die unless they want to." Basically, they think that save-or-die should only be for big challenges that the PCs can face if they want to, but don't _have_ to face.

I see a few problems with this.

1. As a DM, if I want to put an optional challenge in the game that has a good chance of killing some PCs, I don't need an extremely flawed mechanic to do it. There are many different ways I can build a challenging and fun encounter without using abilities that make a PCs life or death come down to a single roll of the d20. Save-or-die is not a necessary component of a "great risk for great reward" scenario, and I don't think that the potential for its use in such a scenario is worth all the problems it causes in other areas of the game.

2. The idea that SoD should be for optional challenges only means that I can never use high-level wizards or clerics (along with several monsters, such as the iconic beholder) as villains who the PCs must face. Or, alternatively, I have to metagame and have the wizards and clerics choose less than optimal spells to use against the PCs. Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. If I want a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign, I should be able to have a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign.

3. This does nothing to address the issue of the players using save-or-die spells against enemies, which in my experience can also be a problem. It can turn an important encounter into an anticlimax (and while encounters are a dime a dozen in D&D, important encounters aren't), and it contributes to the problem of casters dominating the game at high levels ("Gee, the wizard one-shotted the enemy in the first round. *Again.*")


----------



## Grog (Oct 29, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you think DMs need a rule to establish an enjoyable gaming session, then I don't think there is much use in having this conversation.



*sigh*

I am perfectly aware of the fact that each individual DM is free to run his or her game the way he or she sees fit. What I'm saying is that the rules as written should facilitate enjoyable games as best they can. And also refuting the notion that there's some kind of special rules governing the use of save-or-die effects in the RAW.

And I also know that save-or-die worked differently in 1E, thanks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Okay, I've seen two votes from pro-SoD people for "The PCs should _never_ have to save or die unless they want to." Basically, they think that save-or-die should only be for big challenges that the PCs can face if they want to, but don't _have_ to face.




Of course, "the PCs should never have to face an encounter unless they want to" is my stance on a nest of goblins as well.  Players choose what they do isn't just for "big challenges".

Obviously, we shouldn't have goblins in the game.    

RC


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I hope you realize that "I give you 1d20, I'll roll 3d20 and take the highest number. Highest roll wins." is not the same % chance of result.




Sure it is. All those dice still are numbered 1-20. The odds of beating any one of the individual dice rolls is exactly the same. However, your odds of beating all three is slim. That's the beauty of it, its not a 50/50 chance of death. Its not pass:die. You have multiple hurdles to jump. So you can outright win and swindle me out of my $100 (lets say you roll a 20, I don't roll higher than an 18 on any die) but the odds over the long run are in my favor. 

That's all I want out of my PC's death chance. Sure, luck can have me low on hp, failing a save, and taking X points of damage (where X = more hp than I currently have) but that's at least another two buffers before death. SoD is that one d20 roll to get that $100, you might get lucky and win, but you can't do that 2, 3, or 4 times in a row. You're luck will run out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




   



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> All those dice still are numbered 1-20. The odds of beating any one of the individual dice rolls is exactly the same. However, your odds of beating all three is slim. That's the beauty of it, its not a 50/50 chance of death. Its not pass:die.




Okay, then.

Imagine you roll 1d10.  The odds of rolling 10 are 1 in 10.

Imagine you roll 2d10.  The odds of rolling 20 are (1 in 10 on the first die, 1 in 10 on the second die) 1 in 100.  This is why we use 2d10 to roll percentiles.

A creature with a 50% chance to win initiative and a 50% chance to hit the average character (say) has a 25% chance to hit the average character before that character can do anything about it.  If the creature also has a 50% chance of killing someone with that blow, it has a 12.5% chance of killing a character before that character can do anything about it.

In this hypothetical encounter, 3 dice are rolled, resulting in a 12.5% chance of death before a character can react.  This is, in fact, a bit safer than a save in which a 3 is successful (rolling a 1 or 2, and thus failing, is a 10% chance).

It doesn't matter how many dice are rolled.  It matters what odds those rolls represent.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Uhm..RC...not that I disagree about your last line...if the final probability of death is the same, the actual number of events that lead there are in so far irrelevant as long as the character doesn't get the chance to act as well...you'll be hard-pressed to find a monster that has a 50% chance to kill an "average" character (which I'll simply understand as a CR-equivalent monster in a one-against-one situation) in the monster manuals I got, at least with simple hit point damage, or even damage dealing spells. Also, at levels around something like the Bodak turns into a "balanced" (note the quotation marks) encounter, a 3 usually won't cut it to survive the death gaze of that beast.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Uhm..RC...not that I disagree about your last line...if the final probability of death is the same, the actual number of events that lead there are in so far irrelevant as long as the character doesn't get the chance to act as well...you'll be hard-pressed to find a monster that has a 50% chance to kill an "average" character (which I'll simply understand as a CR-equivalent monster in a one-against-one situation) in the monster manuals I got, at least with simple hit point damage, or even damage dealing spells. Also, at levels around something like the Bodak turns into a "balanced" (note the quotation marks) encounter, a 3 usually won't cut it to survive the death gaze of that beast.




Not to be negative, but if you examine the encounter guidelines in the DMG, you will see that an "appropriate" encounter can be of a CR quite a bit higher than APL.  So that 12.5% chance of death, by playing the monster straight (no special rules saying not to, remember) is actually quite low, IMHO, compared to what following the guidelines can dish out.

Also, I was attempting to discuss what odds mean, using a hypothetical, not trying to come up with actual encounter numbers.  Of course, we could determine the odds of an insta-kill if we had specifics, such as specific characters vs. specific monsters.  OTOH, I am not sure that we could determine what the "average" Init bonus is of characters at any given level (is Improved Initiative a common feat across the board?  How common?  How uncommon?  Etc.), and so on.  

We could take some characters from the back of a module, and see how easy it would be to kill them with various "appropriate" monsters before they had a chance to do anything about it.  I'm betting that, effectively, a comparable % chance of dying exists without SoD at low levels, similar to that of SoD at high levels, simply by using the suggested guidelines.

Effectively, IMHO, certain threats _have to_ be treated as special by the DM, or the players should invest in body bags, or the DM has to veer from the suggested guidelines.  SoD effects are unique in this.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not to be negative, but if you examine the encounter guidelines in the DMG, you will see that an "appropriate" encounter can be of a CR quite a bit higher than APL.  So that 12.5% chance of death, by playing the monster straight (no special rules saying not to, remember) is actually quite low, IMHO, compared to what following the guidelines can dish out.
> 
> Also, I was attempting to discuss what odds mean, using a hypothetical, not trying to come up with actual encounter numbers.  Of course, we could determine the odds of an insta-kill if we had specifics, such as specific characters vs. specific monsters.  OTOH, I am not sure that we could determine what the "average" Init bonus is of characters at any given level (is Improved Initiative a common feat across the board?  How common?  How uncommon?  Etc.), and so on.
> 
> ...




Heh, I know what you were trying to do, and that your numbers are just an example for what you mean with "equal probabilities" of deaths from damage vs. death effect..and I agree, as I said. Same goes for special treatment of certain monsters and effects.  My post came out of my own experiences trying to do number comparisons (and I did try to work with some more specified numbers), and people were still jumping up and down over them, and they were plenty lower than those percentages you used. Things in this thread tend to get blown out of context easily is all I wanted to say, so don't be surprised if somebody takes those numbers and does exactly that while ignoring the fact that you simply used them for illustration purposes.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Found the post...work like Destiny Points in SW Saga? And how do they work? I'm curious, because I've been trying to find a good way to introduce Luck and Fate points into my games without making them overpowering everything else.



 Wow, lots of traffic in this thread. 

Here's how they work. Note that this is specific to my group and *not* a generally balanced mechanism.

*Getting Fate Points*: Do something out of game that helps the game. Artwork of your character doing something, a journal entry / story hour entry, maps, whatever. Make it available to the group. Earn from one to three Fate Points.

Fate Points attach to the player, not the character. You may use Fate Points for your cohort. You may keep Fate Points if your character dies and you make a new one.

*Using Fate Points*: 
 Use #1: "Use the Force, Luke!" -- add dice to a roll... nearly any roll (except HP), depending on your character level (ECL, not just HD). You must decide to use your Fate Point before rolling. Extra dice as follows:
- 1-4: +1d6
- 5-8: +1d8
- 9-12: +2d6
- 13-16: +2d8
- 17-20: +3d6

 Use #2: "Hold my beer. Watch this!" Pull off a daring stunt by "taking 20" on a single skill check. You spend the point and don't have to roll.

 Use #3: "I'm not dead yet!" -- avoid going into negative hp, instead you have exactly 0 hp.

 Use #4: "Judo-chop!" -- automatically confirm a single critical hit.

 Use #5: "Let me check my notes..." -- You gain an immediate clue to your current situation. This may be anything from "think word puzzle" to "they're immune to /mind-affecting/ effects".

Uses #1 and #3 have seen the most action.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 29, 2007)

Thanks Nifft..is pretty insightful, and a nice and easy to remember system.  Funny, it overlaps with an idea I had about Fate and Luck points, with Fate points essentially granting a character an automatic success on one action they wanted to attempt, and Luck points either adding 1d6 to one roll (for a "little bit" of luck) or allowing a reroll that you can take instead of the first roll. Characters would get 1 Fate point for a level (and only 1 at any time), and 1d6 Luck points that refresh per game session.

I really like Karma/Void mechanics, as well as the Swashbuckler Cards, in case that wasn't obvious.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 29, 2007)

The reason my Fate Points work for my game (and might not for another game) is mainly the acquisition mechanism. Basically, it's balanced because my players are busy. 

So I wanted to reward them for paying attention to the game (because it's tough), and I figured that no-one would have enough spare time to stockpile fate. It's worked out pretty well, and it allows the players to effectively decide when their PCs die, but they still have to be careful managing their finite resource. And when they go to refill that resource, they contribute to the meta-game.

We don't use Action Points, but if we did, I'd probably change how Fate points worked -- "Not Dead Yet" would stay, "Use the Force" would go (that'd be an Action point), not sure exactly what else would stay or go. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 29, 2007)

I get to the game all ready to play, along with the other three players.

If the DM says, "Okay, everybody roll a d20.  Jhulae and player 2, you need to get over a 10.  Player 3, you need to get over a 15.  Player 4, you need to get over a 7. Any player who doesn't make their roll can't play today", the DM would have very angry players.  Why do we have to roll to be able to play?  What kind of arbitrary crap is that?

It's *no* different from having all four PCs suddenly come upon a Bodak or similar SoD creature.  If the player doesn't roll high enough, *they can't play* for however long it takes to obtain a raise or get a new PC into the party, which in all honest, could be the whole session *at least*.

That's what makes SoD harsh and arbitrary compared to almost every other mechanic where it takes *multiple* die rolls to kill off PCs.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If you think DMs need a rule to establish an enjoyable gaming session, then I don't think there is much use in having this conversation.
> 
> More to the point, its pretty irrelevant.  You've morphed the discussion from the question of save or die to the question of save or die as it is implemented in a particular edition of the game.




To be precise, the context is save-or-die as implemented in the most recent edition of D&D. Which is the edition and the game that most people in this thread are playing, and is the implicit reference point for comparisons to any putative future edition of D&D. Nobody cares about save-or-die as implemented in GURPS.



> It's worth noting that in 1st edition, the opposite was largely true.  Because the DC's of saving throws largely didn't scale, the higher level you reached the less threat any particular 'save or die' situation represented and the more secure you could be.  Since even ordinary poison was a 'save or die' situation in 1st edition, the number of save or die situations didn't really increase over time either.




This would be interesting if most people played or wanted to play 1E.



> Or in other words, one can believe that 'save or die' is a problem in the current edition, without believing that the problem is 'save or die' itself.




This is getting needlessly platonic.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, "the PCs should never have to face an encounter unless they want to" is my stance on a nest of goblins as well.  Players choose what they do isn't just for "big challenges".
> 
> Obviously, we shouldn't have goblins in the game.




Well, yes. This is why I started my last game at 9th level.



>


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IMHO?
> 
> Never.
> 
> Assuming that the player knows that there is something with a potential SoD effect in a given area, the DM should never force the players to take their characters into that area.  The players ought to be making choices, including what level of risk they are willing to undertake, and how they will use their resources to best ameliorate that risk.  If they face something that they know has a SoD up its sleeve, then they should either decide to use magic to counter it, or to take their chances.




... or you could just ban instakills. Seems to save an awful lot of trouble and futzing around with rock-paper-scissors balancing mechanics.



> It is not a matter of the characters _having_ to make the save; it is a matter of the characters _choosing_ to make the save (or choosing to be in a situation where such an occurance is inevitable or nearly so).




"I choose not to go on this adventure. Let's play SimMoistureFarmer!"


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> I get to the game all ready to play, along with the other three players.
> 
> If the DM says, "Okay, everybody roll a d20.  Jhulae and player 2, you need to get over a 10.  Player 3, you need to get over a 15.  Player 4, you need to get over a 7. Any player who doesn't make their roll can't play today", the DM would have very angry players.  Why do we have to roll to be able to play?  What kind of arbitrary crap is that?
> 
> ...




Yes, but the anti- save or die folk have already stated their case. Irrefutable logic will probably not sway them. WotC could post that save or die is arbitrary and not fun and will not be in 4E, and it still probably will not sway them.


Most of them have probably not played in a game where the DM said "Your PC is dead." with no dice rolls. 

Most of them have probably not played in a game where the DM had a party of powerful good NPCs ambush in a surprise round, shoot first and ask questions later (because of behind the scene events that the PCs were not even aware of in one case, and were aware of but had no control over in the other case) and kill a PC before his initiative came up in round one (twice by two different DMs, years apart).

These examples are really significantly no different than save or die (although I am sure people will claim otherwise).

The die roll aspect of save or die is a joke because random arbitrary meaningless and unfun (due to sitting out) death happens the moment the DM pulls the save or die gun into the game. He might as well just say "Your PC is dead." The actual odds do not matter. 1%, 5%, or 80%. A PC can die and in fact, the DM decides which PC the NPC aimed for.

Death is death if the DM decides that death is going to occur. The moment he pulls in save or die, that's his decision because he has no control over the save, hence, he no longer has control over the death. At that point, it is not a challenge to be overcome like other game mechanics. It is a random potential event whose only two results are life or death.


Personally, I think save or die is the easy way for DMs to kill PCs because they cannot take out the time to think of appropriate challenges, but that's just my opinion and does not necessarily have any basis in actual fact.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> "I choose not to go on this adventure. Let's play SimMoistureFarmer!"




"I choose not to face that bodak. Lets go on to the next room."


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Are you seriously comparing the risk of death faced by an average person living in a civilized country with the risk of death routinely faced by characters in fantasy games and fiction?
> 
> Because if you are, um.... Wow. Don't even know where to start with that.




I'll try to explain what I meant more clearly.  Death is an integral part of life, if you remove that integral part of life from the characters in the game you remove one of the core aspects of a character that you can relate to.  Yes the D&D game has lots of suspension of disbelief built into it, flying dragons, magic, the HP system etc.  When you remove death from the game you stretch that suspension of disbelief too far for me and I am always looking at it as just a piece of paper, and just dice, it is no longer a character to me.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I'll try to explain what I meant more clearly.  Death is an integral part of life, if you remove that integral part of life from the characters in the game you remove one of the core aspects of a character that you can relate to.  Yes the D&D game has lots of suspension of disbelief built into it, flying dragons, magic, the HP system etc.  When you remove death from the game you stretch that suspension of disbelief too far for me and I am always looking at it as just a piece of paper, and just dice, it is no longer a character to me.




This is absolutely 100% correct. For this reason, I've banned resurrection.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> "I choose not to face that bodak. Lets go on to the next room."




Dude, no that was an integral part of my adventure I totally can't roll with you doing something I didn't script out.  And my notes clearly say the next encounter is with a Bodak.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 30, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Okay, I've seen two votes from pro-SoD people for "The PCs should _never_ have to save or die unless they want to." Basically, they think that save-or-die should only be for big challenges that the PCs can face if they want to, but don't _have_ to face.



Just to clarify: I'm not pro-save or die, just not anti-save or die. I can see why some people might find it attractive, and I can see how I might use it in one of my games, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to use it, or that I will actually ever use it at all. Every edition of D&D has had monsters and abilities that I have never encountered as a player or used as a DM, some because they didn't suit my group's style of play, and others because they didn't seem appropriate to whatever game I was playing or running at the time. I wouldn't lobby for the inclusion of such monsters and abilities, but I wouldn't lobby for their exclusion, either.



> 1. As a DM, if I want to put an optional challenge in the game that has a good chance of killing some PCs, I don't need an extremely flawed mechanic to do it. There are many different ways I can build a challenging and fun encounter without using abilities that make a PCs life or death come down to a single roll of the d20. Save-or-die is not a necessary component of a "great risk for great reward" scenario, and I don't think that the potential for its use in such a scenario is worth all the problems it causes in other areas of the game.



To be frank, I would only use save or die when I want to subtly discourage the players from pursuing a course of action or as a punishment consequence for bad decisions. And if it causes problems elsewhere, then don't use it elsewhere. I do recognize that inexperienced DMs could have a game session turn sour due to underestimating the effect of save or die, so I fully support the idea of warning labels/DM advice sidebars on the possible consequences of save or die abilities.



> 3. This does nothing to address the issue of the players using save-or-die spells against enemies, which in my experience can also be a problem. It can turn an important encounter into an anticlimax (and while encounters are a dime a dozen in D&D, important encounters aren't), and it contributes to the problem of casters dominating the game at high levels ("Gee, the wizard one-shotted the enemy in the first round. *Again.*")



Taking this slightly out of order because it leads into the next point. Yes, it is a problem, but this can be fixed by having save or die effects work only on mooks or otherwise less powerful foes, e.g. those 5 or more levels below the caster's character level (or caster level, if it is lower than character level). This will mean that the PCs will be unable to affect most BBEGs with their save or die spells, while still allowing them the chance to get rid of the lieutenants in a single round.



> 2. The idea that SoD should be for optional challenges only means that I can never use high-level wizards or clerics (along with several monsters, such as the iconic beholder) as villains who the PCs must face. Or, alternatively, I have to metagame and have the wizards and clerics choose less than optimal spells to use against the PCs. Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. If I want a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign, I should be able to have a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign.



So, building on my previous point, perhaps by the time the beholder or high level spellcaster BBEG encounters the PCs, the PCs are high level enough that his save or die effect can't kill them outright. Perhaps it will have some lesser effect, such as halving their hit points, or moving them down the condition track, or requiring more time to take effect, etc.


----------



## Ahglock (Oct 30, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I do recognize that inexperienced DMs could have a game session turn sour due to underestimating the effect of save or die, so I fully support the idea of warning labels/DM advice sidebars on the possible consequences of save or die abilities.




I always dug the hero systems magnifying glass and stop sign method.

Magnifying glass this:  Take a second look at this it can have unintended effects on your game.

Stop Sign: Yeah this is easily broken watch out, even at its most basic level this can screw with your game.  

Paraphrased of coerce, I'm too lazy to get up and walk 10' to the shelf the game is on to find the actual way it is phrased.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> You live under the threat of death right now.  You may not be running around and crying oh god no I might die, but guess what eventually you will die, your friends and family will die as well.  You know this, we all know this, its part of life, eventually you die.  For me the threat of death has to exist in the game or it loses to much touch with life.





			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Are you seriously comparing the risk of death faced by an average person living in a civilized country with the risk of death routinely faced by characters in fantasy games and fiction?



What Grog said. And, as I noted in my earlier post, it is not the threat of death that give me emotional involvement in my life, nor in most of the fictional material I read or view.

And to bring this into the context of the game: I don't think those who object to "save-or-die" necessarily object to aging rules for PCs. Those are quite a different matter.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> "I choose not to go on this adventure. Let's play SimMoistureFarmer!"



Agreed.

To those who say that it is the _players_ who choose to confront save-or-die, because it is the players who choose which encounters their PCs will take up and which they will avoid, I have two questions:

*Would you agree that this is a somewhat untypical mode of play - that with most groups, the players turn up to the session expecting to play an adventure, which they are expecting the GM to have prepared for them (whether from scratch, or from a published module)?

If this is so, then the players really can't choose to have their PCs avoid the encounter unless they (the players) also choose to avoid the game for the evening.

*Even if we think only about the sort of game (eg a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl) in which the players _do_ have primary responsibility for choosing which encounters their PCs take up, the world is typically also a dynamic one - for example, if the players retreat from an encounter, there is a chance they will be pursued. Given that much of the in-game cause-and-effect here is governed not by the game mechanics but by the GM's own decision-making, how is it then possible to claim that the players get to choose whether or not their PCs encounter save-or die effects.

For example, suppose the "boss" of the dungeon is a 13th level Cleric. What stops the GM deciding that she casts Divination to find the location of the PCs, then goes to that location and casts Destruction on one of them?​


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> "I choose not to face that bodak. Lets go on to the next room."




That's exactly right, because Bodaks (and similar) don't *ever* show up as random encount... oh, wait..


----------



## FireLance (Oct 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Would you agree that this is a somewhat untypical mode of play - that with most groups, the players turn up to the session expecting to play an adventure, which they are expecting the GM to have prepared for them (whether from scratch, or from a published module)?
> 
> If this is so, then the players really can't choose to have their PCs avoid the encounter unless they (the players) also choose to avoid the game for the evening.



Only if every encounter is save or die, or if the adventure is basically linear and the PCs are required to face each encounter in turn (and the bodak is encounter #4).

I've never played in or run the former type of game, and while I've both played in and run the latter, most if not all of the encounters did not feature save or die abilities.



> Even if we think only about the sort of game (eg a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl) in which the players _do_ have primary responsibility for choosing which encounters their PCs take up, the world is typically also a dynamic one - for example, if the players retreat from an encounter, there is a chance they will be pursued. Given that much of the in-game cause-and-effect here is governed not by the game mechanics but by the GM's own decision-making, how is it then possible to claim that the players get to choose whether or not their PCs encounter save-or die effects.
> 
> For example, suppose the "boss" of the dungeon is a 13th level Cleric. What stops the GM deciding that she casts Divination to find the location of the PCs, then goes to that location and casts Destruction on one of them?



Nothing, but nothing forces the DM to do that either. The DM is free to decide what action the 13th level cleric will take (attacking the PCs himself, sending called creatures, minions or a lieutenant to do the job, simply replenishing the guards, etc.) on the basis of what is going to make the game session more interesting and fun.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The problem here is you, not the lack of PC death. You're continuing to play in a game which is unsuited to your preferences. What you should be doing is:
> 
> 1. Quit.



Oh, I absolutely agree.  In reality, I'd be gone in a flash...unless, of course, I wanted to be a bit nastier and show up the folly of the never-die style by pushing the limits and getting away with stuff I shouldn't. 



			
				Jhulae said:
			
		

> I get to the game all ready to play, along with the other three players.
> 
> If the DM says, "Okay, everybody roll a d20. Jhulae and player 2, you need to get over a 10. Player 3, you need to get over a 15. Player 4, you need to get over a 7. Any player who doesn't make their roll can't play today", the DM would have very angry players. Why do we have to roll to be able to play? What kind of arbitrary crap is that?
> 
> That's what makes SoD harsh and arbitrary compared to almost every other mechanic where it takes multiple die rolls to kill off PCs.



Play.  Two.  Characters.  And hire henchmen for each.

Then, keep them somewhat separated, so what affects the one is less likely to affect the other. 

And, if you find your DM has a really bad case of bloodlust, ask that the character-generation rules be streamlined a bit for that game...

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Only if every encounter is save or die, or if the adventure is basically linear and the PCs are required to face each encounter in turn (and the bodak is encounter #4).
> 
> I've never played in or run the former type of game, and while I've both played in and run the latter, most if not all of the encounters did not feature save or die abilities.



But (if I've understood you right) in such a game the players don't get to choose not to have their PCs face the save-or-die attack, because they are required to face each encounter (including that encounter) in turn.

If that is true, then for a rather widespread play-style the "player choice" defence of save-or-die does not work.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> The DM is free to decide what action the 13th level cleric will take (attacking the PCs himself, sending called creatures, minions or a lieutenant to do the job, simply replenishing the guards, etc.) on the basis of what is going to make the game session more interesting and fun.



Agreed. But that does, to me, suggest that it is not the players' who are choosing whether or not their PCs will encounter a save-or-die threat.

So (if I've understood you right) both in typical module play, and in Gygaxian dungeon crawl play, the players do not get to choose whether or not their PCs face save-or-die threats. If this is corrrect, then I don't understand the "player choice" defence of save-or-die.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Play.  Two.  Characters.  And hire henchmen for each.



Which is to say that save-or-die doesn't work as well in games that take a non-1st ed AD&D approach to play.

If 4e were to abolish them, then, it would be fully consistent with the general trend of published D&D, over the past 25 years, away from that playstyle.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Which is to say that save-or-die doesn't work as well in games that take a non-1st ed AD&D approach to play.
> 
> If 4e were to abolish them, then, it would be fully consistent with the general trend of published D&D, over the past 25 years, away from that playstyle.



Perhaps.

Some would see this as a good thing.  I would not.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Oct 30, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Some would see this as a good thing.  I would not.



I've got that impression over a number of threads! I still think that 4e is not being designed to support you play preferences, but I can see why you would hope that I'm wrong.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But (if I've understood you right) in such a game the players don't get to choose not to have their PCs face the save-or-die attack, because they are required to face each encounter (including that encounter) in turn.



Yes.



> If that is true, then for a rather widespread play-style the "player choice" defence of save-or-die does not work.



It's not a defence (but more on that later), it's a statement of how I handle save or die abilities as they are currently formulated. No doubt, there are players who enjoy the thrill of occasionally being no more than one of their opponents' actions away from death, and do not mind either raising the dead PC or creating a new one in the event of actual death. For such players, sitting down to play the game in the first place implicitly means choosing to encounter save or die effects (although not necessarily all the time).

Now, the people I game with aren't like that, so I don't use save or die traps or creatures and NPCs with save or die abilities as random or "mandatory" encounters in my games.



> Agreed. But that does, to me, suggest that it is not the players' who are choosing whether or not their PCs will encounter a save-or-die threat.



Unless, of course, I (or someone else who shares my philosophy on save or die abilities) am DMing the adventure. Unless the players have made bad mistakes (and arguably, making bad mistakes is a player "choice"), the PCs should be able to either avoid save or die threats (if they choose to) or find a counter to them. Again, this is merely a statement of how I would handle save or die abilities, not a prescription of how they should be handled.



> So (if I've understood you right) both in typical module play, and in Gygaxian dungeon crawl play, the players do not get to choose whether or not their PCs face save-or-die threats. If this is corrrect, then I don't understand the "player choice" defence of save-or-die.



As mentioned, "player choice" is not a defence of save or die abilities, it is only my way of using them based on the preferences of my current gaming group. I wouldn't miss them much if they are gone, any more than I would miss a specialized tool in a toolbox that I seldom, if ever, use. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind it much if they are included, even though I think some extra warnings and advice should be given for the benefit of inexperienced DMs.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes, but the anti- save or die folk have already stated their case. Irrefutable logic will probably not sway them. WotC could post that save or die is arbitrary and not fun and will not be in 4E, and it still probably will not sway them.




Irrefutable logic won't sway anybody here, mostly because what is perfectly logical to one is only a subjective point of view to another.



> Most of them have probably not played in a game where the DM said "Your PC is dead." with no dice rolls.
> 
> Most of them have probably not played in a game where the DM had a party of powerful good NPCs ambush in a surprise round, shoot first and ask questions later (because of behind the scene events that the PCs were not even aware of in one case, and were aware of but had no control over in the other case) and kill a PC before his initiative came up in round one (twice by two different DMs, years apart).




