# L&L 3/05 - Save or Die!



## Savage Wombat (Mar 5, 2012)

Someone's Latest Contribution to the Discussion

Didn't we just finish discussing this?

On the one hand, Monte's idea seems OK.  But when I imagine how it works, I feel this would mean a Medusa has a gaze field that says "all characters within the gaze have -25 to HP."  Not the same "feel".


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 5, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Monte's Latest Contribution to the Discussion
> 
> Didn't we just finish discussing this?
> 
> On the one hand, Monte's idea seems OK.  But when I imagine how it works, I feel this would mean a Medusa has a gaze field that says "all characters within the gaze have -25 to HP."  Not the same "feel".




I'd have the gaze attack/save, as always, with a slowing effect+damage. If you drop below the HP boundary, the gaze petrifies you instead, but it isn't completely irrelevant before then.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't really like the idea he presents. It's not without merit, particularly for certain spells, but if you look at a medusa, you should turn to stone. I'm not thrilled that it has a saving throw and a range (there should at least be an epic medusa that has neither), but I certainly don't want to see all the SoD's restricted in this way. The ghoul thing isn't bad; maybe the ghoul should have to draw blood in order to paralyze someone (and maybe there are better ways of representing that then a flat hp threshold, but that's another topic). But there should be some pure SoD's, and not just from Tiamat.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 5, 2012)

I think pure SoDs need to be a module, because no-one I know will touch them. And that means there needs to be some other way to represent medusae etc. because those are cool creatures.

Having a mechanic like the low-hp one makes it easy to swap in and out the SoD rules. Any HP threshold power can be replaced with an SoD if you're playing with them.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2012)

Just as a quick comment, I think that, despite the credit on the column, this was written not by Monte, but by Mike Mearls.

The author refers to himself as the "Senior Manager for D&D R&D" and about halfway through the first paragraph, he refers to Monte in the third person. I just don't think the web design team has quite caught up yet. Probably it'll be fixed by morning...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 5, 2012)

One problem with the HP threshold that I can see, is that I tend to track my hp by points of damage taken.  I'm sure there are others who do it that way too.  The power word spells had something that worked in previous editions with such things, except that it was with no save.

It's no big deal, but they can also have bloodied as well as HP threshold for some effects.  Or even have certain conditions like slowed, to qualify one for taking a save or die effect to vary a couple of things.  Though not necessarily like 4e's x failed saving throws.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 5, 2012)

I voted for the system described in the article, mostly because I was feeling nasty and wanted to see how the "hit points are meat" crowd explain this away if it becomes an official rule.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 5, 2012)

I like how Mr. Mearls used the column to propose a specific idea, rather than leave things vague and non-committal. Particularly since it is a very interesting idea. It has a lot of good points, though I'm not completely sold on it just yet. As Mr. Mearls admits in a slightly roundabout way, it works a lot better for monster attacks against PCs than PC attacks against monsters. Well, I suppose it works just fine for vorpal swords or some theoretical Fighter at-will with a death effect, but it doesn't work very well for a Wizard's instant death spell. It also does work for effects like _disintigrate_, which are intended to deal HP damage as much as they are intended to vaporize things. I guess more instant death effects can be primarily non-death effects with a possibility of defeating a weakened foe early.

To be honest, the fact that instant death would only work on almost-dead foes does take some of the point out of it from the player's perspective... It removes the tactical value a bit. Of course, avoiding the problems of 3E where save-or-else effects dominated high level play is important, too. No clear answer presents itself.


----------



## Kynn (Mar 5, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Someone's Latest Contribution to the Discussion
> 
> Didn't we just finish discussing this?
> 
> On the one hand, Monte's idea seems OK.  *But when I imagine how it works, I feel this would mean a Medusa has a gaze field that says "all characters within the gaze have -25 to HP."*  Not the same "feel".




This is a very good point.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Mar 5, 2012)

I like save-or-die but it should be a rare thing, which is dependent on good Dungeon Mastering.  It's easy for me to throw a catoblepas or gorgon or what-have-you at a party on any given Sunday.  The hard part comes in keeping them alive! 