There you go again, assuming stuff about people you simply don't know. That joke gets old quick.
There's plenty people here arguing in favour of save-or-die that started playing 20 years back and more. Do you really think that in versions where poison traps where save-or-die effects and where DM fiat was a lot stronger than it is today, those players have never lost a character to the whim of one single die roll, or a surprise ambush of goblins/drow/orcs in a dungeon?
Better stop assuming. It doesn't help.



> These examples are really significantly no different than save or die (although I am sure people will claim otherwise).
> 
> The die roll aspect of save or die is a joke because random arbitrary meaningless and unfun (due to sitting out) death happens the moment the DM pulls the save or die gun into the game. He might as well just say "Your PC is dead." The actual odds do not matter. 1%, 5%, or 80%. A PC can die and in fact, the DM decides which PC the NPC aimed for.




So basically, there shouldn't be any surprise attacks by superior forces either? How about overwhelming natural forces then? Ever had a character fall overboard with his 50-pound armor and his shield? Ever wondered what else he could do except hold his breath and bet on whether it'll be overpressure or drowning that kills him first, and all because of a failed Balance check in a battle on a stormy sea? Fallen from a griffon without your wizard buddy close to cast _Feather Fall_ or _Fly_ on you?

MoogleEmpMog at least comes out directly and says that he would prefer his characters not to be affected by any kind of random death. How about you? How random is death allowed to be for your characters?



> Death is death if the DM decides that death is going to occur. The moment he pulls in save or die, that's his decision because he has no control over the save, hence, he no longer has control over the death. At that point, it is not a challenge to be overcome like other game mechanics. It is a random potential event whose only two results are life or death.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think save or die is the easy way for DMs to kill PCs because they cannot take out the time to think of appropriate challenges, but that's just my opinion and does not necessarily have any basis in actual fact.




Hence it's irrefutable. Logical? A clue...no. And you wouldn't believe how much control I can exert over the outcome of a saving throw as DM, and how much in-game potential influence I can give characters over their saving throws besides their own spells, if I want to.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> So (if I've understood you right) both in typical module play, and in Gygaxian dungeon crawl play, the players do not get to choose whether or not their PCs face save-or-die threats. If this is corrrect, then I don't understand the "player choice" defence of save-or-die.




The point in this context is probably that the players actually have to get a chance to be able to choose to face the save-or-die threat, or not. Which in turn means, of course, the DM having to give them opportunities to hear about that threat first, either by research, rumors, insider information (neutral monsters they encounter in a dungeon that trade info for food and gold), the journal found on the corpse of a dead adventurer, or a first-hand example of that threat witnessed before the confrontation (evil high-priest sacrifices a victim in front of the cult's idol by casting _Destruction_ while the heroes are hidden behind pillars, waiting for a good moment to strike, for example). There's a good handful of measures that active players can pursue to gain that kind of information *before* they storm any given adventure, and another few for the DM to make the information available to them inbetween. It's a challenge for the players to prepare themselves before they face ANY threat, or suffer the consequences if they haven't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> "I choose not to face that bodak. Lets go on to the next room."




Again, perfectly logical response if you wake up with a bodak in your bed.  Otherwise, I'm betting that you made decisions to get to the point where you met it.

What kind of game do you play in, where what creatures you meet are not based at all on your decisions?

RC


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, perfectly logical response if you wake up with a bodak in your bed.  Otherwise, I'm betting that you made decisions to get to the point where you met it.
> 
> What kind of game do you play in, where what creatures you meet are not based at all on your decisions?
> 
> RC



 A game where the point is to kill monsters, not run away from them?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 30, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> The point in this context is probably that the players actually have to get a chance to be able to choose to face the save-or-die threat, or not. Which in turn means, of course, the DM having to give them opportunities to hear about that threat first, either by research, rumors, insider information (neutral monsters they encounter in a dungeon that trade info for food and gold), the journal found on the corpse of a dead adventurer, or a first-hand example of that threat witnessed before the confrontation (evil high-priest sacrifices a victim in front of the cult's idol by casting _Destruction_ while the heroes are hidden behind pillars, waiting for a good moment to strike, for example). There's a good handful of measures that active players can pursue to gain that kind of information *before* they storm any given adventure, and another few for the DM to make the information available to them inbetween. It's a challenge for the players to prepare themselves before they face ANY threat, or suffer the consequences if they haven't.



If the DM ensures that the players are warned appropriately through several plot hooks and parts of the adventure, I see no real problem if he just makes up a Save or Die (or just Die?) effect for this adventure and this particular villain/monster, even though the game as a default doesn't contain such affects. The players are forewarned, the characters are forewarned, so nobody could really complain. 
I think beating/evading such a monster will be very memorable for the players. 
And since you don't have this ability as a standard ability for certain monsters/levels, it doesn't risk wrecking the game at another time, or cheapening such effects (and Death) due to overabundance.

I might be wrong, but I think there are no spells in 3rd edition that allow you to free an ancient god from his prison. Still, there is a whole Adventure Path related to it. 
There is also no spell that could let a major batch of imprisoned demons/devils of the Abyss into the Material Plane, yet there is a whole Adventure Path related to it. 

Save or Die effects have a lower magnituate then demons infesting your home plane, but that might just indicate that such effects can be used as major plot points for lower level games.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 30, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> There you go again, assuming stuff about people you simply don't know. That joke gets old quick.
> There's plenty people here arguing in favour of save-or-die that started playing 20 years back and more. Do you really think that in versions where poison traps where save-or-die effects and where DM fiat was a lot stronger than it is today, those players have never lost a character to the whim of one single die roll, or a surprise ambush of goblins/drow/orcs in a dungeon?
> Better stop assuming. It doesn't help.




There you go assuming again. These were all 3E/3.5 campaigns.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> So basically, there shouldn't be any surprise attacks by superior forces either? How about overwhelming natural forces then? Ever had a character fall overboard with his 50-pound armor and his shield? Ever wondered what else he could do except hold his breath and bet on whether it'll be overpressure or drowning that kills him first, and all because of a failed Balance check in a battle on a stormy sea? Fallen from a griffon without your wizard buddy close to cast _Feather Fall_ or _Fly_ on you?




I have no problem with surprise rounds by superior forces. I was hoping you could read between the lines, but I'll make it clearer.

When the DM says: "You are surprised. Two enemy Wizards target your PC on the surprise round. Not dead yet? Well, since the two enemy Wizards beat your initiative, they attack again. roll ... roll. You are dead now.", it's pretty obvious that your PC was the target. Now before you go jumping on the "the DM was attacking your PC, what do you expect?" bandwagon, that's not the point. The point is that when the DM has the NPCs do actions which are in the best interest of the NCPs, bad stuff can happen to kill a PC if the mechanics allow for multiple "cannon" attacks without PC response. I have no problem with PC death. I have a problem with game mechanics which can lead to a PC death without the PC having a single chance to respond.

Examples:

Save or Die

Surprise round attack followed by a round one win init attack (I'm not keen on this rule either, that's up to 4 spells from one opponent via Quicken before a PC can react)

the 3E version of Haste combined with Quickened spell (3 spells per round from the same creature lead to extremely broken synergies)



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Hence it's irrefutable. Logical? A clue...no. And you wouldn't believe how much control I can exert over the outcome of a saving throw as DM, and how much in-game potential influence I can give characters over their saving throws besides their own spells, if I want to.




Of course as DM you can cheat and pull a rabbit out of your a$$. Where's the game challenge for the players in that? Oh yeah, there isn't any.

Might as well read a bedtime story to them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There you go assuming again. These were all 3E/3.5 campaigns.




Pointing out that folks who've played 20 years or more, across a variety of editions (some with harsher SoD than this one) assumes nothing of your own experiences.  It does, however, indicate that assumptions about the experiences of others might be less warranted than some might think.

I've had bad DMs.  No ruleset can stop a DM who wants to kill your PC from killing your PC.  The problem is the DM, not the ruleset.

Of course as DM you can cheat and prevent the characters from failing, too.  Where's the game challenge for the players in that?  Oh yeah, there isn't any.

Might as well read a bedtime story to them. 

That line of "reasoning" has precious little to do with logic, and it cuts both ways.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Of course as DM you can cheat and pull a rabbit out of your a$$. Where's the game challenge for the players in that? Oh yeah, there isn't any.




Ah, right...so if a DM pulls out a save-or-die enemy for his adventure..oh let me just quote, your words are better...



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Death is death if the DM decides that death is going to occur. The moment he pulls in save or die, that's his decision because he has no control over the save, hence, he no longer has control over the death.




...but as soon as I use my "DM powers" to offer the players ways to protect themselves before the encounter, or reward them, e.g. for luring the opponent into an area where they get a bonus on their saves by some effect that they heard or found out about, or by placing protective items that are tailored to the power of the opponent somewhere in the adventure for the characters to find if they work for it, or allow them to use something like I'm cheating, pulling a rabbit out of my backside, and am taking the whole challenge away from them.

Happy gaming, whatever you play.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No ruleset can stop a DM who wants to kill your PC from killing your PC.




Disagree.

Without cheating (in a system in which it is understood that the GM can be validly accused of cheating if he goes against the rules), the GM cannot kill your PC in _Dogs in the Vineyard_ without your choosing to make the stakes that high, or in _Burning Empires_ without his defeating you using his also limited resources.  (IIRC, the same could be said of _Toon_, but I don't know offhand what _Toon_'s policy on "Rule 0" was.)

That's not to say those games will be ENJOYABLE with a bad GM, because they generally won't.  They won't allow the bad GM to kill your PC, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> That's not to say those games will be ENJOYABLE with a bad GM, because they generally won't.  They won't allow the bad GM to kill your PC, though.




Okay, I'll grant that there might be systems which make it explicit that PCs cannot die without the player's say-so, and that these systems might not allow the GM to create houserules.

Either way, though, if you have a bad DM, no set of rules can be so comprehensive as to both have a GM role and prevent the person in that role from shafting you.

Going back to Jhulae's last post, I'd agree that some creatures shouldn't appear on generic random encounter tables, and that the DMG should give a heck of a lot more advice on how to use the toolset that is offered.  But that doesn't equate to removing tools because you can't be bothered to train DMs in their use.

At least, not IMHO.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2007)

The whole problem with the whole "Well, PC's should be prepared for facing save or die situations" is that it assumes that the PC's have perfect knowledge.  Unless you always put statuary out in front of every medusa lair, it's not reasonable to assume that the PC's will always know that a save or die monster lurks around that corner.

Now, save or be hurt I have no problem with.  But, IME, save or die is disproportionately lethal.  In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, with a group of 6, I had 25 (ish) PC deaths (most of them permanent).  Almost half were from save or die effects - and I'm counting being turned to stone in here too since the PC's had no way to retrieve those who failed their saves.

Half the fatalities were to SoD, but, far fewer than half the encounters were with SoD monsters.  I would say that about 10% of the encounters are actually with SoD monsters or traps.  Yet, that 10% (and that's not a certain number, just a rough guess) accounted for as many deaths as the other 90%.

That's why, IME, SoD is a very bad thing.  I'm also starting to get a feeling that crits should maybe be in the same boat as well, but, I'm still on the fence on that one.

All I know is that in every edition that I've played, SoD killed FAR more than it should considering the number of times its faced.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Disagree.
> 
> Without cheating (in a system in which it is understood that the GM can be validly accused of cheating if he goes against the rules), the GM cannot kill your PC in _Dogs in the Vineyard_ without your choosing to make the stakes that high, or in _Burning Empires_ without his defeating you using his also limited resources.  (IIRC, the same could be said of _Toon_, but I don't know offhand what _Toon_'s policy on "Rule 0" was.)
> 
> That's not to say those games will be ENJOYABLE with a bad GM, because they generally won't.  They won't allow the bad GM to kill your PC, though.




Well, you definitely made me curious about those two games. I heard some things about _Dogs in the Vineyard_ and am not sure the setting really draws me in, but _Burning Empire_ is a blank slate for me. Thanks.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 30, 2007)

There's also an interesting philosophical question surrounding the whole "your PCs chose to encounter this monster" thing.  If my character chooses to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to save the world, and I choose to send my character to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to continue the game my DM has written for the evening without reducing it to shambles, to what extent have I really consented to facing the wizard's save-or-die spells?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, perfectly logical response if you wake up with a bodak in your bed.  Otherwise, I'm betting that you made decisions to get to the point where you met it.
> 
> What kind of game do you play in, where what creatures you meet are not based at all on your decisions?




That mentality is so odd to me.

PC: "I listen at the door" *rolls*
DM: "You hear nothing."
PC: "I open the door carefully and look inside."
DM: "You meet the gaze of a bodak. Make a Fortitude save."
PC: *rolls* "Ummm... 12..."
DM: "Your PC falls down dead."

Yeah, sure, the PC did decide to open the door. But, is the lethality proportional to the risk that the player believed he was subjugating himself to? The PC probably did this same thing dozens of times before, and it doesn't matter how careful he was.

_And then_ with gaze attacks the PCs not only have to make saves because gaze attacks passively affect everyone within an area (for bodaks 30') but the bodak can also force a 2nd save with a Standard action. And, looking over the bodak stat block, he isn't doing much else.

And, that doesn't even get into high level clerics and wizards throwing around their _implosion_ and _finger of death_ spells. It's not a very fun choice between "Face the BBEG and save the kingdom but most likely one of you will die a round" and "Run away from the BBEG and let him win." GG. Of course, the PCs will be using their own death magic so it will probably be a short fight either way, though, right?

Now, this is coming from someone who has an average of one death a session. So, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against PCs dying. They've got SOP for that, with various options depending on how the PC died and how many resources they have left (and how many have died). But, I'd rather not have PCs die haphazardly.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 30, 2007)

I apologize. I don't have time to completely catch up on this thread, but there's a couple of additional points I wanted to make...



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Precisely.  The problem with support for SoD is that its supporters are always trying to hide behind these hedges.  Hedges like "you should have prepared Death Ward," or, "they should be in the game, but if you _use_ them, you're a killer DM."  It gets ridiculous.




I not even familiar with Death Ward. From what I've gathered in this discussion, it is one way to avoid saving throws, but it's not even one that I'd come up with. To me, avoiding making a saving throw (whether vs. death or not) is the whole point of saving throws.

It's like those tire spikes they use in some places. The spikes aren't intended to puncture anyone's tire. They're intended to cause people to avoid driving through a certain area in a certain direction.



			
				Anthtriel said:
			
		

> Alright. This playsituation: You are in a dungeon. You keep open a door. Inside, there is some kind of cult, with 20 people in black robes scattered in a 18 x 48 metres room. What do you do?
> 
> This is a standard situation, and you have no way whatsoever to prevent the enemies from casting a spell on you.




But that's _not_ a standard situation in my groups. We seldom go busting open a door with 20 cultists behind it without having a clue that there might be 20 cultists behind it.

Why? Because one way to avoid making saving throws is to not bust open doors without having a good idea what might be behind it. If we are going to open a door without a clue what might be behind it, were going to be as prepared-for-anything as possible & do it as stealthily as possible.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to find any work of fiction where the author kills off a defined character (not a red shirt) for no larger reason and then forgets about him for the rest of the work (a truly disposable character). Effectively, that is the literary equivalent to save or die: a random meaningless death that adds nothing to the larger narrative and serves only to be a "sucks to be you" to the Player.




In an effort not to spoil anything, I'll merely mention the movie _Serenity_. Not that I really think that has much bearing on this discussion.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There's also an interesting philosophical question surrounding the whole "your PCs chose to encounter this monster" thing.  If my character chooses to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to save the world, and I choose to send my character to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to continue the game my DM has written for the evening without reducing it to shambles, to what extent have I really consented to facing the wizard's save-or-die spells?




About to the same extent that you consented to facing this wizard's other spells, I'd say? Or not?


----------



## RFisher (Oct 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The whole problem with the whole "Well, PC's should be prepared for facing save or die situations" is that it assumes that the PC's have perfect knowledge.




No. The saving throw _acknowledges_ that PCs don't avoid fatal situation 100% of the time. Otherwise it'd be "just die" instead of "save or die".

Secondly, players don't have to have perfect knowledge to avoid lots of saving throws.

Thirdly, this is why I advocate that DMs make an effort at "fair warning". To (partially) account for both the imperfection of player knowledge & the imperfections of the game.

Finally, sure it's still not going to be perfect. That's OK.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The whole problem with the whole "Well, PC's should be prepared for facing save or die situations" is that it assumes that the PC's have perfect knowledge.




No.  It assumes that it is possible to gain good intelligence on the basis of things like legends, rumours, asking around, talking to other nearby critters, Gather Information checks, and divination magic to follow up leads.  It assumes that the DM isn't out to get you (and who wants to play with a DM who is out to get you?) and that it is the players, not the DM, who sets the agenda.  It assumes that things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing.  It assumes that a bard is a worthwhile character choice, that can actually contribute to a party.

BTW, what happened to your .sig?  I know that you can't select any give person as the winner, but "Anime has been found!" wasn't what you promised either.  I have a hard time taking your anecdotes at face value when you don't seem to mind fudging in other places.

RC

EDIT:  ThirdWizard, I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

Admittedly, both as player and as DM, I don't have a problem with occasionally having such an encounter be unexpected.  Because it is possible to gain information does not mean that you always will do so.

EDIT to the EDIT:  And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.

RC


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  ThirdWizard, I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks _*and wizards and clerics*_ don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.




I fixed it for you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I fixed it for you.




Sure.

3e set up an expectation that there are a lot of magic-types floating around in the world, and that they have access to whatever spells they want.  1e had neither as a default, and 2e only had spell access as a default.

When you change the default assumptions of the game, problems may well crawl out of the woodwork on the basis of those changes.

But, yes, in games that I run clerics and wizards who tend to memorize and use SoD spells (or who tend to turn folks into sheep and swine) tend to get noticed.  When evil cults move into an area and begin kidnapping children for sacrifices, people tend to notice that _something_ is going on.

And, again, it is quite possible that some NPC you meet doesn't have a SoD spell, but can still win initiative and drop you before you can act.  Perhaps while banning all of these spells and monsters, we should ban higher-level-than-the-PCs characters as well.

RC


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> If it wasn't so sad, it would be really funny.





Okay, folks, let's all sing it...

_R E S P E C T, that's what my boards mean to me!_

Do not be insulting, folks.  That way lies madness and thread closures....


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 30, 2007)

Save or die is pretty bad, but if you really want to be a cruel DM you implement save *and* die.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

Nevermind, RC cleared himself up earlier.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think we went over this before. Lets do it again.
> 
> Your in a group of 8th level PCs. You are ye-olde classic dungeon.




OK



> you can the improbable displacer beast living two doors down for the mindflayer




So, the definition is that we are in the _*poorly designed*_ ye-olde classic dungeon?  The mind flayer doesn't know about the displacer beast or the bodak?

The decision that the players chose poorly in was picking the DM.  

Again, I don't think that the ruleset is going to help you there.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The decision that the players chose poorly in was picking the DM.




I see. You're crediting a lot of old first edition modules (including some of Gary's work) as poor DMing?

Enlighten us, What IS the proper way of stocking a dungeon?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

One funny thing about those "standard assumptions" is that they don't tend towards this whole "very high magic" setting that somehow is painted in this thread (as well as those about magic shops and other weird things). Lets take a look at the lowest real [Death] effect I could find..._Slay Living_ (which, incidentally, needs a touch attack before the subject has to make his save-or-die roll, at least in my 3.0 PHB. Hmmm..)

A 5th level spell needs a 9th level cleric to cast. You will find a 9th level cleric

- with a 17% probability in a Large Town with 2001 - 5000 inhabitants (Roll a 6 on 1d6+3 on the Highest Level Locals chart in the DMG).

- or higher with a 66% probability in a Small City with 5001 - 12,000 inhabitants (roll 3-6 on that chart), or two 9th+ level clerics with a 44% probability (roll 3-6 on that chart twice).

- or higher with a 100% probability in a Large City with 12,001 - 25,000 inhabitants (+9 community modifier means you will get at least 3 10th - 15th level clerics, none of which generates another 9th level cleric beneath him, though).

- or higher with a 100% probability in a Metropolis with 25,000+ inhabitants. The +12 on the community modifier means four clerics of 13th - 18th level, a 17% chance one of those creates two more 9th level clerics, a 3% chance that two of them generate two 9th level clerics each, and no chance at all that 3 or 4 of them generate two 9th level clerics each.

Now I agree that the numbers of each settlement type available depend on the setting in question, but this all doesn't really paint a picture to me that the world is crawling with clerics that can send a character to his death with a snap. From what I see of the deities, at lest 1/3rd of those clerics wouldn't have ANY good in-game excuse for actually preparing Death spells. So the "basic assumption" that there is random death carousing in D&D after the PCs hit 9th level is a bit stretched, from my point of view. Also, it somehow does show that being able to cast some death effect spell _does_ signify the caster as something special and worthy of notice by other powers.

That leaves us with all the BBEG clerics and wizards who have to be high enough level to do all that killing on the spot. Sadly, there are no demographical numbers for those in the DMG, so any number would be pulled from thin air...but looking at the basic assumption of the default world make-up, I dare say it's not geared towards hundreds of 9th level baddies crawling out of the woodwork all of a sudden either just to "randomly save-or-die" the characters to death.


----------



## Grog (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, "the PCs should never have to face an encounter unless they want to" is my stance on a nest of goblins as well.  Players choose what they do isn't just for "big challenges".
> 
> Obviously, we shouldn't have goblins in the game.



So your players _always_ know _every single creature_ they're going to face before going into an encounter? They never meet anything unknown or unexpected?

It's your game, of course, but I don't think that's how the vast majority of D&D games are played.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When you change the default assumptions of the game, problems may well crawl out of the woodwork on the basis of those changes.




Right. So, the question is, do we change these core assumptions that were introduced in 3.5 or do we remove Save or Die because they don't mesh with the new core assumptions.

Obviously, the 4e designers have decided to keep the new assumptions and remove save or die, probably replacing it with some different, more malleable effects. Since I like these newly introduced default assumptions of the game, I'm all for the removal of the SoD.



> But, yes, in games that I run clerics and wizards who tend to memorize and use SoD spells (or who tend to turn folks into sheep and swine) tend to get noticed.  When evil cults move into an area and begin kidnapping children for sacrifices, people tend to notice that _something_ is going on.




I don't think a mechanical aspect of the game should be balanced using play style preferences. To me, constant dying at high levels due to SoD was always just the way 3e was when I first got there. Since, I have pretty much removed SoD, but I still think of high level 3e games as a game where you're supposed to drop a PC every encounter. To me, that's just the way the game is _built_. In other words, is is so prevalent (+ easy resurrection), I've never considered it something to be avoided in the way you're talking about.

Plus, I run a lot of exploration, going out into the great unknown. That's part of what draws me to Planescape. I have fond memories of PCs walking through a portal into a dark cavern and tossing a torch down a cliff only to have it land on a white dragon's head. Or going to fight some axiomatic illithids to find that a former ally (a wizard) had allied herself with the mind flayers and aiding the battle. Not that PCs never know what to expect, they prepare quite a bit, but implying that you can never use a wizard in a surprise encounter is just a too much for me to swallow.



> And, again, it is quite possible that some NPC you meet doesn't have a SoD spell, but can still win initiative and drop you before you can act.  Perhaps while banning all of these spells and monsters, we should ban higher-level-than-the-PCs characters as well.




Sure, but that's much rarer and more based on luck than anything. My problem isn't so much that PCs can die without having a chance to act, its more that with particular monsters/spells/abilities its almost always going to happen. Instead of "Wow, that orc got a critical on you!" every once in a while it's "Roll a 10 or die" for a few rounds. And, of course, there's the paper tiger effect. Bodaks, without SoD are amazingly weak, so if you use _death ward_ they're pushovers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I see. You're crediting a lot of old first edition modules (including some of Gary's work) as poor DMing?




Enlighten me, What IS the module with the displacer beast next to the mind flayer, with no overall theme, and where the PCs have no means to gain information about the dungeon?



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> So your players always know every single creature they're going to face before going into an encounter? They never meet anything unknown or unexpected?




No. My world assumes that it is possible to gain good intelligence on the basis of things like legends, rumours, asking around, talking to other nearby critters, Gather Information checks, and divination magic to follow up leads.  It assumes that the DM isn't out to get you (and who wants to play with a DM who is out to get you?) and that it is the players, not the DM, who sets the agenda.  It assumes that things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing. It assumes that a bard is a worthwhile character choice, that can actually contribute to a party.

I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

Admittedly, both as player and as DM, I don't have a problem with occasionally having such an encounter be unexpected. Because it is possible to gain information does not mean that you always will do so.

And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Right. So, the question is, do we change these core assumptions that were introduced in 3.5 or do we remove Save or Die because they don't mesh with the new core assumptions.




Change the assumptions.  Apparently, 4.0 changes several.  



> I don't think a mechanical aspect of the game should be balanced using play style preferences.




I am not sure that this is avoidable in an open-ended game like D&D.



> Plus, I run a lot of exploration, going out into the great unknown.




Yup.  Me too.  That doesn't mean that there isn't any means to gather intelligence, though, from talking to locals in the area that you are exploring, through examining clues that things leave about the areas they live, to using divination magic.



> implying that you can never use a wizard in a surprise encounter is just a too much for me to swallow.




I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

Admittedly, both as player and as DM, I don't have a problem with occasionally having such an encounter be unexpected. Because it is possible to gain information does not mean that you always will do so.

And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Enlighten me, What IS the module with the displacer beast next to the mind flayer, with no overall theme, and where the PCs have no means to gain information about the dungeon?.




B1. In Search of the Unknown (though thats a little unfair, the DM DOES have a choice in that one)
B2. Keep on the Borderlands (medusa in a closet anyone?)
I2. Tomb of the Lizard King (trust me, there are more than lizardmen in there)
T1. The Village of Hommlet (Ogres next to brigands next to gnolls next to ghouls in the moat house)
S2. White Plume Mountain (a giant crab, a vampire, and an ogre magi?)
U1. The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh

Those are some of the ones I own (and my library is far from complete). I'd also like to direct you to Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, which manages to sandwich every monster from CR 6-16 in one huge dungeon.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> B1. In Search of the Unknown (though thats a little unfair, the DM DOES have a choice in that one)
> B2. Keep on the Borderlands (medusa in a closet anyone?)
> I2. Tomb of the Lizard King (trust me, there are more than lizardmen in there)
> T1. The Village of Hommlet (Ogres next to brigands next to gnolls next to ghouls in the moat house)
> ...




I think you should go back and read some of those modules again, my friend.  I'll use B2 as an example.  Do you really believe that no one in the caves area knows that there is a medusa?  If you read the text, Gary is quite clear that the areas interact with each other, and that there is quite a bit of knowledge about the basics of other areas.  The Shunned Cave is shunned for a reason.

RC


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.
> 
> RC




You obviously don't play in a "points of light" (to borrow 4e's term) style setting where monster DO live in hidden dungeons and tombs without people noticing, far, far from human civilization and where the local rumors and legends end 20 some years before the adventure starts (We don't go up to Bone Hill, haven't for years. Rumor says its haunted. No one's ever come back alive). We can't always just look up what monsters are rumored to live in Bone Hill. We might know the goblins come to raid from there, but that doesn't mean that anyone  knows (or have any reason to know) that the goblinoids made a deal with a local medusa to act as a guardian of their lair for a (more than) fair share of the treasure (and not to stonegaze them). 

Because otherwise, your saying "Save or Die is fine as long as you are a good enough DM to know when not to use it" If the only way to use SoD is to plan the whole game around it, it sounds like a big sore spot in the rules.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 30, 2007)

It seems to me that some SoD supporters want SoD to inhabit the same place in the game world that is inhabited by encounters above the party's appropriate ECL, except without giving the monsters the CR that would accurately depict them.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You obviously don't play in a "points of light" (to borrow 4e's term) style setting where monster DO live in hidden dungeons and tombs without people noticing, far, far from human civilization and where the local rumors and legends end 20 some years before the adventure starts (We don't go up to Bone Hill, haven't for years. Rumor says its haunted. No one's ever come back alive). We can't always just look up what monsters are rumored to live in Bone Hill. We might know the goblins come to raid from there, but that doesn't mean that anyone  knows (or have any reason to know) that the goblinoids made a deal with a local medusa to act as a guardian of their lair for a (more than) fair share of the treasure (and not to stonegaze them).
> 
> Because otherwise, your saying "Save or Die is fine as long as you are a good enough DM to know when not to use it" If the only way to use SoD is to plan the whole game around it, it sounds like a big sore spot in the rules.




Well, how about not slaughtering those goblin guards that roam the perimeter, or those goblin raiders left behind without their wolves, but capture them instead and interrogate them about the Bone Hill complex in order to gain more recent information about what you are going to face? Bribe them with survival, threaten them with pain, or promise them gold (i.e. use your Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy skill) and make them talk.  

I admit that this seems to be a rare occurence...even players who usually are all about information gathering about their target when playing Shadowrun seem to turn into Kitchen Aid mince machines when slipping into D&D characters. It's really funny sometimes.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Change the assumptions.  Apparently, 4.0 changes several.




I think it's worth pointing out that (I don't think) any of the changed assumptions are classic D&D ones. Well, some prep concepts are getting simpler, which could be said to be classic assumptions, but not much beyond that.



> I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing




I'm wondering what is "well-designed" about that world. Especially when dealing with intelligent (or semi-intelligent) creatures who might not go around killing things willy-nilly. If the adventure revolves around the medusa moving into town, then sure, but what if it is just a tangential aside to the adventure? Eventually, won't things look very contrived with the DM leaving breadcrumbs all around. Every medusa lair isn't going to have statues all around it after all. Right?



> and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.




The 3rd vs 2nd level of a dungeon? 



> And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.




Yeah, but, at least in my mind, there's a difference between a lucky shot or someone getting really unlucky with surprise/initiative rolls and a death attack. Take _implosion_. 1/round until you break their concentration. And, a CR 13 slaad can do this!


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Well, how about not slaughtering those goblin guards that roam the perimeter, or those goblin raiders left behind without their wolves, but capture them instead and interrogate them about the Bone Hill complex in order to gain more recent information about what you are going to face? Bribe them with survival, threaten them with pain, or promise them gold (i.e. use your Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy skill) and make them talk.
> 
> I admit that this seems to be a rare occurrence...even players who usually are all about information gathering about their target when playing Shadowrun seem to turn into Kitchen Aid mince machines when slipping into D&D characters. It's really funny sometimes.




And if those goblins don't know, outright lie, or won't go down without a fight? If the answer to a particular rule-problem is "change the way you play D&D" I think thats a failing of the rule, not the players or the DM...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> And if those goblins don't know, outright lie, or won't go down without a fight? If the answer to a particular rule-problem is "change the way you play D&D" I think thats a failing of the rule, not the players or the DM...




Uhm...not to be snarky or anything...but 4E is all about making people change how they play D&D, and so far nobody chalked that up to a failure if the rule..hard to do since they aren't in print yet.  (Friendly tease  ).

The thing is, for some reason the "basic assumption" that was built into pretty much every edition of D&D, namely that of gathering information about the locale you're going to invade along with the basic opposition seems to get lost frequently. Every edition I've played featured stuff like rumor lists (with false and true rumors), opportunities for the players to gather information about some special feature of the adventure or a special monster in the area, and since 3E they often included DCs for Bard's Knowledge about the topic at hand. The challenge might be to intimidate the goblins enough to make them tell the truth, or bribe them enough to make it worth their while (Come on, it's not that hard to promise them 1 gp first, and if they don't talk, offer them 9 silver pieces and argue that it is a lot more  ). And no, I won't accept goblin warriors who DON'T know what is guarding their most treasured posessions and demads trubute for it as part of the same tribe. If we're talking the goblin cook here, or the nurse...fine. But not the warriors of the tribe. That sounds too far-fetched to me...or like a DM who WANTS to screw over his group even though they are trying to scope out the opposition.

"Get information about the adventure" is not a specific answer to a rules-problem with save-or-die effects...it is a general advice given to nearly everybody who plays D&D....equally, every DM who read the advice in the DMG gets told to leave those bits and pieces of information for the adventurers to find, at least when they try to. I'm simply applying this advice equally to save-or-die as to dragons, liches, special items, local nobility and weird events of the past. And there generally are multiple ways for a DM to bring some information into play, from a very passive level to very active information sources that seek out the characters to sell them info.

If some people play D&D as "screw rumors, information and all that talking, lets simply rush into the dungeon blindly and see how far we can kill our way through" (both sides...players AND DMs), that's not a "problem" with the rules, that is a group overemphasizing the "bash the door in" philosophy of D&D in their playstyle. Sure, as long as they have fun, that's great...but if some element of the game constantly stumps them then maybe, just maybe, it's not a problem of the rules but of how they are approached. That can be solved by either adapting the playstyle, or by houseruling out the element that stumps them (in this context here it would mean no save-or-die effects). But at the same time, taking that element out of the whole game for everybody simply takes away one option from those who are not stumped by it and actually can have fun with it.

Disclaimer: Note that I'm not generalizing this kind of playstyle as the one everybody who is against save-or-die effects favours, and neither am I saying that they all have a problem with them because they don't know how to handle them so they don't give them a problem. The above description is a limited example that is meant as a reply to Remathilis' setup only, and not aimed at the general player populace.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think it's worth pointing out that (I don't think) any of the changed assumptions are classic D&D ones. Well, some prep concepts are getting simpler, which could be said to be classic assumptions, but not much beyond that.




Huh? Come on...there's plenty more in there.  

- Monsters not using the same rules as the player characters? Classic.
- "Points of Light" setting? Very classic.
- The whole "chaos vs. order" dichotomy you can see in the new extraplanar setup? Classic.
- Astral Sea with Domains floating around inside? Screams Basic D&D to me....classic stuff.
- A strengthening of the roles of character classes? Modern form of the classic niche protection. Pretty classic concept, in a modern outfit.

In contrast to what a lot of the nay-sayers complain about, there's plenty of the 4E announcements that goes back to older editions while trying to keep the better parts of the last one.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 30, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There's also an interesting philosophical question surrounding the whole "your PCs chose to encounter this monster" thing.  If my character chooses to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to save the world, and I choose to send my character to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to continue the game my DM has written for the evening without reducing it to shambles, to what extent have I really consented to facing the wizard's save-or-die spells?



Well, if I was the DM, and the group is not one that considers save or die effects part and parcel of regular gaming, either:

1. The wizard (or other spellcaster) won't have save or die spells in the first place; or

2. If the party dosn't make too many mistakes, they will find out that the spellcaster favors save or die spells from rumors, Bardic Knowledge, Knowledge checks, etc. and the party would be given access to specific counters to his save or die spells if they don't already have them in the first place.

If (2) seems too much trouble, I'll just default to (1). It would probably be more fun for a gaming group that doesn't like save or die anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2007)

> BTW, what happened to your .sig? I know that you can't select any give person as the winner, but "Anime has been found!" wasn't what you promised either. I have a hard time taking your anecdotes at face value when you don't seem to mind fudging in other places.




Wow, RC, just... wow.  :\


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 31, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Huh? Come on...there's plenty more in there.
> 
> - Monsters not using the same rules as the player characters? Classic.
> - "Points of Light" setting? Very classic.
> ...




That's an interesting observation. It's not getting much notice around the forums.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 31, 2007)

It's usually scattered in one or two posts among a lot of heated arguments in the respective threads about one single topic.  But yeah, to me 4E does have points where it reminds me of older "classical" editions. I mean...I could even try to stretch the whole "less material components, more wizardly implements" and say that Basic D&D didn't have components at all, but that would really be stretching it.


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Well, how about not slaughtering those goblin guards that roam the perimeter, or those goblin raiders left behind without their wolves, but capture them instead and interrogate them about the Bone Hill complex in order to gain more recent information about what you are going to face? Bribe them with survival, threaten them with pain, or promise them gold (i.e. use your Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy skill) and make them talk.




Or you could just not use instakill spells. Seems to save an awful lot of drudgery.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Because otherwise, your saying "Save or Die is fine as long as you are a good enough DM to know when not to use it" If the only way to use SoD is to plan the whole game around it, it sounds like a big sore spot in the rules.




Well, it works for my group without planning the whole game around it. I think it has something to do with the Raven's point that the things that keep "save or die" from being a problem for those of us who have no problem with it aren't specific to "save or die".



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> If the answer to a particular rule-problem is "change the way you play D&D" I think thats a failing of the rule, not the players or the DM...





Designer: I'll put in rule X to reinforce play-style Y.
Player: Rule X leads to play-style Y, so rule X is a bad rule.

This doesn't make rule X a bad rule. It merely makes it one that—perhaps—this player shouldn't use.

For myself, I've found that if something in the game seems to be a problem for me, I want to figure out why it wasn't a problem for the designers. I may still end up house ruling it away, but I think this approach has had an very positive impact on my gaming.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Or you could just not use instakill spells. Seems to save an awful lot of drudgery.




One man's drudgery...


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Designer: I'll put in rule X to reinforce play-style Y.
> Player: Rule X leads to play-style Y, so rule X is a bad rule.
> 
> This doesn't make rule X a bad rule. It merely makes it one that—perhaps—this player shouldn't use.



If enough players don't want to use a rule, then it's a bad rule.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 31, 2007)

The 3e medusa is an ambusher. Its whole schtick is to keep the fact that it is a medusa a secret until it's too late for its victims. After all, apart from its gaze it doesn't have much going for it. Its skill list includes bluff, disguise and move silently. Medusae are quite often found within human society, leading criminal gangs, so they would have to keep their medusahood secret from society in order to survive.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, save or be hurt I have no problem with.  But, IME, save or die is disproportionately lethal.  In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, with a group of 6, I had 25 (ish) PC deaths (most of them permanent).  Almost half were from save or die effects - and I'm counting being turned to stone in here too since the PC's had no way to retrieve those who failed their saves.
> 
> Half the fatalities were to SoD, but, far fewer than half the encounters were with SoD monsters.  I would say that about 10% of the encounters are actually with SoD monsters or traps.  Yet, that 10% (and that's not a certain number, just a rough guess) accounted for as many deaths as the other 90%.



Just for kicks, I ran the numbers from my Riveria campaign.

The most dangerous foes, strictly in terms of how many characters they killed, were Giants.
Yes, simple damage-dealing Giants.

Other major foe-types (Demons, Dragons, Drow...why do all the nasties start with "D"?) took down their share, but nowhere near as many as Giants even when put together.

Perhaps the second most dangerous thing overall that the characters faced was themselves.  They had *awful* luck when faced with clones of themselves; add that in to occasional stupidity or bad luck (critical fumbles) and magic item meltdown and the result was sometimes messy.

That said, SoD claimed its share.  One Medusa got 2 at once, thanks to the not-very-quiet party lining themselves up in perfect order of height before opening her door.  One poor guy met a Beholder's death ray...needed a 3 to save, rolled a 2.  The party was able to revive him in the field, so they retreated and did so before going back in the next day only to meet the same Beholder again.  By sheer luck (i.e. random roll on my part) the death ray went for the same guy again...buffed up, this time he'd save on a 2.  A 1, however, is a 1; and that's what he rolled...at which point the player realized this was just not meant to be, and started rolling up another. 
(side note: has it ever happened in any of your games that the same opponent has killed the same character twice or more?)







> All I know is that in every edition that I've played, SoD killed FAR more than it should considering the number of times its faced.



That makes sense.  Most foes the party meets are not normally capable of killing a PC given competent play...but something with SoD is.  Therefore, it only follows that SoD encounters will have a higher kill rate than normal encounters.  That's no reason to get rid of SoD completely, however; but it does suggest not overusing it.

Keep in mind that many spells and effects can amount to SoD in the right situation.  My favourite is a flee-in-blind-panic effect on a narrow twisty ridge path or near the top of a cliff.  Dispel Magic on someone in flight or water-walking far from shore is another fine one.  And the list goes on...

Should all of these disappear too?

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Oct 31, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> As mentioned, "player choice" is not a defence of save or die abilities, it is only my way of using them based on the preferences of my current gaming group.





			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> The point in this context is probably that the players actually have to get a chance to be able to choose to face the save-or-die threat, or not.



FireLance, Geron - thanks for the replies!



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> So your players _always_ know _every single creature_ they're going to face before going into an encounter? They never meet anything unknown or unexpected?
> 
> It's your game, of course, but I don't think that's how the vast majority of D&D games are played.



Agreed.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Right. So, the question is, do we change these core assumptions that were introduced in 3.5 or do we remove Save or Die because they don't mesh with the new core assumptions.



I think that WoTC have formed a view about the way D&D tends to be played, and are designing around it. Exploration is out - rapid-paced challenges are in.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Uhm...not to be snarky or anything...but 4E is all about making people change how they play D&D, and so far nobody chalked that up to a failure if the rule..hard to do since they aren't in print yet.



Alternatively, its about making the mechanics fit the way the game is typically played.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> The thing is, for some reason the "basic assumption" that was built into pretty much every edition of D&D, namely that of gathering information about the locale you're going to invade along with the basic opposition seems to get lost frequently.



To make this sort of play fit with 4e, what would be needed is a system of "information gathering challenges" in which every player's PC is able to play a meaningful round on every turn. Maybe the social encounter mechanics will handle it. Even then, I doubt that it will become the norm for most play groups.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Or you could just not use instakill spells. Seems to save an awful lot of drudgery.





			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> One man's drudgery...



This is the reason why I suspect it won't become the norm - a lot of groups don't find that sort of play very interesting. Of course, some do. I don't believe that 4e is being written for them.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> There's also an interesting philosophical question surrounding the whole "your PCs chose to encounter this monster" thing.  If my character chooses to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to save the world, and I choose to send my character to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to continue the game my DM has written for the evening without reducing it to shambles, to what extent have I really consented to facing the wizard's save-or-die spells?



That's just my point. The player-choice story about save-or-die assumes a certain set of metagame priorities which (I believe) are not those of the majority.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> One funny thing about those "standard assumptions" is that they don't tend towards this whole "very high magic" setting that somehow is painted in this thread
> 
> <snip DMG demographic data>
> 
> That leaves us with all the BBEG clerics and wizards who have to be high enough level to do all that killing on the spot.



What this highlight, IMO, is an inconsistency in the DMG's demographic rules and the basic encounter design/reward mechanism of D&D. It's not surprising to me that most play groups go with the latter, and put the demographics to one side.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You obviously don't play in a "points of light" (to borrow 4e's term) style setting where monster DO live in hidden dungeons and tombs without people noticing, far, far from human civilization and where the local rumors and legends end 20 some years before the adventure starts (We don't go up to Bone Hill, haven't for years. Rumor says its haunted. No one's ever come back alive). We can't always just look up what monsters are rumored to live in Bone Hill. We might know the goblins come to raid from there, but that doesn't mean that anyone  knows (or have any reason to know) that the goblinoids made a deal with a local medusa to act as a guardian of their lair for a (more than) fair share of the treasure (and not to stonegaze them).




The goblinoids know.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> What this highlight, IMO, is an inconsistency in the DMG's demographic rules and the basic encounter design/reward mechanism of D&D. It's not surprising to me that most play groups go with the latter, and put the demographics to one side.




Okay, care to elaborate on that one? I'm really curious what you mean with that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm wondering what is "well-designed" about that world.




The environment and the individuals inhabiting that environment interact?  Things living in a given place leave evidence of their being there, merely by being there?  If a monster eats, it has a middens?  Tracks, feathers, territorial markings, scat, and bones of past kills don't mysteriously disappear so that there is no trace of an owlbear in the vicinity?



> Eventually, won't things look very contrived with the DM leaving breadcrumbs all around. Every medusa lair isn't going to have statues all around it after all. Right?




No more contrived than the real world, in which every living thing leaves signs of its existence.  Really, how many grizzly bears live in a vacuum?  Mountain lions can creep down into cities without anyone knowing, until pets go missing and pawprints are noted (I used to live in California, and a few years back there was a mountain lion sighting east of Toronto by the zoo...and not an escapee!).  Intelligent species leave an even wider ecological footprint.

What does that medusa do when it isn't waiting for adventurers to kill it?  Certainly, an intelligent creature will want to hide its specific location, but it would be (IMHO) difficult for a medusa to survive anywhere without some petrified remains to indicate it was nearby.  Or does the medusa haul the new statue 20 miles after every stoning?

A heap of smashed and broken statuary is far more likely, IMHO.

And you can be pretty darn certain that any creature at all nearby has some idea that something awful lurks in the West Wing, and can turn you to stone....or they wouldn't survive long enough to be "at all nearby".



> Yeah, but, at least in my mind, there's a difference between a lucky shot or someone getting really unlucky with surprise/initiative rolls and a death attack. Take _implosion_. 1/round until you break their concentration. And, a CR 13 slaad can do this!




If you are implying that 3e gets unfun somewhere after 10th level (and YMMV as to where), then I agree with you.  IMHO, Wahoo! 24/7 gets boring fast.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> And if those goblins don't know, outright lie, or won't go down without a fight? If the answer to a particular rule-problem is "change the way you play D&D" I think thats a failing of the rule, not the players or the DM...




Isn't changing the rule also changing the way you play D&D?

Just saying.....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wow, RC, just... wow.  :\




Sorta what I was thinking....  

In a D&D game, I don't think that the DM should ever raise the stakes so high that she'll be undone if the players simply don't bite.  What happens if they fail?  Does the DM then need to ensure that the PCs succeed?  Or is there an endless line of characters who are just as tough to take over if they fail?

If the DM is "forcing" you into encounters because otherwise the world will end, that is a problem, IMHO.  Otherwise the world will be shaken up?  A civilization will collapse?  Loved ones will die?  Fine.  There is some choice involved there, and the campaign isn't over if the PCs say "No" or try to find some other way to safeguard their loved ones.  

But even these sorts of choices can leave a sour taste in players' mouths, and should be used sparingly.  IMHO, of course.

A DM shouldn't be forcing players to take the bait.  On the other side of the coin, if there is a consequence for action or inaction, you should never promise something you have no intention of delivering.

Again, IMHO.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The 3e medusa is an ambusher. Its whole schtick is to keep the fact that it is a medusa a secret until it's too late for its victims. After all, apart from its gaze it doesn't have much going for it. Its skill list includes bluff, disguise and move silently. Medusae are quite often found within human society, leading criminal gangs, so they would have to keep their medusahood secret from society in order to survive.




That seems to be a lot of world-specific uses for the monster.  I can easily think of uses for a medusa that don't require the victim to not know of its existence.  For example, the original Medusa in Greek mythology.  What about a medusa who leads a cult and _wants you to know what will happen if you disobey her_?

Sure, the actual encounter may be an ambush, but leading up to that encounter?  You are unwary and meet the gaze of anything you meet when you know there is a medusa about?  Or does this medusa simply leave no footprints upon the world around it?  For example, the criminal gang being led by the medusa has _no idea whatsoever_ that the "Veiled Lady" not only gave Johnny the Snitch cement overshoes...but cement legs, a cement torso, etc.?

Unlikely, I think.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That seems to be a lot of world-specific uses for the monster.  I can easily think of uses for a medusa that don't require the victim to not know of its existence.  For example, the original Medusa in Greek mythology.  What about a medusa who leads a cult and _wants you to know what will happen if you disobey her_?
> 
> Sure, the actual encounter may be an ambush, but leading up to that encounter?  You are unwary and meet the gaze of anything you meet when you know there is a medusa about?  Or does this medusa simply leave no footprints upon the world around it?  For example, the criminal gang being led by the medusa has _no idea whatsoever_ that the "Veiled Lady" not only gave Johnny the Snitch cement overshoes...but cement legs, a cement torso, etc.?
> 
> ...




By that logic, I wonder how doppleganger's manage to survive...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> By that logic, I wonder how doppleganger's manage to survive...




Care for some fire, straw man?

Dopplegangers are quite a bit more suited for the "stealthy infiltration" role than medusae.....but, yes, dopplegangers still leave footprints in the world around them.  They are just harder to see, because they so often look like _someone else's footprints_.  Still, the more likely it is that a doppleganger is going to try to eat you, the more likely it is that they have eaten other people before you, and the more likely it is that Little Jimmy and Sue Anne have gone missing recently.

RC

EDIT:  BTW, what you are quoting there is not logic.  For an example of something logical, look at our examination of whether or not it is the final odds that matter, or how many dice you roll to gain those odds.  

Saying that there is a fundamental difference between two 5% chances to die, because one is rolled on 1d20 (roll a 1 and die) and the other is rolled on 2d10 (a result of 0 on the first die, then the second is rolled, with you dying on a result of 1-5) is something that can be examined by logic.  

That every creature that exists, due to the mere fact of its existence, leaves signs of its existence on its environment is a premise upon which logical conclusions can be built, but is not itself logical.  It is rather an observation, which you may agree or disagree with with little fear that logic can be invoked to prove you wrong.

RC


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 31, 2007)

Regarding medusae (medusas?), I houserule that you can create a potion out of a medusa's blood that acts as an antidote to the petrification.  It takes some alchemy, and only works on victims of that particular medusa's gaze.  And it isn't exactly common knowledge (to reward folks with the right knowledge skills).

You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects.  Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 31, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects.  Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.




The problem with any 'save or helpless' effect is that it approaches 'save or die' in a very large number of cases.  Workarounds like this don't address the root problem.  (For that matter, neither does save or slow death IMO.)

As I've said before, gnomes have been dying looking for a fire opal since 1e in a way that is from the player's perspective 'save or die' even though ghouls don't actually have 'death touch', and they are still dying.  Very often, 'save or be helpless' means a coup de grace at the oppurtunity, and from the perspective of a player whose character is the victim of that there often no difference between that and 'save or die' except the flavor. 

And 'save or be helpless' is generally just as good for the PC's as 'save or die'.  That's why the 'sleep' spell was historically so good.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 31, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Okay, care to elaborate on that one? I'm really curious what you mean with that.



Well, you have pointed out that the DMG demographic rules suggest that high-level spellcasters are few and far between.

But the encounter design rules in the DMG assume that there are as many high-level opponents in the world, including high-level spellcasters, as are required to build fun and playable encounters for a high-level party. (Look at Greyhawk Ruins, for example, which is chock-full of high level casters at a rate that I'm pretty sure outstrips the DMG demographics).

One traditional solution is to send high-level adventurers to other planes, where demographic considerations don't apply in the same way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Saying that there is a fundamental difference between two 5% chances to die, because one is rolled on 1d20 (roll a 1 and die) and the other is rolled on 2d10 (a result of 0 on the first die, then the second is rolled, with you dying on a result of 1-5) is something that can be examined by logic.
> RC



This is not the exact thing i wanted to quote, but it is still on the same topic.

There is a difference between a 5 % chance from a single roll or a 5 % chance from multiple rolls. 
The  5 % death chance is only arrived in a regular encounter due to several specific decisions the players and the DM do. An encounter that lasts 4 rounds with a 5 % chance of character death can arrive at this chance in very different ways. To get to the (possible) death, the PCs have to take certain actions. There are enough combinations of actions to reach the 5 % chance, but there are multiple points where you can diverge from the path to death (and multiple ones that lead back to it), and you don't neccessarily know which points/actions do this (but you might have some good ideas which ones are more likely)
In the round before the final chance of Death manifests for the Fighter (since he wil take so much damage this round that in the next round, a lucky hit will probably kill him in the next), he could choose to withdraw, or the Cleric might intervene and heal him enough, or he uses a maneuver that takes the enemy out - at least for one round. With Save or Die, the only equivalent to this would be to decide to not engage in the encounter at all, or hope you got the right information/guess and cast Death Ward before you enter the encounter. 

Here is how I see things (and I hope I am not offending, condensensing or anything else bad, because I really don't want to be)
I think the differences you and I have on this matter and others (like per encounter resource management vs. per day resource management) are very fundamental, and I do not really see a chance to bridge the gap. We might get an understanding of each other opinions, but we will probably never come to like each other positions and play the game in similar ways.

For me, it is important how an encounter unfolds. It matters to me how I choose to spend my resources within these encounters, which decisions I make to avoid a characters chance of death.
For you, these seem to be of lower importance. The decisions important seem to be those that affect the adventure day. It is not important to you when within an encounter a resource is spent. it is only important in which ones it is spent at all, and how this will effect the next one. Decisions to avoid death are primarily made when deciding about which encounter to take and which not, not how you react within an encounter. 

Our thinking operates on different scales, so to speak. 
I don't really like to thing on the "bigger" scale in this context, because most of the play time (in my experience) is spent on the lower scale.
(That doesn't mean that I don't care much about adventures and campaigns - these are orthogonal to the scales we discuss, since they are less related to actual rules and more about storyteling) 

4th Edition seems to be aimed at people who think like me. I am not sure if it is just Zeitgeist, and 5th Edition (or later) will return to Save & Die and Daily resources.
I tend to believe (in an ego-centric way) that it is a natural progression, at least it seems to be informed on the design goals of the 3rd edition, which aimed at maintaining character balance over all levels and classes. It seems a very important concept these days, but I don't know if this has to be that important (for me, it is.) or might be subject to change.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Well, you have pointed out that the DMG demographic rules suggest that high-level spellcasters are few and far between.
> 
> But the encounter design rules in the DMG assume that there are as many high-level opponents in the world, including high-level spellcasters, as are required to build fun and playable encounters for a high-level party. (Look at Greyhawk Ruins, for example, which is chock-full of high level casters at a rate that I'm pretty sure outstrips the DMG demographics).
> 
> One traditional solution is to send high-level adventurers to other planes, where demographic considerations don't apply in the same way.



An interesting question might be: Do player characters also count into this demographic? Or do they have to settle in?  
Assuming they don't count: How many other wandering adventurers are there that don't count into the demographic? How many of them might be evil?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 1, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Well, you have pointed out that the DMG demographic rules suggest that high-level spellcasters are few and far between.
> 
> But the encounter design rules in the DMG assume that there are as many high-level opponents in the world, including high-level spellcasters, as are required to build fun and playable encounters for a high-level party. (Look at Greyhawk Ruins, for example, which is chock-full of high level casters at a rate that I'm pretty sure outstrips the DMG demographics).
> 
> One traditional solution is to send high-level adventurers to other planes, where demographic considerations don't apply in the same way.




Okay, thanks for the explanation.  So basically it's a question of what assumptions the campaign setting is built upon. I've got to say, "points of light" gives me the hope that the DMG demographics section might have gotten a little more notice this time.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 1, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> This is not the exact thing i wanted to quote, but it is still on the same topic.
> 
> There is a difference between a 5 % chance from a single roll or a 5 % chance from multiple rolls.
> 
> [snip]




Thank you for more eloquently stating my position than I have in 4 days.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 1, 2007)

By the way, check out the beholder animated feature on the WotC website.

It looks like the beholder's petrification, at least, will be a gradual turn to stone ability.


----------



## Psion (Nov 1, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Regarding medusae (medusas?), I houserule that you can create a potion out of a medusa's blood that acts as an antidote to the petrification.  It takes some alchemy, and only works on victims of that particular medusa's gaze.  And it isn't exactly common knowledge (to reward folks with the right knowledge skills).
> 
> You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects.  Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.




That's really cool.