Where I draw the line and say "no, you put that right back mister steeped-in-90s-game-design" is when it's taken out of classic module reprints which are so rare I can count them on one hand and have a finger left over...for the people who removed save-or-die traps from *S1: TOMB OF HORRORS*  .  Really?  "DC 25 or take damage from falling into the flames" WTF, man - it's not "tomb of Difficulties" it's not "Tomb of I think there's a little trouble down that next hallway, gents."!  

Leave it as an option, caution against its use, don't touch it in reproductions of classic modules.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2012)

I agree that it's nice that the article is cohesive and makes sense (though it's unfortunate that this is special). I do like the idea of abilities that function based on other status conditions (bloodied or whatever), but the instant death thing is still grating, boring, and anti-climactic. It also prevents the use of "dying" mechanics, like negative HP.

That Medusa effect Mearls mentioned? Apply that to someone with 100 HP in 4E and it's basically an instant +75 damage.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Mar 5, 2012)

Sketchy though it is, I see this as the seed of a pretty good idea.  Hit points are already an abstract measure of a character's or monster's ability to stay alive under pressure, so why not use them as the threshold for instant death effects anyway?  The medusa example that MM cites is a perfect illustration: the town guards are vulnerable to the petrifaction attack immediately, but the fighter along with them is like Perseus in CotT: he's skilled enough to keep dodging the gorgon's gaze for the entire fight, and so he doesn't even need to save until he gets whittled down to 25 hp remaining -- and his initial, presumably higher hit point total models this better than just luckily continuing to make saving throws.

As for players throwing instant death spells at monsters... think of it this way, when was the last time you were playing Final Fantasy, and the black mage's "Death" spell worked on a boss?  But toss it at random baddies on a throwaway encounter, and it works just fine.  I'm pretty much okay with that.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 5, 2012)

Overall, I like the threshold hit point idea, as it could help model minions to some extent.


----------



## tlantl (Mar 5, 2012)

I prefer the save or die mechanic. I'm sure there will be other ways of making these lethal attacks continue to be dangerous while taking away their sting for those who can't abide by the idea of instant death attacks. 

As long as there's an option to use save or die situations I don't really care how else they address this issue.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 5, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> As for players throwing instant death spells at monsters... think of it this way, when was the last time you were playing Final Fantasy, and the black mage's "Death" spell worked on a boss?



Well, in Final Fantasy XIII (IIRC), Death actually worked on a few optional bosses and did a lot of damage even if it didn't kill the target outright. So even when bosses were immune to the instant death part, it still carried its weight as a damage dealer.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> As Mr. Mearls admits in a slightly roundabout way, it works a lot better for monster attacks against PCs than PC attacks against monsters.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I guess more instant death effects can be primarily non-death effects with a possibility of defeating a weakened foe early.



4e already has quite a bit of this these days - executioner assassins have the ability to kill if they reduce a target below a certain hp threshold, there is the Energy Drain spell, and I think some similar stuff in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos.



FireLance said:


> I voted for the system described in the article, mostly because I was feeling nasty and wanted to see how the "hit points are meat" crowd explain this away if it becomes an official rule.



I voted for it because I quite like it. But your rationale is a sound one too! (I assume you've noticed some hp-as-meat people upthread arguing against it.)


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 5, 2012)

I kinda like what Mike's saying here.


----------



## Oni (Mar 5, 2012)

Modularity is the word of the day IMHO, to that end here was my suggestion (cribbed from earlier postings).  

Give certain spells/abilities keywords, like Death, Petrification, etc, those keywords would dictate things like how they interact with certain defenses or how they are recovered from.

Next based on the style of play you want, you can opt to go with Saving Throw Module A, in which it's one save between you and whatever ill effect you're trying avoid. Or you go with Saving Throw Module B, in which powers and spells that have certain keywords, such as Death/Petrification/etc allow three saving throws, the first fail is dazed, second is stunned, third is the full effect (or some three cascading effects, they should at least be efficacious enough so that using this module wouldn't render such powers not worth using in place of other powers). Lethality could be adjusted by lengthening or shortening the track. Now depending on the average chance of a successful saving throw some penalty after first failed save may be necessary to keep the effect having some teeth, but that sort of thing is a bit hard to say without knowing exactly what the final saving throw mechanic and the numbers surrounding it are.