You could spin this several different ways. If could merely offset the "death penalty" level, revivify within a certain period, etc.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 1, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Regarding medusae (medusas?), I houserule that you can create a potion out of a medusa's blood that acts as an antidote to the petrification.  It takes some alchemy, and only works on victims of that particular medusa's gaze.  And it isn't exactly common knowledge (to reward folks with the right knowledge skills).
> 
> You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects.  Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.




Damn nice idea! Worth a lot of pondering over.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 1, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Our thinking operates on different scales, so to speak.
> I don't really like to thing on the "bigger" scale in this context, because most of the play time (in my experience) is spent on the lower scale.




You may be onto something here.

I think, to me, the game is more fun when I have to operate on multiple scales. I don't want to be myopic about any one scale. (Well, sometimes I do, & then I usually play Toon or a PS2 game or something else.)

While I've just been trying to explain why "save or die" isn't a problem for me, I think this is the closest to coming up for a reason for why I actually like it.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 1, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> By the way, check out the beholder animated feature on the WotC website.
> 
> It looks like the beholder's petrification, at least, will be a gradual turn to stone ability.





Depending on how it works that is still save or die.  Save or die 3 rounds later is still dead.  It might work out, depends on the how.  But it sounds like things like petrification are still in, just implemented differently.

I wouldn't mind it being a flat out X rounds later you are toast, better find a counter soon system.  As long a counters are relatively easily available it should satisfy the no save or die crowds to some degree at least.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 1, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Depending on how it works that is still save or die.  Save or die 3 rounds later is still dead.  It might work out, depends on the how.  But it sounds like things like petrification are still in, just implemented differently.
> 
> I wouldn't mind it being a flat out X rounds later you are toast, better find a counter soon system.  As long a counters are relatively easily available it should satisfy the no save or die crowds to some degree at least.




I mentioned this concept much earlier in the thread.

A gradual effect would be fine as long as:

a) there are multiple solutions to the problem.

b) one of those solutions is save every round. If all of the saves fail, the PC dies. The first save that succeeds stops the progression any further. So in SWSE terms, a persistent lowering on the conditions table results each round a save is not made.

Unfortunately, if there are no saves in 4E, how does one save every round? I do not think it is probable that any such solution will therefore exist in 4E (unless they implement a variable Will, Reflex, and Fort Defense special rule that a player can roll D20 + modifiers and use it for Defense instead of using 10 + modifiers).

But, I do think that both a and b need to exist to satisfy some portion of the anti- save or die crowd. Having just *a* means that some scenarios might exist where none of the solutions can be found (regardless of whether the DM put them there or not, the players might still not find them). Having just  *b*  means that it is still save or die, the odds are just different.

I do not believe that PCs have to be saved from death in all cases. I do believe, however, that PCs have to have roleplaying / tactical possible solutions in all cases. The dice should not strictly rule die or don't die with no possibility of player reaction.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 1, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Depending on how it works that is still save or die.  Save or die 3 rounds later is still dead.  It might work out, depends on the how.  But it sounds like things like petrification are still in, just implemented differently.
> 
> I wouldn't mind it being a flat out X rounds later you are toast, better find a counter soon system.  As long a counters are relatively easily available it should satisfy the no save or die crowds to some degree at least.




Even then, paralysis, petrifaction, and other status ailments like that don't stretch my credibility like "dangit, a bodak. Lets get Gene Eric the Cleric to bring Bob back from the afterlife"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> There is a difference between a 5 % chance from a single roll or a 5 % chance from multiple rolls.
> The  5 % death chance is only arrived in a regular encounter due to several specific decisions the players and the DM do. An encounter that lasts 4 rounds with a 5 % chance of character death can arrive at this chance in very different ways.




Sure.  Perhaps I should have gone back and quoted myself in entire earlier.

If the chance that Monster X surprises you, hits you, and kills you in that hit works out to 5%, then it is no different than any other effect that has a 5% chance of killing you before you can react.

The only important things are:

(1)  What is the chance of dying? and

(2)  Do I get to act in order to mitigate that chance?​
You would need to remove a lot more than SoD effects to remove the chance of dying before you can react.  Perhaps, for example, monsters should never do enough damage to kill a PC in one blow?  Or, perhaps such damage dealing monsters should never surprise...or win initiative?

You may also say, for example, "More rolls means more chances to fudge a roll", and this is true.  However, the game shouldn't be designed (IMHO) on the basis of fudging rolls you don't like (as player or DM).  Action Points, which will apparently be core in 4e, offer a better solution to this problem IMHO.  As a player, I'd rather die from a SoD effect than discover the DM fudging to save me, though.  I very much doubt that I am alone in this.

Moreover, if you are going to fudge the roll, why not simply fudge the first roll?  Does an outcome based on DM Fiat need multiple chances to invoke that Fiat?  If so, why?

RC


----------



## FireLance (Nov 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The only important things are:
> 
> (1)  What is the chance of dying? and
> 
> (2)  Do I get to act in order to mitigate that chance?​



I would add one more factor:

(3) Would the monster be considered an appropriate challenge for the PCs?

While I haven't done the math, I suspect that most monsters who are supposed to be appropriate challenges for the PCs would have a less than 5% chance of killing one before he had a chance to react.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 1, 2007)

I agree with Raven Crowking, in part.

What matters is whether the monster can kill you in one (series of) roll(s) during which you can't act.  A monster who one roll kills you and a monster that uses ten rolls to do it are equally obnoxious if you're stuck sitting there waiting to die while it happens.  In fact, the monster who takes longer to do it is even more annoying in a way, because you have to sit there and wait.

But I'd add some caveats.

First, the monster's CR matters from a game design perspective.  If the reason my character is at risk of being killed in the first attack of an ambush is because the monster in question is CR 9 and I'm a 4th level character, then my character's death is at least *not the fault of poor game design.*  That's a DM/Player issue, and there's nothing that WOTC can do about it.

Second, how often the monster can one-hit-kill me is important.  A monster who can save-or-die me every round is worse design than a monster who can one-hit-kill me, but only on the first round of combat if it gets a surprise round attack and then wins initiative.  Neither were particularly good things, mind you, they're both doing the same obnoxious thing, but one is doing it more often.  Which is bad.

Third, a save-or-die affects only one statistic of my character.  I've either got a good enough save of the appropriate type, or not.  Against the "first round ambush killer" monster, I can "defend" in multiple fashions by focusing on several different stats.  I might have a high spot, and notice the ambush, allowing myself to act during the surprise round.  I might have a high initiative, allowing me to go before the monster goes a second time.  I might have a high flat footed armor class, or high hit points.  Each one of these is something in my control (albeit long term control) that I can use to prospectively defend against this sort of monster.  Which is nicer.  But this only really matters in context of my final point, which is

The chance that a monster will attack you from ambush and kill you before you have time to react is almost NEVER going to be as high as the chance that you will die to a save-or-die effect.  A save-or-die is going to affect you about 40 to 50% of the time, barring really great saves only available to certain classes (will save on a cleric, etc).  If a monster has to beat my Spot check in an opposed roll, hit my flat footed AC, roll sufficiently high damage, then beat my initiative, then beat my flat footed AC again, and then roll sufficiently high damage a second time, it is REALLY unlikely that the overall chance that the monster will win all of those rolls is going to be anywhere close to 50%.

So this is all kind of academic anyways.  Its nice to compare theoretical 5% save-or-dies to theoretical 5% one-attack-sequence-kills, but save-or-dies are almost always much higher odds of "die" than 5%.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 1, 2007)

How many monsters can kill a PC in one blow (excluding crits?) on the opening round?

A brief comparison

Because I like 8th level and our friend the bodak, we'll use them both. Now to find a group of 8th level PCs and an 8th level melee monster...

Ah, Stone Giant (CR 8)

So a barbarian8, a paladin8, a cleric8, a rogue8, and a sorcerer8 (all the major HD represented) encounter these two creatures. Lets assume they have little proper foreknowledge of the challenge, to avoid the chess analogy. Just raw stats vs. monsters. Neither monster is advanced in any way, and the PCs are using the human DMG averages to save me a lot of time. 

The barbarian has 73 hp, 19 AC, and +8 Fort Save. Since this is the surprise round, he can't rage. Against the bodak (fort DC 15, he must roll a 7 or higher to survive. Thats a 35% failure rate). The Stone Giant makes his one attack (surprise round, standard action) with a +12 to hit (vs AC 19, only a 7 to hit, or 35% chance of missing) but does 2d8+12 damage (14-28 damage. Vs. that 73 hp, he's not dropping that round.) Even on a crit (28-56 damage) he's not dying in one blow. 

The paladin has 56 hp, 21 AC, and a +10 Fort Save (yay divine grace!) The bodak's gaze is avoided on a 5 or higher (25% mortality rate). The Giant can hit him on a 9 or better (45% miss chance). His damage scale (14-28) won't kill the paladin, and a maximum critical will merely stagger him. Again, the bodak has a better chance of outright killing him. 

The cleric has 55 hp, 21 AC, and a +8 Fort. The bodak has a slightly better chance of killing him than the paladin (35% miss chance, equal to barbarian). The giant has the same chance to hit him as he does the paladin (25%) and again, can't kill him on a single blow. A maximum crit would drop him to -1. 

The rogue has 38 hp, 19 AC, and a +3 Fort. The bodak has a great chance of killing him (12 or better, 60% chance) while the giant (35% chance to miss) can't do enough damage in one blow to down him either (though pretty close). A crit however would (bringing him well below -10).

The poor sorcerer has 30 hp 14 AC, and a +3 Fort. His chances vs. the bodak are the same (60%) as the rogues. His low AC (10% miss chance) makes him a clear target, but get this, Even Mr. d4 CAN'T DIE FROM A SINGLE HIT (he has 2 hp left). Sure, a crit will splatter him, but that's my point. 

So each time the bodak jumped out, there was a 25% to 60% chance of death. The Stone Giant COULD NOT KILL a single 8th level PC in one roll. (He'd have to crit to outright kill the rogue or sorcerer, drop the cleric, or stagger the paladin, he couldn't even drop the barbarian BEFORE rage). And as we all know, a crit from a greatclub (20/x2) is not really that common (5% to threat, normal % to confirm). 

So in essence, the Stone Giant has a 5% chance of killing or dropping any but the barbarian in one "hit" while the bodak is shooting at 25-60%. Both are CR 8. 

And that's why SoD is broken.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 1, 2007)

One More, you say? 

So instead of a stone giant, a young adult white dragon (CR 8) flies over and breathes frost on our heroes. Reflex (DC 20) save for 5d6 damage (max 30, average 17)? Whose still standing? 

The barbarian has a +4 reflex save, so he must roll a 16 or better (80%) to save. Even against the full damage, he's got 43 hp and is fine. 

The Paladin has a +4 reflex save also, so he needs a 16 or better (80%) to save. Even against full damage, he has 26 hp left. No death here. 

The Cleric has a measly +1 reflex save (19 or better, 10% chance) to save, but even if he takes max, he's got 25 hp left. Not dead.

The Rogue has a +9 reflex save, so he need an 11 or better (55%). If he takes full damage, he still has 8 hp. Not dead here either. 

The Sorcerer has a +4 reflex save. That means a 16 or better (80%) chance of full damage. If he fails, he drops from full to 0 (staggered) but is still alive!

So if a dragon cannot down a party of equal CR in one hit...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 1, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> How many monsters can kill a PC in one blow (excluding crits?) on the opening round?
> 
> A brief comparison
> 
> ...




Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant.  By the way, we're again in that cycle of "save-or-die not being equivalent to melee damage output" and all the follow-up arguments that come with it. Wouldn't you agree we had that particular part of the discussion at least three times over two threads in the last week?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 1, 2007)

But, remember, everyone near the bodak is affected, plus the bodak can kill as a Standard Action _as well_ each round.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant.




How do you use it? Lets say that the PCs all know they're going to be facing a bodak. The cleric casts _death ward_ on the paladin and sends him in alone. Now the bodak is no threat whatsoever. He's a pushover who has a 0% chance of threatening the paladin.

Is that a well designed monster?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 1, 2007)

And then some mods remind us to not continue with cyclic arguments...I'd suggest you read back this thread, and the other one about the same topic, if you really want to know my take on that question.  

If, on the other hand, all you wanted to express was an opinion that any encounter, be it with a monster, a trap, or a puzzle, where I give the characters a chance to find out the weak spot/solution to the challenge, and let them use it to neutralize whatever I had put there, is a push-over and bad game/adventure/monster design...you could have done that without the question mark at the end.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> How do you use it? Lets say that the PCs all know they're going to be facing a bodak. The cleric casts _death ward_ on the paladin and sends him in alone. Now the bodak is no threat whatsoever. He's a pushover who has a 0% chance of threatening the paladin.
> 
> Is that a well designed monster?





Why isn't it?  The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it.  Perhaps they had to find a scroll in the same dungeon while dodging this encounter.  Perhaps they had to piece together clues.

(As for melee monsters whomping a PC in one blow....remember than an appropriate encounter _does not mean CR = APL_ in 3.X.  Look at the DMG for CR ranges, and you will see that appropriate encounters do indeed include melee monsters that could well hand a PC the smack down before said PC can do anything about it.  If you are going to cry about SoD, I suppose we must accertain that no encounter exceeds CR = APL as well, right?)

RC


----------



## hong (Nov 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why isn't it?  The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it.




No, no. That's the boring bit. The challenge bit is when you roll the dice and talk smack to monsters.


----------



## IanArgent (Nov 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why isn't it?  The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it.  Perhaps they had to find a scroll in the same dungeon while dodging this encounter.  Perhaps they had to piece together clues.




I'm going to have to agree with Raven Crowking here (shocking as that might sound   ).

An encounter is not combat. An encounter is a challenge. There are many ways to deal with an encounter.

(I'm not sold on the bodak being a good monster outside of an _extremely_ narrow niche, however - without foreknowledge it's a terrible thing to spring on a party).

IMHO, this encounter should be "made better" by having the bodak have a "save-or-gimp" attack, that the hypothetical _Death Ward_ either reduces the effect of, or increases the resistance against. In general, I don't like game-mechanical absolutes. I much prefer the thinking that gave us the "new" beholder. Based on that, give the bodak a melee screen, a gaze attack that slowly drains your "life force", and _Death Ward_ giving ablative protection against the drain, increasing the defense value the bodak has to "hit" to affect someone, or both.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (As for melee monsters whomping a PC in one blow....remember than an appropriate encounter _does not mean CR = APL_ in 3.X.  Look at the DMG for CR ranges, and you will see that appropriate encounters do indeed include melee monsters that could well hand a PC the smack down before said PC can do anything about it.  If you are going to cry about SoD, I suppose we must accertain that no encounter exceeds CR = APL as well, right?)
> 
> RC




Amen. Try running shadowrun sometime, where any random 2-bit ganger can spatter the PCs across the pavement.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 2, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Amen. Try running shadowrun sometime, where any random 2-bit ganger can spatter the PCs across the pavement.




 Or L5R, where exploding damage dice can make a sword stroke cause 72 points of damage, which will kill every samurai with one hit.


----------



## IanArgent (Nov 2, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Or L5R, where exploding damage dice can make a sword stroke cause 72 points of damage, which will kill every samurai with one hit.




Until the Crab Clan samurai says "The Mountain Does Not MOVE", and takes no damage, then disassembles the poor Crane courtier.... (I was enither playing the crab nor the crane in that one).


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 2, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant.  By the way, we're again in that cycle of "save-or-die not being equivalent to melee damage output" and all the follow-up arguments that come with it. Wouldn't you agree we had that particular part of the discussion at least three times over two threads in the last week?




Sure. I'll admit that D&D has a place for save or die and resurrection magic (they're fine at epic levels) if you admit there is no fair way to balance their effects against other spells of equal level or other monsters of other CR.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sure. I'll admit that D&D has a place for save or die and resurrection magic (they're fine at epic levels) if you admit there is no fair way to balance their effects against other spells of equal level or other monsters of other CR.




Sorry, fair? Define fair first, please. And to whom that fairness is supposed to apply.  You say those effects are fine at epic levels...others make a lot of noise about an epic level still being threatened by a 9th level cleric. Sometimes, fair is a matter of taste.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 2, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Sorry, fair? Define fair first, please. And to whom that fairness is supposed to apply.  You say those effects are fine at epic levels...others make a lot of noise about an epic level still being threatened by a 9th level cleric. Sometimes, fair is a matter of taste.




Define fair? I've done nearly a week of that. SoD is not fair because

1.) It doesn't scale with level, unlike weapon damage or ability damage (or other status ailments) 
2.) It can remove a PC before he has a chance to react.
3.) Its only counter is another spell that completely neuters it.
4.) It has only one check against its effectiveness that ignores other PC attributes (like ability score, level or hp total)
5.) It removes a PC from play (hence fun) for a long time if not permanently based on a single die.
6.) It throws CR completely out of whack. 
7.) It doesn't allow any drama of survival (will my hp hold out, will the cleric heal me before my dex drops to 0) and instead trades long periods of tension, drama and heroic action into 30 tense seconds with a twenty sided die.
8.) It can end any encounter anti-climatically with either a no-challenge boss kill or a TPK.
9.) It cheapens death, reducing to another status ailment for the cleric to cure
10.) It unfairly targets poor-fort saved classes due to the wide gap between good and poor saves. Good fort-save classes can pass with ease, poor fort save classes have a disproportionally high chance of death. Unlike hp which scales much smoother (see stone giant example). 

I'd personally put it as an effect a caster no lower than 21st (probably 25th) could manifest. When your near gods in power, then you can toss around life-or-death effects at will. 

With all of that, I'm done. I don't think I can add any other example, anecdote, or argument that will convince you (or anyone else Pro SoD) that the game will be better off without them. I'm glad I'll be able to open up my 4e books and not worry about them again. I'm glad a large amount of the Enworld population agrees with me. 

Take care and good gaming.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 2, 2007)

Interestingly, I picked up my 1e PHB, went to the end of the MU spells, & started looking backwards for "save or die" spells.

Power Word, Kill: No saving throw, but it does have hp limits.

Symbol (Death): It looks like the death symbol doesn't allow a save, but it also has a hp limit.

Interesting.



			
				lukelightning said:
			
		

> You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects.  Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.




FWIW, I will agree that this--& possibly the 4e beholder's gradual stoning--can be very interesting in their own right.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Is that a well designed monster?




Personally, I think the bodak is an awful example for this discussion. Even without his death gaze, I can't imagine using that monster except in very specific circumstances.

I don't think it's a badly designed monster. It's cool when players can use planning & characters can use their abilities to turn a possibly fatal encounter into a cakewalk.

But then, I don't take the CR system very seriously. There's no way a single number can give you anything but a very vague idea of how big a challenge a monster is going to be without greatly simplifying the game to remove a bunch of the axes/variables involved.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> IMHO, this encounter should be "made better" by having the bodak have a "save-or-gimp" attack, that the hypothetical _Death Ward_ either reduces the effect of, or increases the resistance against. In general, I don't like game-mechanical absolutes. I much prefer the thinking that gave us the "new" beholder. Based on that, give the bodak a melee screen, a gaze attack that slowly drains your "life force", and _Death Ward_ giving ablative protection against the drain, increasing the defense value the bodak has to "hit" to affect someone, or both.





Heh.  Then you agree with me twice, because I've already stated that I think "Save or Effect" is better than "Save or Die" in _most_ cases.  

I just don't buy this bit about _all_ cases, or that you had no choices or chances to change things before getting into that SoD position.  In a well-run game, at least.  In a game where you wake up with a bodak in your bed, things might be different.

RC


----------



## hong (Nov 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Heh.  Then you agree with me twice, because I've already stated that I think "Save or Effect" is better than "Save or Die" in _most_ cases.
> 
> I just don't buy this bit about _all_ cases,




Most == all, for all practical purposes.



> or that you had no choices or chances to change things before getting into that SoD position.




Well, one could always play SimMoistureFarmer, I suppose.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm glad RFisher brought up Symbol of Death.  

Here's a question - if SoD effects should only be brought out if the party has a reasonable chance of foreknowledge and countering, should SoD EVER be used as a trap?

Since we're on the topic of actual events, how about this spoiler from Savage Tide's Enemy of My Enemy - spoiler below (Hey, how do I get those nifty spoiler tags?)



Spoiler



In the module, the party has pissed off Demogorgon enough that Demo sends a hit squad after them.  The hit squad is mounted on 5 Bodak Tyrannosaurs.  And, since it's a hit squad, they should be getting the jump on the party.

With 5 bodaks, and a party of 4, you have pretty much a guaranteed PC death in the first round (20 saves=at least 1 auto fail).  

Now, if you say this is a bad encounter, you're basically arguing that the DM should play his monsters stupid - after all, bodaks make perfect assassins.  A demon lord should have bodak's at his disposal, so, it makes a fair bit of sense to have bodak assassin squads.  

If you say this is a good encounter, then you have no problem with an encounter guaranteed to kill at least one PC.

Which is it?


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sure. I'll admit that D&D has a place for save or die and resurrection magic (they're fine at epic levels) if you admit there is no fair way to balance their effects against other spells of equal level or other monsters of other CR.




No fair way?

Who would admit to that.  Just because 3e has an unfair system for save or dies doesn't mean a fair one isn't out there.  As pointed out by RFisher a couple posts down form yours spells like pwer word kill exist.  They work within the HP system  if you have below 100 HP you are dead no save.  I can see a fair system being worked out of that.  Targets have to be under X HP to be effected by the spell and you have to hit there will defense.

Removing something that doesn't work is a good idea if you can't fix it.  If you can come up with a fix, fix it instead, more options ins a good thing.


----------



## hong (Nov 2, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> No fair way?
> 
> Who would admit to that.  Just because 3e has an unfair system for save or dies doesn't mean a fair one isn't out there.  As pointed out by RFisher a couple posts down form yours spells like pwer word kill exist.  They work within the HP system  if you have below 100 HP you are dead no save.  I can see a fair system being worked out of that.  Targets have to be under X HP to be effected by the spell and you have to hit there will defense.




I like that, and you like that, but other people complained that it was too metagamey. Silly other people.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I mentioned this concept much earlier in the thread.
> 
> A gradual effect would be fine as long as:
> 
> ...




Yes and I generally think its a good idea and did then, though I can see some balance issues with monsters who don't have a remedy.  It may trivialize things like a dire bear encounter.  The save every round idea could work for monsters, or maybe you have to make an attack roll vs the fort/will defense every round?  Killing the spell caster first being the universal cure.  That could get incredibly tedious as you track multiple save or die effects every round while implementing new ones with the beholder.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I like that, and you like that, but other people complained that it was too metagamey. Silly other people.




So is power attack and I still love it.


----------



## Jhulae (Nov 2, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant.




Ummmm.

Rrriiiiiight.

*Both* of those monsters (Stone giant and Bodak) are on the Random Encounter Table.  So, I guess people *are* supposed to use monsters with SoD effects the same way as something like a 'simple stone giant' in the current edition.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm glad RFisher brought up Symbol of Death.
> 
> Here's a question - if SoD effects should only be brought out if the party has a reasonable chance of foreknowledge and countering, should SoD EVER be used as a trap?



I adopt the same approach for save or die traps as I do for save or die monsters. Reasonably good play will usually give the PCs a warning or a way to get around the traps. For example, if the PCs help the villagers drive off the Dark Lord's Black Raiders, a grizzled ex-adventurer will show them the secret entrance to the Dark Lord's castle that conveniently bypasses all his save or die traps. Or, one of the raiders might have a scrap of parchment on them which reads: "WARNING! Second door on the right in the basement corridor warded by death magic. DO NOT ENTER!"


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 2, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Ummmm.
> 
> Rrriiiiiight.
> 
> *Both* of those monsters (Stone giant and Bodak) are on the Random Encounter Table.  So, I guess people *are* supposed to use monsters with SoD effects the same way as something like a 'simple stone giant' in the current edition.




  The pro save and die crowd, does not think you should use a Bodak as a random encounter.  It was poorly put there on that list, and there should probably be some text in all save or Die monster stats that mention you should give some kind of warning because the real defense to save or die spells ins't HP its preparation.  

We agree Bodak crappy random encounter, but we think save or dies can work in the game.  I think 3e has a crappy resolution for save or dies, but i still think they are cool and good rules can be made to implement them fairly.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I adopt the same approach for save or die traps as I do for save or die monsters. Reasonably good play will usually give the PCs a warning or a way to get around the traps. For example, if the PCs help the villagers drive off the Dark Lord's Black Raiders, a grizzled ex-adventurer will show them the secret entrance to the Dark Lord's castle that conveniently bypasses all his save or die traps. Or, one of the raiders might have a scrap of parchment on them which reads: "WARNING! Second door on the right in the basement corridor warded by death magic. DO NOT ENTER!"




Another module - Lords of the Iron Fortress - places multiple Symbols of Death underneath the Macguffin.  Is this viable or not?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2007)

As far as the random encounter goes - well, I'm not a big fan of monsters that require high levels of additional work in order to use.  Given the choice of stuffing in all sorts of warnings, making sure that there is no way that the party can proceed without at least having a chance of discovering the encounter, then, when the PC's meet the encounter, having a puff ball combat where the well prepped party stomps all over the encounter without breaking a sweat, or, just using a stock monster, I'll use the stock monster.

Why should I do all the work only to wind up with a totally anticlimactic battle?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Another module - Lords of the Iron Fortress - places multiple Symbols of Death underneath the Macguffin.  Is this viable or not?



Probably not the way I'd run it, but it might suit some other gaming style.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Another module - Lords of the Iron Fortress - places multiple Symbols of Death underneath the Macguffin.  Is this viable or not?




Depends on how many HP in damage a trap would normally do.  Symbol of death effects any creature under 80HP?
  If a damaging trap would do 65+ I'd say its a valid trap.(pulling the 65# out of thin air, play test would determine a better balance than my random guess)

If its out of scale to the damaging traps then no I wouldn't call it viable.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As far as the random encounter goes - well, I'm not a big fan of monsters that require high levels of additional work in order to use.  Given the choice of stuffing in all sorts of warnings, making sure that there is no way that the party can proceed without at least having a chance of discovering the encounter, then, when the PC's meet the encounter, having a puff ball combat where the well prepped party stomps all over the encounter without breaking a sweat, or, just using a stock monster, I'll use the stock monster.
> 
> Why should I do all the work only to wind up with a totally anticlimactic battle?



By all means, use the stock monster if the effort:fun ratio isn't worth it for you. If I'm pressed for time when preparing a game, I'd probably do that, too.

Sometimes, however, I want to plan for a fight that is perhaps EL = APL+4 (winnable, but with a significant probability of some casualties) if the PCs are unprepared, but EL = APL+2 (challenging, but all PCs are likely to survive) if they perform reasonably well, discover the relevant information and take the necessary precautions in the run-up to the fight. It gives the players a chance to feel good when their PCs get targeted by a death attack which fails because they have _death ward_ up, and again when they beat their opponents after a fairly tough but not lethal fight.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> By all means, use the stock monster if the effort:fun ratio isn't worth it for you. If I'm pressed for time when preparing a game, I'd probably do that, too.
> 
> Sometimes, however, I want to plan for a fight that is perhaps EL = APL+4 (winnable, but with a significant probability of some casualties) if the PCs are unprepared, but EL = APL+2 (challenging, but all PCs are likely to survive) if they perform reasonably well, discover the relevant information and take the necessary precautions in the run-up to the fight. It gives the players a chance to feel good when their PCs get targeted by a death attack which fails because they have _death ward_ up, and again when they beat their opponents after a fairly tough but not lethal fight.