There are other ways you could further tweak something like the Saving Throw Module B above. You could make magical effects, poison effect, et c. dispellable by an appropriate spell or power if they are used before the duration is complete (incidentally I think this is a more interesting way of using dispel than to get rid of buffs). In the case of magic perhaps killing the caster before the effect takes hold dispels it as well, that would have some interesting tactical implications for combat. A successful save could end the effect, or three saves no matter what so the power is like to have some effect even if it's not ultimately lethal, you could have successful saves move you one step up the track rather than ending the effect until they either get back to step zero or succumb. There are a lot of variations you could do.

For effects that are more about sudden trauma, like a knife in the dark, you could turn to the death by massive damage rule in 3e for inspiration. Since HP don't actually represent physically damage we can tweak this mechanic to mean something else, or a few different things really. You could give run of the mill grunts lower thresholds and more elite creatures like dragons (size) and arch-wizards (wards) and cranky anti-paladins (sheer skill and orneriness) higher ones. You could give them different thresholds based on whether they are aware or not or even other circumstances (maybe a regular threshold and a disadvantaged one).

You could then do things like give Thieves an out of combat damage bonus, Assassins an out of combat bonus and maybe a circumstantial in combat bonus (assuming an assassin is basically a rogue that has given up some of the exploration/social ability for more combat ability), or maybe the ability to combo his smaller damage attacks to count as one for breaching the threshold (assuming multiple attacks are possible). Maybe fighters can attack the lower threshold in combat rather out and vice versa for classes with a Death/Sneak attack.

Upshot of all of this would be that it would make the sneaking into a camp and quietly shanking the sentries a possibility without having to make them low level creatures. It would allow everyone the chance to be able to do it, even wizards, but classes that are better at dealing damage (fighter/barbarians/et c.) would be better at it, and classes designed for such things (thieves/rogues/assassins) would be better still, but on the flip side once the melee starts the combat classes would be able to shine more then it came to reaping through all those grunts and cannon fodder and such.

PC's, being awesome like they are, simply get better thresholds. Thresholds would be a dial that can be adjusted up or down for deadliness.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 5, 2012)

Yeah I like it a lot, I also like that they are trying to keep this iconic DnD-ism in without to much TPKness. 

When is the BETA out!?!??! [/lackofpatience]


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 5, 2012)

I like this idea. Though I agree, that spells should have an effect besides the save or die effect when the hp are too high.

And this idea is not new either. As mentioned above, energy drain exactly does that. Damage, and if it reduces you to 20 or less hp: dead!
And there have always been power words. Those were always good spells in my opinion.

In older editions there were also spells that were just tied to the number of hit dice (levels in 4e) the monsters have. So in the end, it only takes the total hp int account.

When i have to chose between those two mechanics, i prefer the former.

Then there is the third mechanic: kill if you are bloodied/reduced to one quarter of your hp.
The problem here is, that this approach does not discriminate between high and low level targets. Only if you deal damage with the attack. And we don´t want illusion spells deal damage anymore...


----------



## Gundark (Mar 5, 2012)

Save or Die could take effect when and character or monsters is bloodied.

The only issue is that it makes Bloodied a very dangerous condition to be in.

...and it's good to see Mike back on L&L


----------



## Oni (Mar 5, 2012)

Gundark said:


> Save or Die could take effect when and character or monsters is bloodied.
> 
> The only issue is that it makes Bloodied a very dangerous condition to be in.




And subsequently lead to demands that the healer take care of every last nick, scratch, and booboo immediately.


----------



## jbear (Mar 5, 2012)

I chose Monte's proposed system.

I don't mind the idea of save or die existing in the game. I just don't want it to reach a stage where PCs lives become trivial. So a system that limits the effect to when PCs are very badly damaged sits well with me.