RC brought that up before as well about not all encounters are at par.  That's true.  However, those same rules he's pointing to say that I could drop 15 or so Bodak encounters on my 8th level party for every CR 13 challenge I toss their way.  Yet, despite the fact that the 15 Bodak encounters should not result in a single PC fatality, they are almost guaranteed to whack as many or more PC's than the CR +5 encounter.

That's my point.  SoD disproportionately kills PC's based on the challenge.  A CR 8 encounter vs an 8th level party should NOT result in a fatality.  It should be a fairly easy fight.  Yet, because of SoD, I've got a reasonable chance of killing at least 1 PC.  It's far and away too powerful.



			
				agblock said:
			
		

> Depends on how many HP in damage a trap would normally do. Symbol of death effects any creature under 80HP?
> If a damaging trap would do 65+ I'd say its a valid trap.(pulling the 65# out of thin air, play test would determine a better balance than my random guess)
> 
> If its out of scale to the damaging traps then no I wouldn't call it viable.




Umm... Symbol of Death:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface. When triggered, a symbol of death slays one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150. The symbol of death affects the closest creatures first, skipping creatures with too many hit points to affect. Once triggered, the symbol becomes active and glows, lasting for 10 minutes per caster level or until it has affected 150 hit points’ worth of creatures, whichever comes first. Any creature that enters the area while the symbol of death is active is subject to its effect, whether or not that creature was in the area when it was triggered. A creature need save against the symbol only once as long as it remains within the area, though if it leaves the area and returns while the symbol is still active, it must save again.




A fair bit more powerful than 65 hit points.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> With all of that, I'm done. I don't think I can add any other example, anecdote, or argument that will convince you (or anyone else Pro SoD) that the game will be better off without them. I'm glad I'll be able to open up my 4e books and not worry about them again. I'm glad a large amount of the Enworld population agrees with me.
> 
> Take care and good gaming.




Honestly, I'd be surprised if they haven't put some sort of save-or-die-like effect in 4E as well, but it will probably work with in a way that will be more palatable to you and the rest of the roughly 66% of the voters that are against save-or-die. At least I hope they will, since it seems to be a big thorn in the side of many.  
I also hope they won't have reduced it to a boring "save or suffer heaps of damage" rule. There's half a dozen more creative ideas in these two threads alone than save-or-damage.

One thing I definitely get out of these discussions is a good view at where 3E design did some fairly obvious blunders. Bodaks as random encounter monsters, for example, instead of special effect monsters. Death effect spells that in older editions *were* the providence of the mightiest mages and clerics (in a game that routinely stops around level 13-14, 9th level IS damn powerful) put to work as everyday weapons at half-level-cap (in a game designed for 20+ levels, level 9 is simply half the way). And apparently, more focus on mechanically expressing the whole stuff than on telling the DM what to actually DO with all those abilities, judging from some of the comments here. CR doesn't count, that mechanic is thrown out of whack by so many things I don't really consider it reliable anyway.

Oh, and to answer one of Hussar's posts...why should I have a problem with an encounter that is guaranteed to kill one out of four characters? Isn't that what an appropriate challenge rating is supposed to do? Eliminate 25% of the group's resources? One out of four. Just because there are some monsters that don't spread that out over the whole group, but simply punch out one character completely instead? If I shied away from the potential of a dead character, I shouldn't use strong encounters.

And yep, I'm going to bow out of this cyclic discussion a well. All has been said, and I think I've got a pretty good picture of the different opinions now, so even if we didn't come to a consense in this discussion, I think it was way from wasted time.  

Good gaming, and see you in another thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> RC brought that up before as well about not all encounters are at par.  That's true.  However, those same rules he's pointing to say that I could drop 15 or so Bodak encounters on my 8th level party for every CR 13 challenge I toss their way.  Yet, despite the fact that the 15 Bodak encounters should not result in a single PC fatality, they are almost guaranteed to whack as many or more PC's than the CR +5 encounter.




The encounter as described should be as fair as any other in the AP.  Why not?  At that point, surely they know that they are pissing off Demogorgon, and surely they can deal with sudden PC death.

HOWEVER, I am not a big fan of railroads.  "Here are a bunch of encounters you cannot avoid" never struck me as a good time.

A SoD trap in a dungeon is fair play, so long as the players have reasonable means to determine that it is so.  This means, sometimes, that they know your playstyle.  SoD on a lever in a disused room, and your players know such a thing is possible?  They should distrust it.  SoD on a random square in the dungeon?  Generally not cool.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 2, 2007)

> Why isn't it? The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it.






			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> One thing I definitely get out of these discussions is a good view at where 3E design did some fairly obvious blunders. Bodaks as random encounter monsters, for example, instead of special effect monsters.




These got me thinking, especially when also remembering the idea of "Encounter Monsters" like a Sea Snake that attacks ships.

There are "regular monsters" that you can put in any situation and don't warrant special treatment besides some special effects.
There are "encounter monsters" that are in the gameworld a single monster, but are better replicated in game terms as a set of monsters/hazards/traps/enviromental effects.
And there are "adventure/quest monsters". You don't battle them like regular monsters. They are monsters that you beat by completing an adventure and getting the right tools to beat it. There might be a final fight, which might be exciting or a push-over.

Examples for these "Quest Monster"
"Epic" Scale: 
The Evil Goddess Virdella Treshamn wants to destroy the world of the Diamond Throne to get enough power to conquer dozens of planes. 
The PCs can't really beat her, she is a frigging goddess. But many many decades ago, the Dramojh developed a magical ritual that killed the Hanavare Trinity. If the PCs find the ingredients and descriptions for the ritual, they might be able to force Virdella into a mortal form, that, albeit powerful, can be beaten. She might not be dead forever, but she won't be able to come back for a millenia - and the ritual will work again!

Heroic Scale:
A cult in the city has overtaken parts of the city council, and opponents of their goals die mysteriously. Careful investigation will turn out that the effect that killed the opponents was a magical Death Effect, and following the trails of the cult finally reveals the Cult has created a Bodak. Once the PCs find this out, preparing Death Ward is relatively easy. But should they really attack the heavily defended hideout, unaware where the Bodak is kept. Or should they try to ambush them when they attack their next target? But who is the next target?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2007)

On a related note, I am begining to think that most swarms would work better as hazards than as monsters per-se.

Thoughts?

RC


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> On a related note, I am begining to think that most swarms would work better as hazards than as monsters per-se.
> 
> Thoughts?




Isn't that what they did with Green Slime and Ochre Jelly etc in 3.5?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Isn't that what they did with Green Slime and Ochre Jelly etc in 3.5?




Green slime became a hazard in 3.0, and it works fairly well that way.  

I wasn't aware that the ochre jelly got turned into a hazard?

Some other things that used to be critters but that you don't generally melee with got the hazard treatment, like rot grubs and (in Tome of Horrors) ear seekers.

I could see some swarms still being combat encounters.....but a case like upsetting a wasp nest, or bees, or even spiders (as in _Raiders of the Lost Ark_) might be better as hazards, unless they are actually _after you_ for some reason as a unified whole (like the CIFAL from the 1e _Fiend Folio_, for example).

RC


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I could see some swarms still being combat encounters.....but a case like upsetting a wasp nest, or bees, or even spiders (as in _Raiders of the Lost Ark_) might be better as hazards, unless they are actually _after you_ for some reason as a unified whole (like the CIFAL from the 1e _Fiend Folio_, for example).




Scarab beetle swarm?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 2, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Oh, and to answer one of Hussar's posts...why should I have a problem with an encounter that is guaranteed to kill one out of four characters? Isn't that what an appropriate challenge rating is supposed to do? Eliminate 25% of the group's resources? One out of four. Just because there are some monsters that don't spread that out over the whole group, but simply punch out one character completely instead? If I shied away from the potential of a dead character, I shouldn't use strong encounters.
> 
> ...




A guaranteed PC death is not an EL=par encounter.

Standard encounter is 4 rounds.  That's 16 saving throws plus 4 extra for directed saves for a 4 member party.  That's a guaranteed kill.  That completely breaks the CR guidelines.  A par encounter should not result in a PC death 100% of the time.  But, that's what a Bodak, or a medusa does.  It is not in line with a given CR.

I have zero problems killing PC's.  Obviously.  But, a creature that is written in such a way that you should statistically ALWAYS kill one PC is bad design.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> On a related note, I am begining to think that most swarms would work better as hazards than as monsters per-se.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> RC



Depends on the Swarm, but in many cases, this seems appropriate. They might be an enviromental effect (Dark Harbor, an Iron Heroes adventure, uses them as such), or a kind of trap.

Ear Seekers seem to be more traps then anything else. 

I believe Age of Worms has a undead-creating worms, which also make a lot more sense as some kind of hazard/enviromental effect. 

Side Note: 
Even if D&D 4 is a total failure or WotC is destroyed by a meteroite, I think the many discussions we had about design, monsters, encounters, game balance alone was worth the whole think. Being forced to reevaluate old concepts is very inspiring. 
I hope I have the time, energy and dedication to put all this inspiration in a few adventures.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A par encounter should not result in a PC death 100% of the time.  But, that's what a Bodak, or a medusa does.




You need to go back and learn how to determine odds, my friend.  So long as there is a chance to avoid death on each save, the chance of PC death is never 100%.  In the case of, say, a medusa, you can also do things that lower the chance of death via the SoD effect....or even remove it altogether.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 2, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Side Note:
> Even if D&D 4 is a total failure or WotC is destroyed by a meteroite, I think the many discussions we had about design, monsters, encounters, game balance alone was worth the whole think. Being forced to reevaluate old concepts is very inspiring.
> I hope I have the time, energy and dedication to put all this inspiration in a few adventures.





Hell, yes!


----------



## FireLance (Nov 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> RC brought that up before as well about not all encounters are at par. That's true. However, those same rules he's pointing to say that I could drop 15 or so Bodak encounters on my 8th level party for every CR 13 challenge I toss their way. Yet, despite the fact that the 15 Bodak encounters should not result in a single PC fatality, they are almost guaranteed to whack as many or more PC's than the CR +5 encounter.
> 
> That's my point.  SoD disproportionately kills PC's based on the challenge.  A CR 8 encounter vs an 8th level party should NOT result in a fatality.  It should be a fairly easy fight.  Yet, because of SoD, I've got a reasonable chance of killing at least 1 PC.  It's far and away too powerful.



I think that is more a problem of save or die monsters being under-CRed. In the specific case of the bodak, it's also pretty much useless without its save or die ability. As previously mentioned, I think a save or die monster ought to be a reasonably tough challenge even without its save or die ability, and more lethal (but still winnable) with it.


----------



## Grog (Nov 2, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think that is more a problem of save or die monsters being under-CRed.



But how can you possibly even pick a CR for a save-or-die monster? How can you even balance something like that?

The only thing you can balance it against is the PCs access to Raise Dead and similar spells. Basically, you say that save-or-die is okay when used against PCs who have Raise Dead, and not okay when it isn't. But all that does is turn death into just another status effect, and contributes to the "early to dead, early to rise" problem that many of us have with 3.X D&D.

I think an important point that's gotten lost in this discussion is that save-or-die is an all-or-nothing effect, and D&D is not a game that's built for all-or-nothing effects. Never has been.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 3, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> But how can you possibly even pick a CR for a save-or-die monster? How can you even balance something like that?
> 
> The only thing you can balance it against is the PCs access to Raise Dead and similar spells. Basically, you say that save-or-die is okay when used against PCs who have Raise Dead, and not okay when it isn't. But all that does is turn death into just another status effect, and contributes to the "early to dead, early to rise" problem that many of us have with 3.X D&D.



Yes, in theory, save or die is balanced by its specific counter _death ward_. _Raise dead_ balances it only imperfectly because of the level loss. Plus, as you pointed out, not everyone likes the flavor of easy death and easy raising.

I think another important aspect in balancing save or die is ensuring that the PCs will get sufficient warning and are able to prepare specific counters or avoid the encounter if the players do reasonably well. Unfortunately, this point is not emphasized in the rules or DM advice. 



> I think an important point that's gotten lost in this discussion is that save-or-die is an all-or-nothing effect, and D&D is not a game that's built for all-or-nothing effects. Never has been.



I would say that all-or-nothing effects aren't suitable for some gaming styles. Some players do enjoy the additional risk, though.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 3, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Yes, in theory, save or die is balanced by its specific counter _death ward_. _Raise dead_ balances it only imperfectly because of the level loss. Plus, as you pointed out, not everyone likes the flavor of easy death and easy raising.




Just to toss this in here...

Raise dead doesn't work on death effects.

The ONLY counter for a death effect is Death Ward, until you can cast Resurrection at level 13.

So to recap...

If Death Ward works, Raise Dead doesn't.  And vice versa.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You need to go back and learn how to determine odds, my friend.  So long as there is a chance to avoid death on each save, the chance of PC death is never 100%.  In the case of, say, a medusa, you can also do things that lower the chance of death via the SoD effect....or even remove it altogether.
> 
> RC




RC, reread what I said.  20 saving throws.  That's statistically going to result in a 1 at least once.  That's 100% chance of fatality since a 1 always fails.  There is no chance of avoiding death on a 1 and your chance of rolling a 1 on 20 rolls is close enough to 100%.  Thus, that SoD encounter is lethal 100% of the time.  (or close enough for this anyway)

Grog makes a good point.  How do you peg the CR of a SoD effect?  An EL par encounter should not result in fatality.  It might, granted, since the baddie might get surprise, roll a crit, win initiative, roll another crit and obliterate a PC.  OTOH, the party might kill the baddie before it acts as well.  However, both situations are anomalies, not what you expect from an EL=par encounter.  You expect the fight to last 3-5 rounds, the PC's to get smacked around a bit and carry on.

The whole CR system is predicated on that.

SoD breaks that completely.  An EL par encounter with a SoD creature should result in a PC death almost 100% of the time.  3-5 rounds of everyone making saving throws is going to turn up that dreaded "1" very often.  Never mind a bigger party as well.  In a party of 6, SoD actually becomes far more deadly.  

Straight up CR says that I should have to go about EL+4 or +5 before I should expect fatalities.  But, if we whack up the CR on a bodak up to 13, it still doesn't work.  It's far too weak at that level, but, it still has a small chance of PC fatality which a creature without a SoD effect would not have.  If I jacked an unmodified gnoll to CR6, would it have a chance of killing a 6th level PC?  I'm not sure, but, I'm pretty sure that his chances are far less than 4 tries at 5%.

SoD adds a layer of lethality to the game that is cannot be accounted for by the CR system.  Anything that adds lethality to the game only hurts the PC's.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> RC, reread what I said.  20 saving throws.  That's statistically going to result in a 1 at least once.



Actually, it only results in at least one 1 64% of the time.  The chance of rolling 1 on ndn is always ~63% after the die size gets above about a d10.

The chance of rolling 1 on ndn is specifically 1-((n-1/n)^n).  It approaches a limit around .63 as n approaches infinity.  Of course, if you roll more than n times, the chances go up significantly, and approach 100% as the number of rolls approaches infinity.



> That's 100% chance of fatality since a 1 always fails.  There is no chance of avoiding death on a 1 and your chance of rolling a 1 on 20 rolls is close enough to 100%.  Thus, that SoD encounter is lethal 100% of the time.  (or close enough for this anyway)



Well, 63% of the time, which is still not great.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 3, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I think an important point that's gotten lost in this discussion is that save-or-die is an all-or-nothing effect, and D&D is not a game that's built for all-or-nothing effects. Never has been.




But it _was_. _Men & Magic_ p. 20...



> Failure to make the total indicated above results in the weapon having full effect, i.e. you are turned to stone, take full damage from dragon's breath, etc. Scoring the total indicated above (or something higher) means the weapon has no effect (death ray, polymorph, paralization, stone, or spell) or one-half effect (poison scoring one-half of the total possible hit damage and dragon's breath scoring one-half of its full damage.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 3, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The ONLY counter for a death effect is Death Ward, until you can cast Resurrection at level 13.




IMHO, the counter to a death effect is not doing things that can kill you. If anything is "badly designed", it's having death effects that come out of the blue.

Although what qualifies as "out of the blue" can vary from group to group. The DM should adjust to the tastes of his group. (Yes, even to the point of eliminating or modifying death effects.) & it's OK if it isn't always perfect. It's just a game.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The whole CR system is predicated on that.




The CR system was never meant to be that perfect. Even if it had been, you didn't have to play with it long to discover that it wasn't--whether "save or die" is there or not. If you keep expecting CR to be even close to perfect, the eliminating "save or die" isn't going to stop your disappointment.


----------



## hong (Nov 3, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> But it _was_. _Men & Magic_ p. 20...



 Yeah, it wasn't built for instakills even then.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yeah, it wasn't built for instakills even then.




_Men & Magic_, p. 31



> *Death Spell:* An incantation which kills from 2–16 creatures with fewer than seven hit dice. The creatures must be within an area of 6" x 6" to come under the spell. Range: 24".




(For anyone unfamiliar with the convention, inches (") meant 10s of feet indoors & 10s of yards outdoors. Yeah, seems strange, but the logic or illogic behind it is a topic for another thread.)


----------



## hong (Nov 3, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> _Men & Magic_, p. 31




Yes, that's right. It wasn't built for instakills even then.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Actually, it only results in at least one 1 64% of the time.  The chance of rolling 1 on ndn is always ~63% after the die size gets above about a d10.
> 
> The chance of rolling 1 on ndn is specifically 1-((n-1/n)^n).  It approaches a limit around .63 as n approaches infinity.  Of course, if you roll more than n times, the chances go up significantly, and approach 100% as the number of rolls approaches infinity.
> 
> ...




Ok, 2/3rds of the time then.  Sigh.  I fuggin hate math.  In any case, it's still too freaking high!  An EL Par encounter should not give me a fatality 2/3rds of the time.  

Thanks Doc.  I'm not a math guy.  It's nice to know the actual numbers.  



			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> The CR system was never meant to be that perfect. Even if it had been, you didn't have to play with it long to discover that it wasn't--whether "save or die" is there or not. If you keep expecting CR to be even close to perfect, the eliminating "save or die" isn't going to stop your disappointment.




Perfect or not, an EL par encounter that is lethal twice as often as it is not is FAR outside the scope of CR.  It's far outside the scope of any metric.  A stock encounter - and that's what an EL par encounter is - should not be that lethal.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's my point.  SoD disproportionately kills PC's based on the challenge.  A CR 8 encounter vs an 8th level party should NOT result in a fatality.  It should be a fairly easy fight.  Yet, because of SoD, I've got a reasonable chance of killing at least 1 PC.  It's far and away too powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um wow, I forgot how lame that was.  Which basically means to me Symbol is poorly balanced, not that the idea behind it is.  If it killed 100 points and didn't skip unavailable targets and was in fact wasted and consumed upon them then its balanced.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2007)

Heck, for another example, let's give take a CR 13 encounter made of bodaks.  That's 5 bodaks.  According to the doc, that's 20 saving throws in the first round, so, 66% chance of PC fatality, regardless of their level.  Even 20th level PC's suffer this same chance of death.

In creatures with SoD effects, 5 Cr 8's making up a CR 13 encounter is a soft ball encounter.  13th level PC's will steamroll this encounter since CR8's simply can't hit hard enough to matter.  Yet, if I use bodaks, I wind up with a high chance of lethality.  

This is why SoD is just lame.  It can't really be taken into account when building encounters.  Sure, you can soft pedal the encounter, give the PC's every advantage, but, you still run into that whole 5% chance/PC/Round.  You can't really get around that.  Or, if they do get around it, then the encounter is a snore fest mopping of the badguy that you've spent the last three sessions giving information about to the PC's.

Not my idea of a great monster design.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Not my idea of a great monster design.



I really begin more and more to like the idea of fundamentally different "Monster Scopes".

The every-day monster - Goblins, Ghuls, Trolls, probably even Dragon. They are represented with regular monster statistics.

The "Encounter Monster" - Monsters that can no longer be represented with a single monster statistics. Sea Serpents that swallow whole ships, Tentacled Monster that want to escape the Hellmouth. They are represented by a combination of several effects like environmental effects, hazards and even monsters.

The "Adventure Monster" - The Monster itself might be represented by a "Every-Day" monster or an "Encounter Monster", but it has a special ability or weakness that must be discovered as part of an adventure, otherwise there is no hope of success. Finding out the Cult Leader is a Medusa, discovering the True Death of a Wrathful Spirit haunting the Town.
These monsters might have Save or Die (or even just "Die") effects or be totally immune to damage, but the whole purpose of the story is to defeat this ability before you actually engage them.

(Bodaks are a bit lame for an adventure monster, because you can "accidently" have the correct ability to defeat them - prepared and cast a Death Ward.)


----------



## Hussar (Nov 3, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I really begin more and more to like the idea of fundamentally different "Monster Scopes".
> 
> The every-day monster - Goblins, Ghuls, Trolls, probably even Dragon. They are represented with regular monster statistics.
> 
> ...




The problem with medusae is that there are also magical work arounds.  Blindsight magic works.  

About the only one you can't really work around is a cockatrice.  And, I'm sure there's a protection from petrification spell around somewhere.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 3, 2007)

I don't mind Mustrum Ridcully's example of an "encounter monster" in which part of the encounter is discovering and negating aspects of the monster.  I've used things like that before- a (functionally) unstoppable golem, for example, programmed to guard a particular door who attacks anyone not dressed like a priest from an ancient religion.

But there are caveats I have regarding the application of this reasoning to save-or-die.

First, save-or-die is not, has never been, and as long as its implemented in the game even close to how it is now it never will be an "encounter monster" ability.  Lets make it clear: Spellcasters Have Save Or Die Spells.  Unless we're intending to doom all evil spellcasters to the "encounter monster" category, this doesn't work.

Second, in an "encounter monster" paradigm, there's no reason to give the party a save.  The save essentially becomes a "roll dice to avoid plot" effect.

Third, if the encounter solution is casting Death Ward, or casting Silence, or casting any single spell, the encounter design aspect of that particular encounter monster is really lame.  We're back in the "I got a laser gun!" "But I got an anti laser gun shield!" territory from when we were 4.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

Save or Die spells are perfectly legitimate in Miniature Wargames.  It's not like you're only playing one character moreover playing them for month after month.

If you want to play roleplaying games without the threat of death, _don't get into life threatening situations_.  

A creature like a Medusa is going to be life threatening.  If you are going to face one, prepare for the possibility of your character dying.  It's that simple.

Is that "Unfun"?  Maybe, but if you play the game without the possibility of losing, how will success mean anything?  Isn't this a game about heroes?

I think the problem here isn't that the game is "unfun", but that it no longer requires much skill to play.  It emulates Rambo-like fantasy where each Player keeps one character for 100's of combats all of which are stand up, face to face, slugfests with little regard to tactics or strategy at all.  It's become so bad, virtually no thought is given about what or who you are face or where you face them.  They are actually having to rebuild this back into 4e and good on them for doing that.  Unfortunately, I think it may be a game more about picking the right Duke Nuke'm gun for the job and knowing what those guns do to whom as the actual skill element in the game.  

In contrast, our low level characters killed dozens of powerful orcs by burning poisoned wood inside their cave entrance and covering it with a tarp.  Not one swing swung.  Was that cheating?  Or "badwrongfun"?  Or was it playing the game as a world vs. as a toe-to-toe slugfest?  IMO, a 20th level hero _should_ lose in such a contest against a Titan.  Not for the game levels to statistically make the PC a Titan.


----------



## hong (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Save or Die spells are perfectly legitimate in Miniature Wargames.  It's not like you're only playing one character moreover playing them for month after month.
> 
> If you want to play roleplaying games without the threat of death, _don't get into life threatening situations_.




Not applicable in a game that's about killing monsters and taking their stuff.



> Is that "Unfun"? Maybe, but if you play the game without the possibility of losing, how will success mean anything?




Success in D&D means something?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Success in D&D means something?



I call it Fun.  Beating my enemies without even needing to try?  Why even have Challenge Ratings at all?  Or Death as a condition?  

Maybe we should make it an NPC only condition?  Wouldn't that be the highest level of fun?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 3, 2007)

Try not to let this thread slide into the "badwrongfun" direction. A lot of posters in this thread worked hard to keep that from happening.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 3, 2007)

Question: why is death the only acceptable form of "losing" in D&D? Why does an encounter have to have the threat of death for it to be meaningful? 

Lets say your playing a hypothetical RPG where your character cannot "die". If he is reduced to 0 or lower hp, he's out of the battle, but not dead. He'll recover in 8 hours. However, during those 8 hours, you could have your all gear stolen, be sold into slavery, be ransomed back to your family, or simply imprisoned in the evil mage's dungeon. 

Is that less meaningful than a game where death is a real, viable, and constant threat?


----------



## hong (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I call it Fun.




Exactly. And instakill is unfun.



> Beating my enemies without even needing to try?  Why even have Challenge Ratings at all?  Or Death as a condition?




There is nothing about pretending to be an elf that requires death as a condition.



> Maybe we should make it an NPC only condition?  Wouldn't that be the highest level of fun?




Yes, I've done that. It worked quite well, in fact.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, I've done that. It worked quite well, in fact.



I'm glad D&D works for you.  I'm hoping they leave it functional enough that it can work for me.  This carcass has been kicked around a lot that last few years.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99:

Posts like yours boggle my mind.  You toss out a bunch of good things about D&D, things I like, things I agree the game should strive to contain, and then you claim that save-or-die represents these things and I choke on my drink.

If you want to encourage strategic offense, a spell where a single die is rolled and your enemy either lives or dies right there is NOT the way to go about it.

If you want to encourage strategic defense, there's a million ways to do it other than a clunky game mechanic.

Nobody is saying that the game shouldn't include monsters that are hard to defeat, or which pose a threat to your character.  The question is how they should pose that threat, and save-or-die, all or nothing effects are one of the worst possible ways to create a threat in a game built around combat by attrition.

Save-or-die effects are one of the biggest origins of simplistic, one dimensional combat.  They do bypass slugfests, true, but combat by save-or-die is worse than a slugfest.  It has all the aspects of a slugfest that are bad, such as the way players stand and toss deadly shots back and forth until someone falls down, and none of the good parts, such as the possibility that someone might do something even minimally tactical, like flank.

What strategy does save-or-die add to the game?  The strategy of guessing this enemy has a weak will save, and that enemy has a weak fortitude?  The strategy of casting your spell before the other guy?  That's really it.

Caveat to preempt the inevitable response:  I know, I know, the pro save-or-die people will now leap in to claim that the strategy is in avoiding having to make the save.  I call shenanigans.  You can create strategic challenges where the goal is avoiding having to fight on the enemy's terms without save-or-die.  howandwhy99's example combat with the orcs is actually a great example.  He didn't need save-or-die to make that work.  The orcs didnt' have it, neither did he (poison isn't SoD).  And if you DO use save-or-die to create that sort of strategic challenge, the challenge of avoiding having to face an enemy's deadly attack, save-or-die is a really bad way to go about it!  It turns what SHOULD be an exercise in creative lateral thinking into an exercise in waiting until the next morning and memorizing Death Ward, or whatever the applicable spell might be.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Caveat to preempt the inevitable response:  I know, I know, the pro save-or-die people will now leap in to claim that the strategy is in avoiding having to make the save.  I call shenanigans.  You can create strategic challenges where the goal is avoiding having to fight on the enemy's terms without save-or-die.  howandwhy99's example combat with the orcs is actually a great example.  He didn't need save-or-die to make that work.  The orcs didnt' have it, neither did he (poison isn't SoD).  And if you DO use save-or-die to create that sort of strategic challenge, the challenge of avoiding having to face an enemy's deadly attack, save-or-die is a really bad way to go about it!  It turns what SHOULD be an exercise in creative lateral thinking into an exercise in waiting until the next morning and memorizing Death Ward, or whatever the applicable spell might be.



Actually poison is Save or Die in our game, so we used it.  And it's been used against us too.  How would you choose to fight a giant spider if you knew his stinger could kill you with one sting?  toe-to-toe is not your best option, let me tell ya.  

Death, equipment loss, permanent level loss, permanent hit point loss, permanent blindness/deafness, permanent ability score damage.  There are tons of things that just are _not "fun"_ in this game.  Who wants to play a game where your character can get killed?  We play where all new characters start at level 1.  Of course, the combat statistics and XP charts are designed so 1st level (even 0-level) characters can adventure side by side with 10th level allies.  Not to mention the fact that you'd reach 10th about the same time they reach 11th.  

Save or die, all those effects I listed, and plenty more are all all about not having to make that save.  As you mention, that's the strategy.  However, it actually does demand lateral thinking to beat an enemy or sooner or later your PCs is going to die.  A game of attrition combat is a combat you don't want - not if you really want to win.  Win with the least effort required, because, y'know, in the dungeon you never know what might be around the next corner.  --Which is another good reason to keep spells as a diminishing resource in the game too.--  The point is, there is nothing in the game you actually want to roll a saving throw against, if you've got the choice.  But it is in your best interest to choose your battles, and choose how your going to fight them.  If you do, then you can get the upper hand.  Deathward is the smart choice.  

I think they are removing this stuff, unfortunately, because it means every battle will not be flashy, big-bang, skirmish games.  When the point is to win instead of showing off, then you don't care whether or not you get to go toe-to-toe.  However, if you can never be hurt, what's the point?  Success without effort?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> However, if you can never be hurt, what's the point?  Success without effort?



I'm calling you out.  Where, exactly, do the designers state that you can never be hurt in 4E?

Lots of people are making this and similar claims.  Either we decide, once and for all, that it's just baseless hyperbole and drop it entirely and permanently, or we demonstrate that it has a factual basis in something that's been stated by the production crew.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 3, 2007)

I remember a fight where, instead of taking on the enemy shaman in melee, we met him out in a city dock that we had prepped to collapse.  The dock crumbled, the shaman fell into the water, and we clubbed him like a seal.  It rocked.

My character at the time was an elf.  I conclude from this that unless elves are in the game, this sort of cool encounter won't be possible.

Do you see the logical gap?

What made your encounter with the orcs cool was that you came up with a way to fight the orcs that didn't involve going toe to toe.  You used creative thinking, and it worked.  That's great.

Now lets say there was no save-or-die in the game.  Your poisoned wood still works, it just does... lets say it does Con damage every round you breath it.  So you do the poison wood trick, and the orcs... die just as they did in the game you actually played.  Save-or-die added nothing to this fight.

Or look at a fight against a medusa.  What makes that sort of fight cool is that the players have to do it with their eyes shut.  Lets go the opposite way, and remove the save.  Its not save-or-die now, its just-plain-die.  What changes?  Nothing, really.  The point was that the medusa has a gaze attack that doesn't work on people who's eyes are closed.  There's a million ways you could do that other than save-or-die.

If you want to set up a fight for your players that they have to think around instead of taking head on, why use save or die?  Why not just add a big number to the party's average level, and use a monster of the resulting CR?

The good things people attribute to save-or-die rarely stem from save-or-die itself.  They stem from the type of encounter in which save-or-die is typically found, and that type of encounter is almost always possible using non save-or-die mechanics.  

Meanwhile, the negative effects of save-or-die are definitely related directly to it.  It breaks the CR system by balancing ONLY against preventative spells, not against anything about the characters (DC does balance against saving throws, but considering that they scale together, it doesn't matter).  It leads to a trite sort of gameplay where save-or-die spells are matched against don't-save-or-die spells.  It ruins climactic fights by reducing them to "ultimate battles of the clerics' a la The Order of the Stick.  And it makes encounter creation involving spellcasters an awkward, perilous process.

We can do better.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 3, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Question: why is death the only acceptable form of "losing" in D&D?




It isn't. But it is _an_ acceptable form of losing. (At least for many groups in many campaigns. Even for some people who don't like "save or die".)



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Caveat to preempt the inevitable response:  I know, I know, the pro save-or-die people will now leap in to claim that the strategy is in avoiding having to make the save.  I call shenanigans.  You can create strategic challenges where the goal is avoiding having to fight on the enemy's terms without save-or-die.  howandwhy99's example combat with the orcs is actually a great example.  He didn't need save-or-die to make that work.  The orcs didnt' have it, neither did he (poison isn't SoD).




No, it isn't needed. But it doesn't need to be excluded either.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> And if you DO use save-or-die to create that sort of strategic challenge, the challenge of avoiding having to face an enemy's deadly attack, save-or-die is a really bad way to go about it!  It turns what SHOULD be an exercise in creative lateral thinking into an exercise in waiting until the next morning and memorizing Death Ward, or whatever the applicable spell might be.




No. Death Ward isn't even an option in my preferred edition. Sometimes a spell may be _one_ way to deal avoid "save or die" in my games, but I don't think it is ever the only way.

I'll never disagree that playing without "save or die" is fine. (Because I enjoy the games I play without it.)

So, let me ask this: Do you believe that "save or die" works fine for me & my group, or do you think it is ruining my game without me realizing it?


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 4, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> So, let me ask this: Do you believe that "save or die" works fine for me & my group, or do you think it is ruining my game without me realizing it?




I think you could do better.

I think that if you break down what save or die is doing for your game, you will find that you can get those benefits elsewhere.

I think that the fact that dedicated DMs and decent players can avoid the pitfalls of a flawed save-or-die system is NOT a reason to keep the flawed system if a better alternative exists.

I believe better alternatives exist.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2007)

Why do people equate taking out SoD with removing all chances of death?  That's ridiculous.  Heck, 3e combat is pretty lethal, so lethal in fact that about half the deaths in my last campaign were from straight up combat damage.  This is certainly a change for me from earlier editions where, once you got past about 4th level, the ONLY thing that killed PC's was SoD.

Let me ask this.  What is the EL of a group of 5 monsters capable of killing any one 20th level PC 66% of the time?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The good things people attribute to save-or-die rarely stem from save-or-die itself.  They stem from the type of encounter in which save-or-die is typically found, and that type of encounter is almost always possible using non save-or-die mechanics.



This I agree with.  In fact, I started a thread about it, but it didn't get a lot of responses.  



> Or look at a fight against a medusa.  What makes that sort of fight cool is that the players have to do it with their eyes shut.  Lets go the opposite way, and remove the save.  Its not save-or-die now, its just-plain-die.  What changes?  Nothing, really.  The point was that the medusa has a gaze attack that doesn't work on people who's eyes are closed.  There's a million ways you could do that other than save-or-die.



I'd say that save or die is a step up from just plain die, though. With save or die, one or more PCs could decide to take calculated risks: trading off the chance that he will fail the saving throw against the opportunity to make a more accurate attack. Of course, as you pointed out, save or get temporarily taken out of the fight works just as well as save or die for this purpose.



> If you want to set up a fight for your players that they have to think around instead of taking head on, why use save or die?  Why not just add a big number to the party's average level, and use a monster of the resulting CR?



It's not just a matter of escalating the CR. Ideally, the monster should have an ability that proper preparation can negate, but will still be a reasonably tough challenge without. That way, the encounter rewards preparation without making it essential, and without making the fight a walkover if the party is prepared. But yes, you don't need save or die to do it.



> Meanwhile, the negative effects of save-or-die are definitely related directly to it.  It breaks the CR system by balancing ONLY against preventative spells, not against anything about the characters (DC does balance against saving throws, but considering that they scale together, it doesn't matter).



Again, ideally, the PCs should have strategic options (preparation of specific counters, for example), tactical options, (e.g. closing or averting eyes) in addition to the straightforward approach of simply making saving throws round after round. And again, you don't need save or die to do this.



> We can do better.



That's the whole point of 4e, right?


----------



## ruemere (Nov 4, 2007)

As a person, who always (or almost always) failed crucial save vs save-or-die effect in my 20+ year long career, I would like to say that I hate this type of mechanic with passion.

I'm a GM mostly, but still, taking a week to prepare a character, playing it for days or weeks (or months), only to die (and lose levels) each time a insta-death guy appears, is truly frustrating. I can stomach getting criticals twice as often as the next guy in the front line, but losing characters (or levels) on a regular basis, does make me irritated.

My preference would be either to implement delayed-death effects (giving time and chance to escape imminent doom... the rock in the first Indy Jones movies was fun because it kept rolling after the archeologist, not because it crushed the hero flat) or replace them with a heap of damage spread over several turns.

So, yes, you can kill someone with Finger of Death, it's just that on the first round your enemy gets stunned (with fear), paralyzed (2nd turn), blue on the face (equivalent to -8), even more blue on the face (-9) and then dead as a door nail.

Or, your enemy gets stunned (and takes some damage), paralyzed (and takes a lot of damage), repeat until damage allotment runs out or the enemy runs out of hitpoints.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Gentlegamer (Nov 4, 2007)

As a player, I'm thankful I'm allowed a saving throw to mitigate my failure to properly avoid the mortally threatening situation.

As a DM, I'm thankful that the rules spell out a mechanic to allow a player to avoid an effect that otherwise would rightfully kill him outright.


----------



## WarlockLord (Nov 4, 2007)

So, because one group of players can't handle save-or-die, it should be taken out for everyone? It's pretty easy to take spells and say "These don't exist in my campaign."

In the legend of Perseus and the medusa, anyone who looked at the medusa died, instantly.  Would the monster have been as scary if the Greeks changed the petrification process so it took 30 seconds? No.  

If the dread wizard Zorganoth can kill anyone by pointing at them, it loses something if the length is artificially increased to make the players feel good about themselves.  There are plenty of ways to deal with this WITHOUT death ward or spell turning: use a blacklight spell to blind him, have the rogue kill him in his sleep, counterspell*...a creative player could find many ways to do this.  Charging the wizard with finger of death in open battle...foolish.  And invisibility or other illusions can either conceal you or create other, fake worthless targets, which can be used to bypass or fool mooks as well.  There are many things you can do without resorting to death ward.  


* I realize that the regular version stinks, however, 3.5 allowed for some good counterspelling sorcs with Heighten Spell, Improved Counterspell, and Metamagic Specialist.  Also, one can use dispel magic or the greater version.   It works.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 4, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> In the legend of Perseus and the medusa, anyone who looked at the medusa died, instantly.  Would the monster have been as scary if the Greeks changed the petrification process so it took 30 seconds? No.




Would he be as scary if people who looked at him had a percentage chance of dying instantly, if the exact percentage varied based upon their career choice, and if everyone who met a medusa had a friend with a scroll that could un-die them if the percentage chance went poorly?

As for the rest, all of those things are available in the game as long as Zorganoth is a big scary wizard.  Whether he's a big scary wizard with save or die spells is irrelevant.  The ONLY thing the save or die stuff is relevant to is whether you use death ward.


----------



## WarlockLord (Nov 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Would he be as scary if people who looked at him had a percentage chance of dying instantly, if the exact percentage varied based upon their career choice, and if everyone who met a medusa had a friend with a scroll that could un-die them if the percentage chance went poorly?
> 
> As for the rest, all of those things are available in the game as long as Zorganoth is a big scary wizard.  Whether he's a big scary wizard with save or die spells is irrelevant.  The ONLY thing the save or die stuff is relevant to is whether you use death ward.




Wow.  First, the medusa is a she.  Career choice? I could see that.  A fighter who has trained all his life to toughen his body would probably be more resistant than a wizard who is eternally reading.  As for the rezzing, that's more a problem of resurrection spells then death effects.  I agree with you on that, resurrection should either:

A) Go
B) Require an orphean quest to the underworld
C) Require a sacrifice to the lord of the dead to take the place of the person to be resurrected.

As for Zorganoth, I'd like to say this about save-or-dies: They encourage creativity.  Yes, you could use illusions to counter fireball, but the way spells are set up now, you can take the hit from a fireball and not really be affected.  As for this, you have a percentile chance, based on your career choice, to take full damage.  Perhaps, this, too, is too chancy and must go.  Really, the main reason for damage and the nerf of holding spells was to enhance the feeling of script immunity for our heroes.  Some people want this.  Some do not.  I am one of the people who do not, so why should I be penalized?  If you don't want them, remove them from your game.

I would, prior to getting the large complaints from those who will explain to me how getting rid of save-or-dies would not end PC death.  I daresay otherwise.  Damage, it has been pointed out on these boards, can easily be fudged, and I daresay all the PC death haters have this occur often.  While the threat of PC death is not the only threat they can worry about...it's usually the most reliable motivator.  Yes, cinematic deaths and big fights are cool, but too many of them get drawn out and boring.  

Plus, the faster the BBEG goes down, the less of the poorly scripted monologue you get to hear!


----------



## hong (Nov 4, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> In the legend of Perseus and the medusa, anyone who looked at the medusa died, instantly.  Would the monster have been as scary if the Greeks changed the petrification process so it took 30 seconds? No.




Ebola takes roughly a week to kill you, and has about an 80% mortality rate. It seemed pretty scary at the time.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> So, because one group of players can't handle save-or-die, it should be taken out for everyone? It's pretty easy to take spells and say "These don't exist in my campaign."
> *snip*




Considering the poll shows those that don't like save or die outnumber those that do by a margin of about 2:1, I'm thinking your rhetoric is perhaps slightly skewed.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 4, 2007)

Looking at the various posts about the CR system and how Bodaks don't work in it due to their save-or-die effect, I started wondering:

*Can* the CR system handle weak creatures that have one spectacular ability?  I'm thinking even more extreme than the Bodak here...how about a little 2 HD housecat-size critter with AC 10 and  absolutely nothing going for it except if it touches you at all you lose your entire memory (this includes all your learning i.e. experience i.e. experience points...)?  How about the Medusa...low HD, poor at everything, but has save-or-petrify gaze - *and* save-or-regret-it poison if you're dumb enough to get close to it?

These sort of encounters are going to be (or should be) either absolute pushovers for the average party if they are lucky and-or smart, and deadly if they're unlucky or not smart.  So how do you (or can you at all) assign a CR to it?

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Looking at the various posts about the CR system and how Bodaks don't work in it due to their save-or-die effect, I started wondering:
> 
> *Can* the CR system handle weak creatures that have one spectacular ability?  I'm thinking even more extreme than the Bodak here...how about a little 2 HD housecat-size critter with AC 10 and  absolutely nothing going for it except if it touches you at all you lose your entire memory (this includes all your learning i.e. experience i.e. experience points...)?  How about the Medusa...low HD, poor at everything, but has save-or-petrify gaze - *and* save-or-regret-it poison if you're dumb enough to get close to it?
> 
> ...




Not sure about the mind eating house cat thing.  To me, that's probably one of the most piss poor designed monsters out there.  It's not even a monster really, it's a trap with a movement score.  Lame.  There is no reason to have such a monster in the game.  IMO, that pretty much defines unfun - Bang, bang, (queue Nelsonesque laugh) Look at you, roll a new PC!

No thanks.  Even back in the day, when such monsters were fairly common in the Monster Manual (or Fiend Folio or whatever) I knew they were lame and didn't use them.

Medusa is another poster child.  Glass cannon.  If you make your saving throw, you whack the medusa without breaking a sweat.  Have a protection from Petrification scroll handy?  Dead medusa.

That's the whole problem with SoD type creatures, they're almost always glass cannons.  If you bypass their SoD ability, they're a joke.  If you don't, you're dead.  There's very little room for in between.  Give me a much more robust creature any day of the week thanks.  One that if the party is smart, they can counter some of its abilities, but, it doesn't turn the encounter into a barrel shoot.

People have talked about using information and build up to make SoD monsters better.  But, that's true for a lot of monsters.  Tell the PC's that there's a demon in that cave, and they go, get some cold iron weapons, invest in a scroll of Dimensional Lock and come back.  When they meet the demon, they've negated a couple of its bigger abilities - DR and teleport and gate - but, they've still got to deal with a pissed off demon.  Party is rewarded for being smart, but, they are not going to simply send the wizard forward to beat the rust monster to death with a club.  Oops, sorry, channeling a rather similar discussion.  

In any case, it's not like they simply put a blindfold on one character, cast something to give him blindsight/sense, slow poison and send her in to beat the medusa to death.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 4, 2007)

People have a funny definition of a "glass cannon" nowadays. And somehow it seems to be okay if a combat encounter is over quickly because the combat monsters did their work efficiently, but it's not okay if a combat encounter ends quickly because the information masters did their work efficiently.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 4, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> *Can* the CR system handle weak creatures that have one spectacular ability?
> Lanefan




The "glass cannon" approach really doesn't work at all. Consider traps in 3.5 They are the ultimate glass cannons (they can be disarmed a number of ways before taking a single point of damage, as long as they are properly reconned) Traps have CRs from 1-10, but I think there are few DMs who put a acid arrow trap at the same caliber of challenge as a dragon or stone giant. Your "death kitty" monster is effectively a trap: a one-time gotcha that is no challenged if scouted and dealt with but a deathtrap to the unprepared.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Considering the poll shows those that don't like save or die outnumber those that do by a margin of about 2:1, I'm thinking your rhetoric is perhaps slightly skewed.



Remember, polls are meaningless and faulty unless they demonstrate what the speaker is claiming to be the case.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 4, 2007)

Hey, roughly 1% of all members on ENWorld have actually voted here, I think this is a pretty popular poll.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heck, for another example, let's give take a CR 13 encounter made of bodaks.  That's 5 bodaks.  According to the doc, that's 20 saving throws in the first round, so, 66% chance of PC fatality, regardless of their level.  Even 20th level PC's suffer this same chance of death.
> 
> In creatures with SoD effects, 5 Cr 8's making up a CR 13 encounter is a soft ball encounter.  13th level PC's will steamroll this encounter since CR8's simply can't hit hard enough to matter.  Yet, if I use bodaks, I wind up with a high chance of lethality.
> 
> This is why SoD is just lame.





How about an EL 13 encounter made up of goblins?  Does the CR system work well for that?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Question: why is death the only acceptable form of "losing" in D&D? Why does an encounter have to have the threat of death for it to be meaningful?
> 
> Lets say your playing a hypothetical RPG where your character cannot "die". If he is reduced to 0 or lower hp, he's out of the battle, but not dead. He'll recover in 8 hours. However, during those 8 hours, you could have your all gear stolen, be sold into slavery, be ransomed back to your family, or simply imprisoned in the evil mage's dungeon.
> 
> Is that less meaningful than a game where death is a real, viable, and constant threat?





Remove the word "constant" and I would say "Yes".

Of course, YMMV.

RC


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How about an EL 13 encounter made up of goblins?  Does the CR system work well for that?




Depends on their class and levels.

But in my experience the vague and arbitrary CR system has always sucked donkey.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Considering the poll shows those that don't like save or die outnumber those that do by a margin of about 2:1, I'm thinking your rhetoric is perhaps slightly skewed.




I am sure that there are many things in D&D that are only enjoyed by 1/3 of the players.  If we removed all of them on that basis, I wonder if there would be anything left.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Depends on their class and levels.
> 
> But in my experience the vague and arbitrary CR system has always sucked donkey.





My point exactly.

That you can't get a good CR fix on this, that, or the other (and there are a lot of places where the CR system plain falls down) is a fault of the CR system, not the things it can't handle.  Which is, perhaps, why the 4e designers decided to scrap the CR system, no?  What looks good in theory sometimes proves to suck donkey after about a year of solid play (when the shiny newness wears off).

Instead of saying, "Traps suck 'cause the CR System can't handle them" and "SoD effects suck 'cause the CR System can't handle them" and "Monsters with neat effects but poor combat stats suck 'cause the CR System can't handle them", and "Anything but out-and-out combat monsters suck 'cause the CR System can't handle them", maybe we could just say "The CR System sucks" and be done with it.

RC


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which is, perhaps, why the 4e designers decided to scrap the CR system, no?  What looks good in theory sometimes proves to suck donkey after about a year of solid play (when the shiny newness wears off).
> 
> maybe we could just say "The CR System sucks" and be done with it.




True, and from what I've seen it looks like there is now only "level", instead of the CR/HD/LA/ECL/EL conundrum of madness.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> maybe we could just say "The CR System sucks" and be done with it.




True, CR doesn't do what it was set out to do, since there are as many exceptions as there are "the rules" However, that is partially because CR is flawed, partially because some of those sub-systems are, and where they meet is a holy chaotic (flaming burst) mess...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 5, 2007)

One thing 3E will probably go down in D&D history as is the "great unifying attempt".  All mosters were categorized with one number, all skills in one skill system, all classes got one XP chart, bonuses got a unified stacking system, etc.

I think one thing showed...not everything works well when you try to unify its properties. Monsters in older editions were a very diverse lot, with plenty of different abilities and focuses, and usually each monster got an individual treatment, especially if it was a "special" monster. 2E had that for nearly every monster (even those who didn't need a 2-page write-up  ). Same went for magical items. 3E swung too far into the "unification" direction. I'm curious if 4E is going to find more of a middle ground...from what I've read, it looks good. On the other hand, it also looks like save-or-die effects will be out of the game, which is kinda funny, since they seem to go in a direction where those encounters could be more easily handled again.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am sure that there are many things in D&D that are only enjoyed by 1/3 of the players.  If we removed all of them on that basis, I wonder if there would be anything left.
> 
> RC




The question is, why didn't 1/3 or 2/3 or any other arbitrary number of players not like a rule, and can we change it without alienating the rest?

I have seen occassions where people just didn't have problems with a rule because they ignored them or never needed them, or used them very differently then others (specifically those who do have problems with the rule) 

The SOD example: 
Many SoD proponents appear to not use Save or Die randomly, but only with some kind of forewarning (designing parts of the adventure involving them to ensure that the PCs can be aware of the risks). This is certainly a viable solution (maybe indicating a good common sense  ), and probably ensures that the group doesn't suffer from the rule.

But what does this tell us about the rule itself? If it works best with a special treatment, maybe it should just not be a standard rule? Maybe the special treatment needs to be part of the rules?

The Grapple example:
My group never had problems adjucating the rules. It might sometimes be a bit clumsy, but we managed that. I personally only had the problem that it was way too much in favour of larger monsters and thus imbalance things.
Other people failed at adjucating the rules in on themselves.

The underlying problem of the Grapple rules are probably that they are a combat subsystem that doesn't ingrate well with the other rules. It's based on BAB, but it uses different size modifiers. You have a totally different set of actions available once inside a Grapple situation. Attacking or Spellcasting in Grapple follows unusual direction (Light Weapons only, still at a penalty, Material Components not easily available, Somatic components make things differently, Concentration Check different). The set of actions was different enough to confuse some players, and the specific rules favoured larger creatures in ways the regular combat system did not, imbalancing it further.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it also looks like save-or-die effects will be out of the game, which is kinda funny, since they seem to go in a direction where those encounters could be more easily handled again.



It is possible that the new system will sometimes over-compensate when trying to remove an old flaw. 

(But if Save or Die turns out to be manageable by the new system, it's possible that later supplements from WotC or 3rd parties add it back in with special monsters or spells. But anyway, I will probably miss it less then others...  )


----------



## Hussar (Nov 6, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> People have a funny definition of a "glass cannon" nowadays. And somehow it seems to be okay if a combat encounter is over quickly because the combat monsters did their work efficiently, but it's not okay if a combat encounter ends quickly because the information masters did their work efficiently.




Umm, what?  A glass cannon doesn't mean what you think it means.  If the creature either kills a PC or dies without being any real threat to the party, that's a glass cannon.  It has nothing to do with the PC's.  

Again, what CR is a group of 5 creatures that has a 66% chance of killing one 20th level PC?

Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work.  Well, that might be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine.  I've found that CR does work.  Not all the time, certainly, but, it does work when you realize its limitations.  I'm not saying CR is perfect.  Far from it.  A CR 13 encounter of stock goblins is a joke.  Of course, the CR system SPECIFICALLY STATES that it can't calculate this as well.  Pretty hard to talk about a failing when the failing is deliberately called out in the rules.

But, Mustrum Ridcully has hit it nicely on the head.  If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule?  Is a monster that requires all sorts of fiddly bits in order to bring it back in line with its expected challenge well designed?

IMO, no.  A monster should be usable out of the box.  I shouldn't have to do all sorts of extra work in order to use a monster.  If the monster has a specific location requirement (like a shark for instance), I shouldn't also have to make sure that the water is 72 degrees, there is a slight chop and overcast sky as well in order to use it.  

Now, if I want to add in the extra effort and reward players for being smart, that should be up to me.  The rules shouldn't force me to do all this extra work, just to make up for faulty mechanics.  Fix the mechanics in the first place and we're good.  Like in the demon cult example I posted a bit back.  If I drop hints that there really is a demon up there and the party prepares for that, by all means they should be rewarded.  

However, I don't believe that the reward should be an anticlimactic encounter where the party slaps the monster around like a rag doll.  Even the party armed with cold iron weapons and a Dimensional Lock spell still has to deal with that Glabrezu - no mean feat.  The party that slaps on slow poison and protection from petrification walks up to the medusa and noogies her for fun.

Wow, great encounter.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 6, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The underlying problem of the Grapple rules are probably that they are a combat subsystem that doesn't ingrate well with the other rules.




That's because the action being simulated itself has many unique features - the chief of which is that it immediately imposes a condition 'grappled' on the target.  Describing that condition is not trivial and increases linearly in complexity as a system allows more freedom to the players.  The vast majority of the grappling rules are describing what happens when you attempt to make some other action under the rules when the 'grappled' condition is imposed on you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work.  Well, that might be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine.  I've found that CR does work.  Not all the time, certainly, but, it does work when you realize its limitations.




If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule?  Is a system that requires all sorts of fiddling in order to bring it back in line with its expected results well designed?

IMO, no.  A system should be usable out of the box.  I shouldn't have to do all sorts of extra work in order to determine a monster's CR, or an encounter's EL.  If the encounter is to be with a group of monsters, I shouldn't also have to make sure that the water is 72 degrees, there is a slight chop and overcast sky as well in order to use CR/EL.  

The rules shouldn't force me to do all this extra work, just to make up for faulty mechanics.  Fix the mechanics in the first place and we're good.

Wow, great system.   :\

EDIT:  BTW, what does "Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work" mean, Hussar?  What do you mean by "Now"?  People have been saying CR doesn't work since the shiny newness of 3.0 wore off.  People have been comparing CR/EL to a steaming pile of bantha poodoo for _years_.  How many threads have you posted in defending CR already?  Over how many years?

"Now" we have claims that CR doesn't work?

For shame.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 6, 2007)

For shame yerself.  Now, in this context, since you are all about reading things in the proper context, refers to this thread, not this point in time.  Wow, RC, you've spent so much time decrying other people's abilities not to be able to read plain English.

The CR system does work as advertised.  If you use a standard party, you will get the results predicted by the CR/EL system.  The further you deviate from that standard party (4 PC's, 25 point buy value) the less able it is to predict results.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.

But, there's nothing baseline about SoD effects.  Ok, never mind CR for the moment.  Is an encounter where the PC's have a 66% chance of PC death a good encounter?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, what?  A glass cannon doesn't mean what you think it means.  If the creature either kills a PC or dies without being any real threat to the party, that's a glass cannon.  It has nothing to do with the PC's.




Sure. Apparently, if the creature doesn't get to kill a PC because the melee specialists dispatch with it in 2 rounds because they are pimped out with ability buffs, damage buffs and AC buffs, that's different from a creature that doesn't get to kill a PC because the knowledge specialists have determined its weakness beforehand, prepared the melee specialists accordingly, and they get to dispatch with the creature in 2 rounds. The latter, according to you, is a glass cannon. What's the former called again?