If a medusa has to hit you first before it turns you to stone, then the medusa will have to use smart tactics as well before it turns you, sneaky attacks and hiding in its twisted lair before turning its powerful gaze upon you. It can't just kill you "bam!"

This gives PCs a chance to be sneaky before battle to trap the medusa before they get hurt.

It gives them a chance to high tail it before the turning begins if things go wrong.

It gives them a chance to find out stuff like this before they go a hunting into its lair, because finding out stuff like this will MATTER.

I also like the limitations it puts on wizards/spell casters. This way they often rely on their fighters so that their magic is effective.

I like how high vs low level and low vs high level synthesises so a medusa is more dangerous instant kill threat to lower level pcs but can  still kill possibly kill higher level pcs but with more of an effort. And the same will apply to wizard's spells.

Two issue I do see:
Is there going  to be  a  neat way to track % of hps so that when these special death attacks occur it is a simple matter to calculate if a death save is needed on the fly or is the game going to grind to a halt as the player does the math off the top of their head?

Will the limit placed on wizard spells ability to instant kill lead to a lot of metagaming so as to calculate the amount of HPs a monster has left or will there be a gamey mechanic introduced/put in place like 'bloodied' that the DM declares and so the players know this.

Which if the latter was the case, many people (not myself) who dislike the strong game mechanics involved  in 4e will surely dislike something like this also. As I am someone who likes good game mechanics, as I like to think of D&D as a game that I play, this wouldn't be an  issue for me. But I sense it would be for many who prefer the game mechanics to intrude as little as possible. 

Or am I off base?


----------



## Gundark (Mar 5, 2012)

Oni said:


> And subsequently lead to demands that the healer take care of every last nick, scratch, and booboo immediately.



Or leads to a lot more resting


----------



## Oni (Mar 5, 2012)

I dislike the proposed method in the blog, btw.  I think it forces you to have to guess the oppositions current HP state, which renders such powers fairly useless for PC but less so for the DM causing a weirdly imbalanced situation, or it forces too much transparency which highlights the mechanics and the gamey nature of things, and would undoubtedly be a problem for a great number of people.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 5, 2012)

All spells must have a secondary effect that is also useful against a tougher opponent. So it can be take damage, check if you are below xx hp.
Or it can be, slowed, check if you are bewlow yy hp.


----------



## delericho (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm stunned. For a change, a Legends & Lore article that actually makes me more enthusiastic for the new edition. My hit points must be low - I failed to get an Extended Rest last night.

I quite like the idea put forward in the article. I'm not sure, though, whether it's better as "if the attack leaves you below X hit points, save or die" or if it's better as "if the attack does more than X damage, save or die". (Or, how about this - the spell causes a lesser effect normally, but if it scores a critical hit, it becomes save or die?)

I think perhaps it's also a mistake tying _everything_ to hit points. It sounds to me like the game may well benefit from a "mental analogue" to hit points - another pool that is used to ward off domination, fear effects, insanity, and the like.


----------



## Daven (Mar 5, 2012)

I dislike save-or-die effects. I feel unfair that PCs can take spells like these, but the DM should care to choose monsters without SoD, or to create wizard enemies without SoD, just to prevent frequent deaths (if story is important).
I don't care about medusas, or super-poisons.
If a sword can chop your head, if fire can roast you, I don't understand why swords and fire just take away your HPs, instead poison or medusa gaze must kill you at the one moment.
HPs are there to prevent death, removing HPs is the answer to every attack.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Mar 5, 2012)

There is already a dying mechanic, would that not work for the Medusa? Every round you fight her make a save vs. dying, when you hit three fails you're turned to stone. Adjust to taste. The effect could get slowly worse after each fail, if you like, but I disliked the progressive effects from 4E that got wiped away by a single save (I'd rather see you move up the track - like disease - or simply avoid moving down the track).


----------



## Quickleaf (Mar 5, 2012)

Oni said:


> I dislike the proposed method in the blog, btw.  I think it forces you to have to guess the oppositions current HP state, which renders such powers fairly useless for PC but less so for the DM causing a weirdly imbalanced situation, or it forces too much transparency which highlights the mechanics and the gamey nature of things, and would undoubtedly be a problem for a great number of people.