> Again, what CR is a group of 5 creatures that has a 66% chance of killing one 20th level PC?
> 
> Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work.  Well, that might be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine.  I've found that CR does work.  Not all the time, certainly, but, it does work when you realize its limitations.  I'm not saying CR is perfect.  Far from it.  A CR 13 encounter of stock goblins is a joke.  Of course, the CR system SPECIFICALLY STATES that it can't calculate this as well.  Pretty hard to talk about a failing when the failing is deliberately called out in the rules.




You know, that's two completely different failures we're talking here. Me, I'm simply claiming that CR as the sole arbiter of a creature's difficulty in an encounter is insufficient. That has nothing to do with the designers noting that "Hey, this CR for one creature is fine, but it might get very wonky if you scale the CR of them up through sheer numbers." Apples and oranges, you know.



> But, Mustrum Ridcully has hit it nicely on the head.  If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule?  Is a monster that requires all sorts of fiddly bits in order to bring it back in line with its expected challenge well designed?
> 
> IMO, no.  A monster should be usable out of the box.  I shouldn't have to do all sorts of extra work in order to use a monster.  If the monster has a specific location requirement (like a shark for instance), I shouldn't also have to make sure that the water is 72 degrees, there is a slight chop and overcast sky as well in order to use it.




Agreed...this simply means that there should be a better system in place to adjudicate monsters. CR is simply not enough. It probably works well with straight melee monsters, but as soon as the monster in question has more than one special ability that doesn't directly map to combat damage (hit points), CR goes down the drain more often than not.

But hey, we could of course simply start cutting away all abilities that do not map directly to combat.



> Now, if I want to add in the extra effort and reward players for being smart, that should be up to me.  The rules shouldn't force me to do all this extra work, just to make up for faulty mechanics.  Fix the mechanics in the first place and we're good.  Like in the demon cult example I posted a bit back.  If I drop hints that there really is a demon up there and the party prepares for that, by all means they should be rewarded.
> 
> However, I don't believe that the reward should be an anticlimactic encounter where the party slaps the monster around like a rag doll.  Even the party armed with cold iron weapons and a Dimensional Lock spell still has to deal with that Glabrezu - no mean feat.  The party that slaps on slow poison and protection from petrification walks up to the medusa and noogies her for fun.
> 
> Wow, great encounter.




Yeah...and a 13th level group that confronts a Glabrezu with nothing but cold iron weapons and a _Dimensional Lock_ either has a very stingy DM, doesn't have a clue about what a Glabrezu really can do, or is desperately looking for a TPK. If you have a "standard" 13th level group with standard equipment with proper preparations, they will turn your Glabrezu example into a 2-round battle. I can only refer to the _Tales of Wyre_ story hour to illustrate what a really high-level group that prepares for an encounter does to the monster in question.
At some level, preparation turns every monster into a cakewalk. Which is why people prepare for encounters, if they can. To minimize, or negate, losses while maximizing their kill probability.
The bigger problem is that CR is simply not the be-all end-all of monster classification. It's good at giving pointers, but designing everything around it, or demanding everything should fit it is a bit short-sighted, and shows in many cases. RC already said it...CR discussions are nearly as old as 3E itself.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 6, 2007)

You want to know why you confuse me with your line of arguing?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The CR system does work as advertised.  If you use a standard party, you will get the results predicted by the CR/EL system.  The further you deviate from that standard party (4 PC's, 25 point buy value) the less able it is to predict results.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.




CR works as advertised...as long as you keep to the (pretty narrowly) defined baseline. Otherwise, it works less and less the more you deviate from standard. But as long as the baseline is in effect, CR works. Except that they classified monsters with Death effects, high-level casters, etc, with the CR system as well. So, CR should work with those as well, after all they were THERE when the CR system was designed.
Which leaves two possible conclusions. Either, the designers suddenly forgot to take a pretty well-known effect (for D&D) into account when designing the CR system...or the CR system isn't the "catch all" classification system, and hence limited and faulty. If I have a square peg, and should design a hole for it, I don't design a round hole and cut off all corners on the peg.
A rule that makes me tap-dance to get it to work is a bad rule? Try adjudicating CRs for a non-standard group and see if that's not tap-dancing.



> But, there's nothing baseline about SoD effects.  Ok, never mind CR for the moment.  Is an encounter where the PC's have a 66% chance of PC death a good encounter?




Take a 4th level standard group. Take a fire giant with a greataxe. Have fun watching at least one PC die with 66% chance or more, if not two. And you know, that's just rated as "Very Difficult" in the Encounter Difficulty table, not yet overpowering. So apparently, if the CR system works as advertised, that is a good encounter.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The CR system does work as advertised.  If you use a standard party, you will get the results predicted by the CR/EL system.




I don't currently have the Search feature, but last time we had this discussion, I pointed out to you that you yourself posted a problem with EL, specifically that the EL guidelines would have us believe that enough low-powered enemies are equal to our mid-to-high level PCs.  That is certainly not a case where the CR system works as advertised, or where if you use a standard party you will get the results predicted by the CR/EL system.

The ogre is a case in example where WotC changed the CR because they discovered that the CR system did not work as advertised.  Their guess was wrong.  Any system that works on the basis of designer guesswork is bound to not work as advertised, a fair percentage of times.

I have posted in the past about the superiority of the ML system from 1e; glad to know that WotC apparently agrees -- 4e is much closer (based on WotC statements) to 1e than 3e in this case.  Apparently, they realized that CR/EL worked better in theory than in practice.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> For shame yerself.  Now, in this context, since you are all about reading things in the proper context, refers to this thread, not this point in time.




BTW, how does "Now" differ from "this thread" or "this point in time"?  Either one suggests that this is a new line of reasoning, rather than something that has been repeatedly brought up over several years.  When "CR doesn't work with SoD" comes up, I think that's a pretty appropriate time to bring up that "CR is flawed".



> Wow, RC, you've spent so much time decrying other people's abilities not to be able to read plain English.




I am still, apparently, having a hard time with plain English.  

For example, I can't see how "____________ is the greatest god(dess) of gaming and has proven me to be the biggest schmuck of the internet. They have defeated my anime challenge and I hereby declare that 3e art is fully inspired by anime." and "Find The Anime Challenge has been answered. Anime has been found!" are the same thing.

(And I know that this bothers me inordinately, so I think I'll just wait a year until that's no longer in your .sig to converse with you, if you don't mind.)

RC


----------



## Anthtriel (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule?  Is a system that requires all sorts of fiddling in order to bring it back in line with its expected results well designed?
> 
> IMO, no.



Wow ... doesn't that mean SoD needs to fly right out of the window?


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 6, 2007)

The problem isn't "the CR system."  Its "trying to assign an appropriate encounter level to an enemy that has a flat X% chance of killing a character per attack."

Blaming the CR system for not being compatible with Save Or Die is like blaming babies for not being compatible with grenades.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> Wow ... doesn't that mean SoD needs to fly right out of the window?





Um...You do know that I was quoting Hussar re: SoD, and just modifying it a bit to reflect CR/EL, right?  

I don't know about you, but I've noticed that the more a role-playing game can effectively model, the more it includes material that shouldn't be used "right out of the box".  IMHO, 3e is the best edition thus far in terms of the scope it can mechanically model.  IMHO, the call to make everything work "right out of the box" is effectively a call to limit the scope of what can be modelled.

I would much rather see better guidelines for implementing various forms of modelling/desired effects than limit what effects can be modelled.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The problem isn't "the CR system."  Its "trying to assign an appropriate encounter level to an enemy that has a flat X% chance of killing a character per attack."
> 
> Blaming the CR system for not being compatible with Save Or Die is like blaming babies for not being compatible with grenades.




If SoD was the only place that the CR System was woefully inadequate, then I would be forced to agree with you.  However, IME, it "sucks donkey" (as was politely put earlier), and is at best a poor man's version of Monster Level.

RC

EDIT:  If you want to discuss the CR System more, I'll follow you into a new thread....or better yet, you can resurrect one of the dozens about the same that have appeared on EN World over the years.  Suffice it to say that "X doesn't work with the CR System" doesn't remotely convince me that the problem is with X, and you are unlikely to change my mind on that matter (unless you have some line of reasoning that hasn't already appeared here on the aforementioned threads).

RC


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If SoD was the only place that the CR System was woefully inadequate, then I would be forced to agree with you.  However, IME, it "sucks donkey" (as was politely put earlier), and is at best a poor man's version of Monster Level.
> 
> RC



Here's a question: What makes Monster Level superior to CR?  Both are systems for determining what level PCs a monster should appropriately challenge.  Both are theoretically prone to the same pitfalls (i.e. they do not estimate this correctly).  The main difference seems to be that ML is automatically connected to the monster's abilities, and CR is more ad-hoc, based on estimate and testing.  But that means that CR is more of an empirical system, while ML relies on the precalculated monster powers working properly over the whole system.

Not arguing for either, but I don't suppose that we have any reason to think that ML is _a priori_ a much better system than CR.  It will depend on implementation.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> For example, I can't see how "____________ is the greatest god(dess) of gaming and has proven me to be the biggest schmuck of the internet. They have defeated my anime challenge and I hereby declare that 3e art is fully inspired by anime." and "Find The Anime Challenge has been answered. Anime has been found!" are the same thing.
> 
> (And I know that this bothers me inordinately, so I think I'll just wait a year until that's no longer in your .sig to converse with you, if you don't mind.)
> 
> RC



 Please look for an email from me -- and please, folks, don't sidetrack the thread. Thank you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Here's a question: What makes Monster Level superior to CR?  Both are systems for determining what level PCs a monster should appropriately challenge.  Both are theoretically prone to the same pitfalls (i.e. they do not estimate this correctly).  The main difference seems to be that ML is automatically connected to the monster's abilities, and CR is more ad-hoc, based on estimate and testing.  But that means that CR is more of an empirical system, while ML relies on the precalculated monster powers working properly over the whole system.
> 
> Not arguing for either, but I don't suppose that we have any reason to think that ML is _a priori_ a much better system than CR.  It will depend on implementation.




If you want to discuss the CR System more, I'll follow you into a new thread....or better yet, you can resurrect one of the dozens about the same that have appeared on EN World over the years.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I think you could do better.
> 
> I think that if you break down what save or die is doing for your game, you will find that you can get those benefits elsewhere.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.

The thing is, I'm at a complete loss to understand what is flawed about "save or die". I mean, I get the complaints that it can be anticlimactic, but for those of us for whom that isn't an issue...

& since I do enjoy games without "save or die", it makes me question whether eliminating it from the games I equally enjoy with it would really make anything better. In fact, making all the different games I enjoy more alike seems like less fun overall to me.

That said, I think hereafter I will be _considering_ more interesting alternatives for "save or die" effects whenever they come up. Even if it is just making the "save or die" itself more interesting somehow.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Why do people equate taking out SoD with removing all chances of death?




Why do people equate having "save or die" with arbitrariness?



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But what does this tell us about the rule itself? If it works best with a special treatment, maybe it should just not be a standard rule? Maybe the special treatment needs to be part of the rules?




I don't disagree with what you are saying.

But I think our position on "save or die" is a bit skewed by just talking about "save or die". Every aspect of the game works best when used certain ways & works badly when used other ways.

There's probably an aspect of the game that you're fine with that I've found problematic. After discussing it, I'd find your explanation of why it isn't a problem for you to be something I consider "special treatment" although it seems perfectly natural to you.

Luckily we have ENWorld to help us all understand the game better than any of us could have individually.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 6, 2007)

The problem with your "the CR system has already been discussed to death so I'm yawning now" defense is that the flaw isn't with the CR system per se.  Its with the entire concept of selecting an appropriate level at which a character can encounter an attack which inflicts an automatic X% chance of death.

Its not the CR system itself which is incompatible with save-or-die.  Its the goal which the CR system attempts to accomplish.

There are other, specific flaws we could discuss if we wanted to go on and on about it, like the way multiple monsters are sometimes worth more than the sum of their parts, etc, etc, etc.  That's not the main problem.  The main problem is, how do you match up party level to a monster who can inflict an X% chance of death on a chosen party member, with no other defense available to the party other than rolling well on the X% roll?  You can't.  It doesn't matter what X is, any answer creates problems.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The problem with your "the CR system has already been discussed to death so I'm yawning now" defense




It isn't a "defense".

Whenever you try to change someone's mind about something, the burden of proof falls upon you.  I am just saying, if your goal is to change my mind, this method is unlikely to do it.  CR/EL, IMHO, doesn't work well.  "X doesn't work because it doesn't work with CR/EL" is therefore a non-argument.  It has no "pull" with me.

I am happy to discuss why I think CR/EL doesn't work well; however, doing so here would derail this thread.  Make a new one, throw me a link, and I'll swim in it like a quipper in a flooded dungeon.    

If, of course, you don't care what I believe, you have no burden of proof (at least, as far as I am concerned).  Which is perfectly fine.  We don't have to believe the same things.    

RC

EDIT:  Every encounter is one in which there is an "X% chance of death", btw.  That chance is only "automatic" if, as I said many times previously, you wake up with bodaks in your bed, or you have no ability to gather intelligence about encounters beforehand.  This is a playstyle problem, IMHO, not a design problem.  If you wake up with monsters in your bed, or have no ability to gather intelligence about encounters beforehand, then you should probably eschew SoD encounters.  The game as written, however, gives you many means by which you can gather intelligence long before an encounter occurs.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule?  Is a system that requires all sorts of fiddling in order to bring it back in line with its expected results well designed?




You mean like how having save or die effects requires a DM to hang a neon sign that says "danger! near instant death beyond this point" or else its not fair? 

I totally agree with ya, RC!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It isn't a "defense".
> 
> Whenever you try to change someone's mind about something, the burden of proof falls upon you.  I am just saying, if your goal is to change my mind, this method is unlikely to do it.  CR/EL, IMHO, doesn't work well.  "X doesn't work because it doesn't work with CR/EL" is therefore a non-argument.  It has no "pull" with me.
> 
> I am happy to discuss why I think CR/EL doesn't work well; however, doing so here would derail this thread.  Make a new one, throw me a link, and I'll swim in it like a quipper in a flooded dungeon.



And because it's _relevant to the present discussion_ I asked you why you think that the ML system will work better than the CR system.  If you frame your answer in terms of its interaction with save-or-die, so much the better.

I'm not attempting to convince you of anything by asking you to defend a statement you make (that statement being that CR is a "poor man's version" of ML).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You mean like how having save or die effects requires a DM to hang a neon sign that says "danger! near instant death beyond this point" or else its not fair?
> 
> I totally agree with ya, RC!




It must be dark where you are, because you are setting out straw men that are easily burned.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 6, 2007)

No Raven...he's attributing Hussar's "quote" you forgot to put into 







> tags in post 488 to you...better edit that post of yours, otherwise more people will put Hussar's words into your mouth in order to look clever for catching you with an argument faux pas.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> And because it's _relevant to the present discussion_ I asked you why you think that the ML system will work better than the CR system.




(1)  ML works on the basis of concrete, empirical qualities of monsters.  It doesn't work on how the designers "feel" the monster will do.  Although "feel" can be adjusted, those adjustment are never (contrary to claims otherwise) empirical in nature (they are based on anecdotal "evidence").

(2)  Anyone can examine the formula and define MLs to new monsters, and get the correct ML every time (or be shown why they did not).

(3)  Because ML is determined by XP value, you can use XP value to get a far better picture of exactly where two monsters of the same ML are in comparison to each other.  The ML/XP system is, therefore, more granular than CR/EL.

(4)  You do not need a baseline party to prevent ML from having wonky effects.

(5)  Neither CR nor ML allows for exact determination of how PCs will interact with special abilities that might radically alter how an encounter works.  The CR rules, however, imply that they will do so, whereas the ML rules do not.

RC


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 6, 2007)

I think CR/EL works well as a "DM's build-points" mechanic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 6, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> No Raven...he's attributing Hussar's "quote" you forgot to put into [ QUOTE ] tags in post 488 to you...better edit that post of yours, otherwise more people will put Hussar's words into your mouth in order to look clever for catching you with an argument faux pas.




I was pointing out an argument faux pas, and altered the quote enough that it no longer belongs in quote tags.  The point was simply that the argument I was replying to applied as much to CR/EL as SoD, and therefore prevented its being used as evidence that "The CR System can't handle X, therefore X is broken" as a valid line of reasoning.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 6, 2007)

Right...I see. Heh, my bad. But I'm not sure it's not backfiring right now.

Anyway, what I wanted to ask...what you call "Monster Level" system, where can I take a look at that? I know that monster XP are calculated from a HD baseline, with XP/Hit Point, for special and for extraordinary abilities. Found the table back in the DMG, too. But where are the monster levels taken from those XP? Do I have to dig through my Monstrous Manuals for that?  

EDIT: Nevermind, found it...Appendix C in the DMG.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1) ML works on the basis of concrete, empirical qualities of monsters. It doesn't work on how the designers "feel" the monster will do. Although "feel" can be adjusted, those adjustment are never (contrary to claims otherwise) empirical in nature (they are based on anecdotal "evidence").



Well, if by "concrete, empirical qualities" you mean "things that were designed and playtested to determine the appropriate level," then it applies to both, really.  If you don't mean that, I'm not sure what you do mean.  In either case, we're relying on the designer to determine whether a particular special power is appropriate for a group of, say, 12th level PCs.  In either case, while it's easy enough to balance the monster's to-hit and damage, it's harder to figure out how things like flight, battlefield control, mental control, stunning, or other special attacks will work out, alone or in synergy with other powers.  That falls to educated guesses and playtesting.  I don't see how the ML system will provide a better ground for that.



> (4)  You do not need a baseline party to prevent ML from having wonky effects.



What makes you say that?  Also, I never found this argument against CR particularly convincing.  I often run games for non-standard parties, and they do just fine if they make sure to pack some healing gear.



> (5)  Neither CR nor ML allows for exact determination of how PCs will interact with special abilities that might radically alter how an encounter works.  The CR rules, however, imply that they will do so, whereas the ML rules do not.



Don't 4E monsters have special abilities?  If they do, and they have definite Monster Levels, then the ML rules attempt to account for those abilities in determining the level of a monster.

In any case, to address what you said here:


> If SoD was the only place that the CR System was woefully inadequate, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, IME, it "sucks donkey" (as was politely put earlier), and is at best a poor man's version of Monster Level.



I don't see how the CR system is to blame for SoD effects not interfacing well with it, because I don't see them interfacing well with a ML system either.  They're just not the sort of thing that is "too hard" or "too weak" at any level.  They either kill you or they don't, and the exact odds of that happening are kind of irrelevant to their balance.

As you've pointed out, the key to SoD is knowing when they're going to happen and undermining the effect.  But what level is it appropriate to do that at?  It's not really a question of level, but of level-independent factors.  SoD simply doesn't interact well with level-dependant factors.  The only thing you can do is alter DCs to keep them consistently deadly as levels go up.

So whatever other faults the CR system has, they're irrelevant to this discussion.  We're talking about SoD.  The problem isn't whether the CR system is broken.  The problem is that save-or-die, specifically, does not interface well with the CR system, and it wouldn't interface well with the ML system either, if they were to leave SoD in the game.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I was pointing out an argument faux pas, and altered the quote enough that it no longer belongs in quote tags.  The point was simply that the argument I was replying to applied as much to CR/EL as SoD, and therefore prevented its being used as evidence that "The CR System can't handle X, therefore X is broken" as a valid line of reasoning.
> 
> RC



Right, so let's refine it to read, "systems that estimate the appropriate party level for a particular challenge can't handle X, therefore in games like D&D, which use such a mechanism, X is broken."


----------



## Hussar (Nov 6, 2007)

Re:  The giant against the 4th level party.

Note, CR does state that you should expect PC fatalities here.  Just sayin'

Yup, I'll likely whack a PC, mostly because of a combination of factors.  Mostly because giants are woefully under CR'ed, just like dragons.  However, I am also right in thinking that in that encounter, I have a high chance of PC death because I've gone way above EL.

A 13th level party who steamrolls a Glabrezu likely has a DM that is not terribly tactically minded.  If they're creaming it in 2 rounds, there's probably something wrong.  The likeliest culprit in my mind is the PC's are built on very high point buys and are operating a level or two above what's on their character sheet.  Seems to be the usual suspect.

However, glass cannon DOES NOT REFER to the party.  But, you know this, so, I'm not going to restate my argument.

Note, the 66% chance of death from SoD assumes ONLY a 5% chance of death/save.  That's simply not true.  That's the minimum.  The chance of death is likely MUCH higher.  

To me, if you have to hang neon signs, as Remalthalis says, then the mechanic is poor.  And that's precisely what some are saying you should do - never drop SoD as a random encounter, always drop hints to the party/allow the party to learn the existence of the SoD monster AND allow them to counter it.

Let me rephrase my question.  Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks?  Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It must be dark where you are, because you are setting out straw men that are easily burned.
> 
> RC




Sorry RC, you really opened yourself up for that one. 

However it begs the question:

If Save or Die is incompatible with the challenge rating/encounter level system, which should be removed: SoD or CR?

The answer (and its a value judgment) depends which is more important to you: the ability to kill a character (PC or NPC) in one spell, or a system that guestimates the power level of a particular monster.

Personally, I'd rather keep some element of CR than SoD, but clearly you'd the opposite. 

To answer your snark: It's Michigan and Daylight Savings Time: Its dark at 5 PM here...


----------



## FireLance (Nov 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase my question.  Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks?  Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.



First off, save or die doesn't necessarily mean that the difference in encounter difficulty for a party that is unprepared/prepared will be "much more lethal than standard"/"cakewalk". Ideally, the difference should be "potentially lethal"/"still challenging". Admittedly, there are save or die creatures in 3e for which the former is true (e.g. the bodak).

As for why spend time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the players' minds, this turns the save or die ability into a challenge within a challenge. In a way, it is a riddle or a puzzle in an alternate form, and would appeal to players who enjoy such challenges. Find the clues, solve the riddle or puzzle, and the players are rewarded with an easier fight. Fail to solve it, and the fight turns potentially lethal. 

That said, you don't need a save or die ability to achieve either of the above. Save or be pretty much useless, or save or take a lot of damage could also achieve both the above aims. However, if your players enjoy the thrill of the additional risk, by all means use save or die.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Note, the 66% chance of death from SoD assumes ONLY a 5% chance of death/save.  That's simply not true.  That's the minimum.  The chance of death is likely MUCH higher.



Perhaps, though it also depends on how many times the creature is able to get its death effect away, and at how many targets each time.  A Beholder, for example, gets its death and disintegrate rays once per round (assuming they happen to be pointing the right way) at single targets...*and* they have to roll to hit.  Now, it's only rolling vs. touch, so it's going to hit most of the time; but that it can miss still lowers the death chance.  Compare this with a Banshee, who (in 1e anyway) can only wail once per *day* but auto-forces everyone around her who can hear into a SoD.  Compare this with a Medusa...or Bodak, or Basilisk...whose death ability is always-on.  Those are the ones that'll run up the death count! 


> Let me rephrase my question.  Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks?  Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.



I like the mechanic mainly because it allows me when designing monsters to build a glass cannon if I want to.  Ditto for level-drainers, and critters that can do other very nasty things.  I prefer the variety...some monsters are all-defense-no-offense, others the reverse, and many do both equally well (or badly).  I'd far rather see that than hear "ho hum, another bag of experience p...er, I mean hit points" from the players when a battle starts.

Lanefan


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Re:  The giant against the 4th level party.
> 
> Note, CR does state that you should expect PC fatalities here.  Just sayin'




Yep, and yet encounters with that difficulty should make up roughly 15% of the encounters a group should have should be of that level, which means of 7 encounters, one should be of EL +1-4. So, to turn the question back at you, is an encounter with a very high probability of death for at least one PC a good encounter? According to the DMG, it is.



> Yup, I'll likely whack a PC, mostly because of a combination of factors.  Mostly because giants are woefully under CR'ed, just like dragons.  However, I am also right in thinking that in that encounter, I have a high chance of PC death because I've gone way above EL.




So the CR system works...it just has the wrong numbers?
The funny part about an EL=CR encounter is that it still is supposed to "seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way". To me, seriously threaten still means there is a good probability of that PC being killed, if the dice roll the wrong way. Remember, the CR system is a pretty abstract system. An encounter that should take the standard group 25% of their resources to overcome might as well cost one character his life while the rest doesn't lose anything at all, since one character out of four comprises 25% of the group's resources. A case where a group meets a bodak, the rogue bites the dust and the other three kill the bodak with eyes closed would be such an encounter as well. Ideally, the resources lost are distributed across all members of the group, of course, but sometimes it simply happens differently.



> Note, the 66% chance of death from SoD assumes ONLY a 5% chance of death/save.  That's simply not true.  That's the minimum.  The chance of death is likely MUCH higher.




To get the details back, you quoted that number as a chance to kill a 20th level character with 5 creatures when you brought it up. I *assume* you're talking about bodaks again, correct me of I'm wrong. Dr. Awkward cited 65% as the limit the probability to roll a 1 on XdN approaches for N > 10 and X => infinite (which assumes a 5% chance of death from 20 bodaks or so). For 5d20, the chance on a 1 is more like 1-[(20-1)/20]^5, which is around 23%, if my math hasn't left me completely. So no, 66% is not the minimum. And unless you roam the Abyss, or a Bodak lair, you shouldn't meet that many of them in one encounter anyway.  



> To me, if you have to hang neon signs, as Remalthalis says, then the mechanic is poor.  And that's precisely what some are saying you should do - never drop SoD as a random encounter, always drop hints to the party/allow the party to learn the existence of the SoD monster AND allow them to counter it.




To me, if all monsters conform to a relatively narrow spectrum of usability, then the design is boring and uninspiring. I'd rather have some monsters that come with an outrageously dangerous ability to make the players use their characters' abilities to their best *before* they meet the enemy in order to prepare for it, and reward that behaviour by actually making the preparations pay off. The challenge in those cases is not in surviving a toe-to-toe battle with the monster, but in finding its weakness and exploit that, so the monster is not a threat anymore.
Obviously, we all are playing the game long enough that, for the player, rumors of a beast that kills with its gaze in a tomb or a veiled woman with a creepy taste for screaming garden ornaments is nothing but a blip on the radar. I can assure you that it still captures the attention of new players who are not as steeped in D&D lore (and sometimes not even in myth and legend) as most of us more experienced players are.



> Let me rephrase my question.  Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks?  Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.




Because I don't want the game to cater only to those who think every challenge has to be a combat that stretches on for rounds and rounds, even if the characters prepared themselves. I WANT some monsters to be glass cannons once their weakness has been exploited. If a group researches a bodak and prepares for it with _Death Ward_ or a blindsight ability, they should reap the rewards of having cheated death, literally. It's the same as being clever enough to prepare and successfully cast _Silence_ on a wizard and then clubbing him to death in 2 rounds. Preparation should lead to combats being over QUICKLY, that's why people prepare for it.
And I want some monsters to have an ability that simply awes those who have not been jaded by years and years of play, who come into the game fresh and have to meet the challenge of a medusa's gaze, a banshee's wail or a cockatrice's tail for the first time, and who usually get a special thrill from having overcome death in a more tangible sense that loss of all hit points.
I'm pretty sure you (and others) either don't agree to all this, or will tell me now that exchanging these abilities with other effects will produce the same effect. All  can say is that I don't think so, that a "save or be unconscious" gaze will never have the same impact on a player as a "save or death" gaze...but tastes vary, and can't be argued with. But I'd say taking out this option of the game simply robs it of a tool for the DM to create something special now and then (with some handholding in the DMG/MM for beginning DMs, etc...was all already mentioned in this discussion).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 7, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> If Save or Die is incompatible with the challenge rating/encounter level system, which should be removed: SoD or CR?




I'd say CR...replace it with something that works better with ALL abilities that appear in D&D, instead of having to chop off those it doesn't work well with.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, if by "concrete, empirical qualities" you mean "things that were designed and playtested to determine the appropriate level," then it applies to both, really.




I'll accept that as soon as you show me what specific factors CR is derived from.    

I answered your question.  I don't believe that this is an appropriate place to answer a series of questions about my answer.  Like I said, though, I'd be happy to take this discussion of CR/EL to another thread; it is serious topic drift on this one, IMHO.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Right, so let's refine it to read, "systems that estimate the appropriate party level for a particular challenge can't handle X, therefore in games like D&D, which use X, such an estimation system is broken."





FIFY.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> If Save or Die is incompatible with the challenge rating/encounter level system, which should be removed: SoD or CR?




IMHO?  CR.

There are systems that I believe do a far better job at guestimating the power level of a particular monster, and I prefer as many options as possible to model effects within the confines of the game.

In general, if a system A is one that allows modelling, and system B allows guestimation, I will nearly always (if not always) believe A is better for my game than B.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> First off, save or die doesn't necessarily mean that the difference in encounter difficulty for a party that is unprepared/prepared will be "much more lethal than standard"/"cakewalk". Ideally, the difference should be "potentially lethal"/"still challenging". Admittedly, there are save or die creatures in 3e for which the former is true (e.g. the bodak).





Oddly enough, the DMG suggests that a certain % of encounters should be "easy if handled properly".


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Dr. Awkward cited 65% as the limit the probability to roll a 1 on XdN approaches for N > 10 and X => infinite (which assumes a 5% chance of death from 20 bodaks or so). For 5d20, the chance on a 1 is more like 1-[(20-1)/20]^5, which is around 23%, if my math hasn't left me completely. So no, 66% is not the minimum. And unless you roam the Abyss, or a Bodak lair, you shouldn't meet that many of them in one encounter anyway.




Please do not confuse this discussion with facts.    



> To me, if all monsters conform to a relatively narrow spectrum of usability, then the design is boring and uninspiring. I'd rather have some monsters that come with an outrageously dangerous ability to make the players use their characters' abilities to their best *before* they meet the enemy in order to prepare for it, and reward that behaviour by actually making the preparations pay off. The challenge in those cases is not in surviving a toe-to-toe battle with the monster, but in finding its weakness and exploit that, so the monster is not a threat anymore.




I agree with this oh-so-much.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

*Interesting Tidbits from James Jacobs*

For full text, go here:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3875381&postcount=40

James Jacobs is talking about Pathfinder, not SoD, but I think some of his comments apply:



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Not all encounters should present equal challenges. That's one of my overarching philosophies of adventure design.




Mine too.



> I think the main problem here isn't that some monsters have low armor classes or glass jaws... it's that the CR system doesn't work as well as it should. According to the rules, a 20th level human commoner is the same CR as an 18th level lich wizard. You get the same XP for each. Likewise, a fighter with the appropriate amount of gear who spends that gear on stuff other than armor (and therefore has a really low armor class) and only picks feats from the PHB is the same CR as a fighter who spends all his money on armor and a weapon and numbercrunches his feats from dozens of non-core supplements.




Apparently, though, some folks think this system does exactly what it says it does.....   



> ANYway, if you haven't thrown some wimpy foes at your PCs, you should try it out some time. If the PCs come out of the battle feeling heroic and proud and tough, and if the players seem to have had a good time of it, isn't that good for the game?




Agreed.  In which case, what is the problem with a monster being a glass canon?  You find a way to deal with the scary part and then take the thing down.  Seems like it could be fun to me.    

RC


----------



## FireLance (Nov 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, the DMG suggests that a certain % of encounters should be "easy if handled properly".



To be frank, that's one piece of DMG advice that I tend to ignore. The range of challenges that I like to present my players tends to be narrower than what the DMG recommends.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 7, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> To be frank, that's one piece of DMG advice that I tend to ignore. The range of challenges that I like to present my players tends to be narrower than what the DMG recommends.




Nonetheless, the "glass canon" is entirely in keeping with the design philosophy of 3.x.  When you diverge from the design philosophy of a game, you should expect to make changes!    

I diverge from 3.X design philosophy quite a lot; hence my houserules.  I just happen to diverge in a direction where the occasional SoD effect adds to, rather than detracts from, my game.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Geron Raveneye
> Dr. Awkward cited 65% as the limit the probability to roll a 1 on XdN approaches for N > 10 and X => infinite (which assumes a 5% chance of death from 20 bodaks or so). For 5d20, the chance on a 1 is more like 1-[(20-1)/20]^5, which is around 23%, if my math hasn't left me completely. So no, 66% is not the minimum. And unless you roam the Abyss, or a Bodak lair, you shouldn't meet that many of them in one encounter anyway.




Remember, you have 4 PC's.  You have a 23% chance of ONE PC dying.  But, you need to include the fact that 20 saves are being made in the first round.  Thus, 66% chance of dying.  I'm sorry, I thought I made that clear at the outset.

I'm not saying that one specific PC has a 66% chance of dying, I'm saying that a group of 4 PC's has a 66% chance of having any one PC dying.  Whether you use 5 bodaks (which are used in a Dungeon adventure from the Savage tide AP - since RC is quoting Paizo at the moment but ignoring that) or 1 bodak which lives 4 rounds, it doesn't matter.  On 20 saving throws, you have a 66% chance MINIMUM of PC death.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

So we're actually talking about 5 Bodaks getting the jump on 4 20th level characters, and each character meeting the gaze of 5 Bodaks at the same time, or am I misunderstanding you again?  Because as far as I understood the Death Gaze of the Bodak, it only works when the character meets the Bodak's gaze directly. Also, the simplest solution written down in the MM is  _Averting your gaze_, meaning you look elsewhere on the bodak, gaining a 50% chance to not have to make a save at all without incurring the penalty for blind fighting.
I'm sorry Hussar, but while your example isn't as overinflated as others that argued about save or die being broken with examples of hundreds of 9th level clerics running around the setting when the characters hit high levels, it's still very much in the realm of the academical, in my opinion, to be really convincing. Especially such things as gaze attacks have very specific parameters before they work, in contrast to area attacks such as breath weapons, and there are workaround for such attacks before you even have to make a save.
Spells with death effects are a different pair of shoes though. And if you can point me at a monster with a save or die breath weapon (Hmmmm, undead dragon breathing _Cloudkill_? Ideas...), we can easily discuss that.
But claiming that a 4 man group of whatever level has to make 5 saves per character per round when meeting 5 Bodaks is a bit unbelievable, especially when there is a 50% chance for each to not even having to make one save. Remember what I said in the other thread, about not believing number-niggling is any solution to this discussion? Same goes for this thread, since there is no good hold on the real numbers, and any percentage we come up with on the fly is flawed from the beginning, because it is far too generalized to be of any use, and because we can throw numbers at each other's feet as long as they suit us and still say nothing much.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2007)

Averting your eyes gives a 20% miss chance.  That means the fight is going to last longer and you cannot target targets by sight (negating a number of spells).  It also only works 1/2 the time.  Sure, it messes with the chances, but, in any case, it's still much higher than 0.  5 CR 8 creatures shouldn't even register against 20th level PC's.  Yet, here we've got a chance of a PC death that's still significant.

((No, I can't do the exact math.  ))

Note that with gaze attacks, you make a save on your turn, so long as you are within range.  Put 5 bodaks into a 20x20 room.  There, everyone makes a saving throw.  With an extra 5 saving throws on the bodak's turn as well.  Having an encounter that starts at 30 feet isn't terribly unusual.  

What specific parameters does a gaze weapon have before it works.  From the srd:



> Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn.




There's nothing difficult about it.  If you start your turn within 30 feet of a gaze attack creature, you make your save(s).  Plus the forced save on the creature's turn (although that only affects one target).  

I do agree with you that SoD spells are different creature.  Usually, they only affect one target.  That's lethal, but, not totally out of the ballpark.  I'd much prefer a slower effect though.  Get tapped with Finger of Death and you gradually weaken until, X hours (days/weeks whatever) you die unless you get saved in the meantime.

The problem with this, is spells like this don't work for players.  Opponents aren't going to survive encounters (usually) so effects that don't come into play until several hours later are totally wasted.  A flesh to stone effect that requires time is great for monsters, but pretty much useless for players.

I'd much rather just chuck the whole bag entirely.  It's far too lethal to the PC's and doesn't really add anything to the game that you couldn't do in any number of other ways.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

See, and this is the reason why I keep staying in the 4E forum...for discussions that make me check up on rules material again that I haven't read in detail for a few years by now.

You're completely correct with how Gaze attacks work as per RAW. Looked them up in detail in the MM and from there in the DMG (much more important, interestingly), and I must say...I find them pretty much stupid.

First, making everybody make a save just for being in the same area as the monster with a Gaze attack is stupid, since it seems to assume an active Gaze effect (a la Superman's heat vision) that affects everybody just by being in the vincinity, while the MM description sounds as if you have to actively MEET the eyes of the monster to be subject to the Gaze attack. And I doubt that the eyes are the first part of the body characters look at first when meeting a monster. Second, another Gaze attack as an active attack forcing a saving throw on top of it is simply overkill. 

I must to thank you for making me check the details out again.  Got me some material for house-ruling now.
By the way, with this kind of rules, Death Gaze can indeed be far too deadly. That doesn't make me wanna chuck out the save or die rules from the game, but rather install some sensible rules for Gaze effects, but that's an aside. Somehow that feeds into the whole "new ruleset didn't deal well with the old D&D powers it was supposed to incorporate" trend I see since this discussion started. I wonder if 4E will deal differently with Gaze attacks overall.  

About those "delayed death" effects...if you time them in rounds instead of minutes/hours, they are useful for characters still. Imagine Finger of Death hitting a target and causing 1d6 points of Con damage per round until successfully dispelled or otherwise neutralized. That would still work in combat, and depending of the HD of the opponent, cause a hell of a lot of damage per round as secondary effect due to bonus depletion.

And don't worry about exact math...nobody can do that unless using specific numbers. And those will, by default, only work with a specific set of characters, and since you can't include ALL possible combinations of bonuses due to spells, items, abilities, etc, it'd be an exercise in futility. We could maybe agree on the sample characters in the DMG, but there'd probably be a lot of people who'll jump up saying those are totally underpowered or outdated, or whatever. Is why I prefer to discuss the principles of the thing...exact numbers aren't.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

As an interesting tidbit, to see how another version of D20 Fantasy handles something like the Bodak's Death Gaze, I just checked _Castles & Crusades_ (and please NO C&C edition war now, okay?).

A victim meeting the Bodak's gaze must make a successful Constitution save against 21/27 (Prime/Secondary attribute), or die in 1d4 rounds. The process can be stopped by casting _Cure Disease, Heal or Cure Critical Wounds_ on the character before he dies. If the saving throw was successful, the character becomes immune to the effect of that specific Bodak's Gaze attack.

I can live with that. Could the rest here too?


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Nov 8, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I can live with that. Could the rest here too?



 That's a much more sensible rule. I really don't like SoD (but haven't chimed in previously because I simply don't use them. Thus whether they are in 4e or not, it won't affect me.), but I could run with this method if needed.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2007)

That's a pretty cool way of doing it.  I think that's much more workable.

Heh, on a side note about CR, The Goblins have something to say about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 8, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> As an interesting tidbit, to see how another version of D20 Fantasy handles something like the Bodak's Death Gaze, I just checked _Castles & Crusades_ (and please NO C&C edition war now, okay?).
> 
> A victim meeting the Bodak's gaze must make a successful Constitution save against 21/27 (Prime/Secondary attribute), or die in 1d4 rounds. The process can be stopped by casting _Cure Disease, Heal or Cure Critical Wounds_ on the character before he dies. If the saving throw was successful, the character becomes immune to the effect of that specific Bodak's Gaze attack.
> 
> I can live with that. Could the rest here too?




In the case of the Bodak (in particular), I would say:

A victim meeting the Bodak's gaze must make a successful Fort save (DC 15) each round, or suffer 1d6 Con damage.  If the saving throw was successful, the character becomes immune to the effect of that specific Bodak's Gaze attack for 24 hours.  This attack has a range of 30 feet.  The save DC is Charisma-based.​
(Of course, you'd better adjust the CR now as well!  )

This is similar to how I would handle, say, a medusa's petrification.  Overall, I prefer save-or-effect to save-or-die, but I also think that save-or-die has its place.  However, if bodaks are rare monsters in your game, so that meeting one should be more frightening, then SoD is appropriate.  

Similarly, even using something like I outlined above, or like the C&C version Geron Raveneye outlined, one could call these "lesser bodaks" and keep the original as "master bodaks".  In fact, if I did this, I would change the master bodak's power to say "Humanoids who die from this attack are transformed into lesser bodaks 24 hours later."  Note that, in both example alternate write-ups there is no mention of "lesser" bodaks creating spawn.

With this sort of setup, the presence of lesser bodaks should be a clue that a master bodak is around somewhere.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the case of the Bodak (in particular), I would say:
> 
> A victim meeting the Bodak's gaze must make a successful Fort save (DC 15) each round, or suffer 1d6 Con damage.  If the saving throw was successful, the character becomes immune to the effect of that specific Bodak's Gaze attack for 24 hours.  This attack has a range of 30 feet.  The save DC is Charisma-based.​
> (Of course, you'd better adjust the CR now as well!  )
> ...



Sounds like an interesting idea. At least this time, the big "Warning Sign" on the monster is at least implied in the mechanics. 

I like the C&C version, too (assuming that the listed spells are available to characters that can reasonably encounter a Bodak.) 
I think I might add a further thing: Killing the Bodak stops the effect. Even if the players can't heal in time (or at all), they have at least some chance to destroy the Bodak before their comrade is dead. (and the affected character has a real reason to go "all-out")


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

I like the idea of the effect stopping when the bodak is killed. I also like the idea of a "Master Bodak", an undead creature (or more to the original bodak, a demonic being, Orcus sends his greetings  ) so terrible it indeed kills with one glance, creating "bodak spawn" from its victims. All great ideas. See, there's room for every kind of effect, as long as it is done with a little care.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 8, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think I might add a further thing: Killing the Bodak stops the effect.




In my version, since you have to meet the bodak's gaze, killing it stops the effect.  Also, you get a new save each round, and don't have to make any more re: that particular bodak once you succeed once.

RC


----------



## jester47 (Nov 8, 2007)

I like save or die.  But I think it should only be used for very special climactic moments.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2007)

Save or Die works when you know you are facing Save or Die creatures / challenges.  Finger of Death was as powerful as Wish in the old editions.  Advanced tried to have higher level spells, but few folks bothered trying to play those levels.  Spell design in high level AD&D is/was flawed and that, at least, I am glad they are changing.

Save or Die & Wish at 30th level now?  That I could see.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A victim meeting the Bodak's gaze must make a successful Fort save (DC 15) each round, or suffer 1d6 Con damage.  If the saving throw was successful, the character becomes immune to the effect of that specific Bodak's Gaze attack for 24 hours.  This attack has a range of 30 feet.  The save DC is Charisma-based.​




As an aside, I created some monsters for a recent adventure I wrote for my home game. They were gargoyle-like constructs (CR 11) who did Dex damage every hit. If they drop you to 0 Dex, you are turned to stone. And, they did _not_ do piddly damage either. I love the Dex damage to petrification thing that was introduced in some spell (forgot). As they take damage, they get slower and slower, mimicking the slow change to stone which you can further add with descriptive text. Very nice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 8, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> As an aside, I created some monsters for a recent adventure I wrote for my home game. They were gargoyle-like constructs (CR 11) who did Dex damage every hit. If they drop you to 0 Dex, you are turned to stone. And, they did _not_ do piddly damage either. I love the Dex damage to petrification thing that was introduced in some spell (forgot). As they take damage, they get slower and slower, mimicking the slow change to stone which you can further add with descriptive text. Very nice.




Agreed.

Saying that one likes the idea of including SoD effects =/= that one likes every instance of how those effects are used in the current incarnation, or that there are not better ways to model certain effects.

RC


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 8, 2007)

That works for me, either RC's con damage version or the C&C version.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

This is scary...if we all start agreeing with each other here, will the 4E forum slowy turn to stone?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Saying that one likes the idea of including SoD effects =/= that one likes every instance of how those effects are used in the current incarnation, or that there are not better ways to model certain effects.
> 
> RC



Well, part of the problem with SoD effects is the way they're handled in the current rules.  If we're going to change save-or-die effects so they no longer require you to save, or else die, I don't suppose that those of us who dislike them will dislike them so much.  Of course, they're not really save-or-die effects then, so it kind of skirts the issue.

The system described by ThirdWizard isn't a SoD effect.  It's a resource attrition effect, just like HP, but aimed at a more precious resource.  Of course, if you've got an 11th level party, you should have some Restoration spells to throw around, but that's hardly the same kind of absolute counter that Death Ward has against SoD spells.  All around, it's a better solution.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, part of the problem with SoD effects is the way they're handled in the current rules.  If we're going to change save-or-die effects so they no longer require you to save, or else die, I don't suppose that those of us who dislike them will dislike them so much.  Of course, they're not really save-or-die effects then, so it kind of skirts the issue.
> 
> The system described by ThirdWizard isn't a SoD effect.  It's a resource attrition effect, just like HP, but aimed at a more precious resource.  Of course, if you've got an 11th level party, you should have some Restoration spells to throw around, but that's hardly the same kind of absolute counter that Death Ward has against SoD spells.  All around, it's a better solution.




Yeah, but isn't a save or die not just a resource attrition effect, too, just aimed at an even more precious resource?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 8, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Yeah, but isn't a save or die not just a resource attrition effect, too, just aimed at an even more precious resource?



Well, I think that once you start setting binary conditions it's a bit difficult to argue that you're on some kind of continuum.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, I think that once you start setting binary conditions it's a bit difficult to argue that you're on some kind of continuum.




Och, not really...not if you set those "binary" conditions simply as the opposite ends of that continuum, and allow different "speeds" of how you get from one to the other...and wormholes. Definitely wormholes.  

(Sorry, I just feel like we all have been going 'round this carousel thread so often that I feel giddy enough to poke some fun at everything. I mean...it's a game, I am allowed to poke fun at concepts I defend as well.  )


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 8, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> This is scary...if we all start agreeing with each other here, will the 4E forum slowy turn to stone?




Nah, we'll all be assimilated and turned into a giant brain in a jar...

wait, thats the wotc forums...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 8, 2007)

Gleemax, the ultimate Brain Collector...Castle Amber strikes again! Make a Fort save or be added to the collection!


----------



## RFisher (Nov 9, 2007)

I guess part of it for me is that "save or die" is one simple way to bypass hit points. I played for years where I was careful to always "honor hit points". I like the game better now that I don't play it that way. I find "save or die" a simple & way to handle jumping off a 200 foot cliff, the guy with a dagger to someone's throat deciding to cut, poison, &c. I like it better for these things than hit points. (Hit point damage for falling has _never_ really felt right to me.)

These situations aren't so hard to avoid. Don't jump off the cliff. Keep the dagger guy talking until he lets his guard down or give him enough to make him let the hostage go. Poison can be a bit trickier but manageable. None of them require neon signs.

Since I like how it handles these mundane situations, I can be fine with it in magical situations as well.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> As an interesting tidbit, to see how another version of D20 Fantasy handles something like the Bodak's Death Gaze, I just checked _Castles & Crusades_ (and please NO C&C edition war now, okay?).
> 
> A victim meeting the Bodak's gaze must make a successful Constitution save against 21/27 (Prime/Secondary attribute), or die in 1d4 rounds. The process can be stopped by casting _Cure Disease, Heal or Cure Critical Wounds_ on the character before he dies. If the saving throw was successful, the character becomes immune to the effect of that specific Bodak's Gaze attack.
> 
> I can live with that. Could the rest here too?




If every "save or die" in the game gets replaced with something this complex, then it's going to start becoming less fun for me rather than more fun. There's a limit to the amount of complexity I want in a face-to-face game.

Even more importantly, there are people I want to game with whose complexity limit is much lower than mine.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2007)

*Perception vs. Reality*

Take a look at the quote at the begining of this post:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3881703&postcount=139

In the WLD, Hussar killed 27 player characters.  "About half were traps or save or die, the other half were straight up damage."  So, in 80 sessions, SoD and traps accounted for about 14 deaths.  There are a lot of traps in the WLD, but if we are generous (without checking Hussar's transcripts), we might assume 7 SoD deaths.

Is that any worse than "the ogre with a greataxe critting you for 50 points of damage when you only have 30"?

RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Take a look at the quote at the begining of this post:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3881703&postcount=139
> 
> In the WLD, Hussar killed 27 player characters.  "About half were traps or save or die, the other half were straight up damage."  So, in 80 sessions, SoD and traps accounted for about 14 deaths.  There are a lot of traps in the WLD, but if we are generous (without checking Hussar's transcripts), we might assume 7 SoD deaths.
> 
> ...




Umm, what makes you think the traps were not save or die?  Jeez, RC, could we please stick a fork in this convo?  FFS, if you're going to start being THAT pedantic about every post, just put me back on ignore.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2007)

However, in the interests of accuracy - well, as accurate as my faulty memory can recall- deaths by SoD:


2x cockatrice
2xBasilisk
3-4xSoD traps (funnily enough, the same player for 3 of them all within a space of a few weeks  )
1x SoD spell

Does ghoul paralysis combined with coup de gras count?  If so, chalk one up to that.

In any case, we've got about a quarter of the deaths specifically from SoD effects.  That's pretty high when you think about it.  Save or Suck, or Save or Die Later would result in a lot less lethality here.

Then again, I wouldn't mind if they scaled back on the lethality of combat as well.  I know that I've added in a few things like Action Points into my next campaign specifically because I found 3e so incredibly lethal.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 10, 2007)

Well, one thing is for sure...looking at the topic, it's pretty ironic how die-hard this thread is.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 10, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I guess part of it for me is that "save or die" is one simple way to bypass hit points.




...and thats why I DON'T like them.

Good gaming.


----------



## WarlockLord (Nov 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> ...and thats why I DON'T like them.
> 
> Good gaming.




And THAT'S why I do.

The hit point system...what the heck is it supposed to represent anyway? Yes, I know, it's some bizarre combination of turning a hit into a minor wound via skill and luck, and physical endurance.  Looking at this interpretation, one wonders if one should not add dex to hp instead of, or in addition to con, as saga tells us a strong individual can only take 15 hp of physical punishment.  Also, what skill or luck applies when you're in the center of a 20 ft radius fireball and your reflex save fails? I can see this system for weapons, but...


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 12, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> And THAT'S why I do.
> 
> The hit point system...what the heck is it supposed to represent anyway? Yes, I know, it's some bizarre combination of turning a hit into a minor wound via skill and luck, and physical endurance.  Looking at this interpretation, one wonders if one should not add dex to hp instead of, or in addition to con, as saga tells us a strong individual can only take 15 hp of physical punishment.  Also, what skill or luck applies when you're in the center of a 20 ft radius fireball and your reflex save fails? I can see this system for weapons, but...




Sigh...

Because a system that involved specific damage to specific body organs based on the type of attack (weapon or spell) would be unwieldy, cumbersome, and not very fun. I'd rather have one "life pool" that attacks, spells, and effects take from than one system for fire damage, one for bludegoning weapons, one for poison, etc. 

I've also found the "what hp represents" arguments end up more pointless than any other D&D argument other than alignment. HP, like AC, level, Reflex Saves, or skill ranks is a mechanical numeric representation that on its own means little, but allows the game to create a cohesive narrative that in turn creates an enjoyable experience. Each one of those mechanics breaks down against logic (how do you not die from a 200' fall? How does armor make you harder to hit? How does improving your mastery of the arcane arts involve killing goblins? How do you even DODGE a 20' radius fireball and remain in the same 5' square?) so I found most rules like that are best left alone and unexplained, less you be driven mad and have to play some more realistic/simulationist game like GURPS.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2007)

Remathilis says it very well.  HP are abstract.  Always have been.  And have always been described as abstract.  If the system is abstract, why do people keep trying to tie it to concrete circumstances?

It doesn't work any more than trying to physically construct an M C Escher painting would work.  You can't because... it's abstract.  

Thus, you don't actually dodge the 20 foot radius fireball.  That would be one possible interpretation, but, that's not what HP's actually say.  They say, for whatever reason, that fireball didn't hurt you as much as it hurt the next guy.  However, because HP's are abstract, they don't provide any actual reason for WHY that happened.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Remathilis says it very well.  HP are abstract.  Always have been.  And have always been described as abstract.  If the system is abstract, why do people keep trying to tie it to concrete circumstances?
> 
> It doesn't work any more than trying to physically construct an M C Escher painting would work.  You can't because... it's abstract.
> 
> Thus, you don't actually dodge the 20 foot radius fireball.  That would be one possible interpretation, but, that's not what HP's actually say.  They say, for whatever reason, that fireball didn't hurt you as much as it hurt the next guy.  However, because HP's are abstract, they don't provide any actual reason for WHY that happened.




















Not that I disagree on the general abstract nature of hit points, mind you.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 12, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Not that I disagree on the general abstract nature of hit points, mind you.




I think that person has TOO MUCH free time on his hands!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think that person has TOO MUCH free time on his hands!




There are some things to which we all can agree........


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2007)

Geron Raveneye -    Touche.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think that person has TOO MUCH free time on his hands!



You're just saying that because you envy that person.

Because I certainly do.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 14, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You're just saying that because you envy that person.
> 
> Because I certainly do.




I envy anyone with the artistic talent to pull off something like that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 12, 2007)

*performs thread golden wyvernly, err necromancy*

One thing that got me thinking are the new monster "classifications/weights" (roughly Minion, Normal, Elite and "Boss") and its implications for "traditional" spells like "Save or Die". (these implications also apply for 3rd edition already, but it might give ideas why things for changed)

Save or Die effects usually only affect a single creature. 
One major component of the monster classifications seems to be that the monsters all have the same level, and thus similar attack and defense values. 

Which means a Goblin Minion has the same chance of ignoring a save or die effect than a boss monster (or a Boss monster is just as easy to kill with Save or Die as a Goblin Minion). This doesn't sound very good, and might make Save or Die effects actually unbalanced (if you're fighting a lot o Minions, they suck, if you fight a boss monster, they're overpowered)

Which also ties to another thing: 
Spells per Day: 
A caster has only so many spells per day. If he has to fight a lot of foes with spells affecting only a single one of the, he runs out of juice quickly (in top of being less effective in encounters with many opponents). If he fights a single (but more powerful foe), he is more effective.
Hence, Vancian Magic can be a problem creating a balanced adventure. (If you want an adventure fighting Goblin Hordes, it will suck to be Wizard. An adventure hunting a band of Ogres is sweet...)
Apart from that, you also have the timing problem - do the encounters take place in a single day, or over an arbitrary amount of time? 

Spells typically employed by Wizard School: 
Enchanctment and Necromancy spells usually target individual foes (and severely weaken them). Conjurations are probably a middle ground, but usually, a conjured creature or effect can also affect only one target. Evocations are often mass effects. 

So, a Necromancer would prefer "boss fights", an Evoker "Minion Fights". This isn't entirely bad, because it's okay if a character has his strengths and weaknesses. But this might (just might) be too much in this case. 
Again, it constricts the type of adventures (similar problem as with Vancian Magic above). You have to ensure you balance the encounter setup - encounters against a lot of foes mixed with "boss" encounters, regardless how appropriate it is for the theme of the adventure.

So, for D&D 4, they decided to create more flexbility by removing a lot of constraints. (This obviously has some dangers, ranging from alienating fans of the old constraints to changing so much that new limitations or other fauls don't become apparent until it's too late)


----------