I totally agree with you. Both for the reasons you list, and because I think Mearls proposed HP threshold is only appropriate to the fiction of some monsters (eg. Ghouls) but not most monsters (eg. banshee, medusa).

Maybe the press for 5e is to move away from "exceptions based design", but that is one thing I really like about 4e, you could design three monsters each with a "save or die" effect, and have each play out very differently at the table.

For example, banshees might force those in their keening aura to make death saves, making PCs who had recent lethal scrapes more susceptible - this fits the necromantic "closeness to death" theme of the banshee.

Medusa might use a "save and then die", similar to how they're presented in 4e. You don't turn to stone instantly and your allies have a round or two to try and save you.

And ghouls could use the "HP threshold" that Mearls posted about, meaning ghouls prefer to pick off weaker characters (wounded or frail).

Each of these approaches has a different feel and suggests different tactics for the players to adopt.


----------



## Blackwarder (Mar 5, 2012)

I like save-or-die effects against PC and dislike it in the hands of PC both as a DM and as a player.

As a player I dislike it because it makes spell casters too powerfull compared to other classes while having some save or die effects thrown once in a while makes for an extremely exciting game.

I like the basic idea in the L&L article (which I think is written by mike mearls IMO) it got potential, especially the thing about fixed HP rates instead of percentile rates like bloodied values but I also share the concern that looking at it from a player POV it can problematic for several reasons: by tying it to fixed HP rates the player will need to know the HP rate of the enemy which, IMO, break immersion. It shouldn't be a problem for a skilled DM with player who know how to ask him the right questions but for new players and DM who don't have some body to teach them the arcane methods of successfully DMing it could boil to boring excel spreadsheets experience. Another potential problem is power creep where with the right combination of feats and skills a PC could make the spell an automatic hit, it's not a problem when it happens once in a blue moon after a lot of preparations but if it become routine it will become boring and might encourage the ten minute work day problem.

In the end, I think that just like a lot of other things this could be solve with enough of solid DMing advice rather than more rules, considering that SoD effect were disliked because they were prone to get abused by both players and DMs, if they make it into 5e the best method to stop that would be some solid advices in the DMG.

Warder


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 5, 2012)

Save or Die for Bloodied Characters.

Simple.
Easy.
Balanced.


Tested it out on my group yesterday in 4E. Fun times. Fun Times.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm interested in this idea. eHaving used a few save or die rolls in the past I've never been enthusiastic, but I like this idea and I think it could lead to some interesting play.

Although, I could be eating my words in a couple of years with a blog entry: "Save or Die/HP Threshold SUCKS, I HATE YOU MEARLS".

I want 5e to be its own thing. Bring some interesting new mechanics to the table, so yeah, bring them back if you can put a neat spin on them. I'm game. I'll give them a go.


----------



## Anselyn (Mar 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> That Medusa effect Mearls mentioned? Apply that to someone with 100 HP in 4E and it's basically an instant +75 damage.




You have misread it.



> The medusa's gaze forces creatures currently at 25 or fewer hit points to make a save or be turned to stone.




It's an IF ... THEN statement.

It doesn't say that the gaze will reduce you to 25 HP.


----------



## Someone (Mar 5, 2012)

I wonder how tying near death (being at 0 HP or less) to those effects would work. Normally being reduced to 0 HP means you’re unconscious, but easily revived by any kind of healing, so it’s frequently not a big deal depending on edition. But if some special effect triggers on being at 0 HP from certain attacks, this may make those effects very threatening if PCs are expected to lose and recover HPs easily like in 4e. Being turned to stone in the middle of the fight or suffering from a nasty long term condition from poison is a much bigger deal than just being unconscious.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Didn't we just finish discussing this?



Yep.  This ground is well covered.

Zero interest in the proposed approach.


----------



## Anselyn (Mar 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> wanted to see how the "hit points are meat" crowd explain this away if it becomes an official rule.




It's an interesting journey that D&D is on - but some roads have been travelled before.

IIRC there was an extended letters' page debate in White Dwarf (in the late 70s) between Gygax and Don Turnbull on the meaning of HP.  A system suggested in WD was that it's only real _ouch-bleeding_ damage when you're down to your last CON-worth of HP. However, then the helpless fighter tied to a rock in front of the dragon would take damage to those core HP immediately. I think this led to the lengthy rejoinder to this by EGG in the DMG.

Much later, /4e gives us bloodied.

Meanwhile, Trail of Cthulhu (being played by some of the designers) gives you a health ability that explicitly says that it's only real hurt-damage when you get to negative health. When you are burning through positive health values you are using up your narrative clout as a hero-not-victim in the game _(That is a rather broad summary of the idea.) _

So, save-or-die when you're down to a low HP value (why not your last CON or 2*CON worth of HP?) as then you are really vulnerable. Sounds like a road  now fully travelled to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 5, 2012)

Put me down for classic save or die.


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Mar 5, 2012)

My initial thought when reading the column was to say that I was torn between the classic save-or-die mechanic and this proposed new one.

However, when I started to write a post giving the pro-s and con-s of each one I realised that I can't actually think of any pro-s of the classic save-or-die system that aren't equally valid in this system if it is done right.

So I think that _providing the numbers are set right_, this new system is now my favourite - particularly with the way it emphasises hit-points-as-fighting-ability rather than hit-points-as-physical-damage.

However, the bit about making sure the numbers are set right is important. I think there's little danger of setting the numbers too high (so more characters might die) because even at its worst it is no worse than a classic save-or-die situation. However, there is a danger of setting the numbers too low; which would result in traditionally scary monsters losing their scariness because their defining feature only works on minions or characters who are so low level they should already be running from the monster at top speed.

The thresholds need to be high enough to be scary for "level appropriate" characters (despite how much I normally hate that concept).

Using the example of a medusa: if we have a medusa that is hypothetically designed to be a challenge (either alone or with allies) for a 5th level party, the threshold for its petrification gaze and/or poisonous snakes should be _at least_ 50% of an average 5th level character's hit points.

Sure, lower level characters can fight a medusa - but they'll be in danger of being turned to stone even when coming into the fight fresh; and only when characters are significantly higher level than the medusa would they be able to confidently attack without worrying about its gaze unless they're already tired and hurt from previous encounters.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 5, 2012)

I have to say that this is my favourite idea from this column series, I really like it!!

It does preserve the scaryness of save-or-die effects, but also eliminates the case of players losing their high-level PC because on one failed roll since you need to have lost a portion of HP first. Most of the time, high-level PCs should have enough time to play well and take precautions to avoid the worst (or just run away...).


----------



## avin (Mar 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Well, in Final Fantasy XIII (IIRC), Death actually worked on a few optional bosses and did a lot of damage even if it didn't kill the target outright. So even when bosses were immune to the instant death part, it still carried its weight as a damage dealer.




Banish + Doom worked in most bosses in FF6.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 5, 2012)

HERE is the thread we had just last week or so talking about this. 

I'm not on board with this new proposal, because it violates one of the real reasons for save-or-die IMO in the first place: escalating tension

If a Medusa has to pepper you with arrows before she can try to kill you, that removes a HUGE chunk of the tension involved in fighting, and reduces it to the same axis that everything else exists on: a process of whittling down your enemies until they die.

This is not what is fun about save-or-die. What is fun about save-or-die is that YOU KILL THINGS INSTANTLY. 

Now, this doesn't mean that we should bypass the HP system entirely -- like I came around to in the linked thread, I like the idea of "megadamage," and actually balancing that in the game.

Look, especially against PC's, there's lots of different ways to survive after "death" (or 0 hp), or come back from the "dead" (healing magic), or to otherwise overcome this problem. You don't need to turn every combat into the same process of "10 attack rolls 'till you win!" Sometimes, especially at higher levels, it's okay to have it be "every round, there's a chance of someone loosing."


----------



## Aenghus (Mar 5, 2012)

One issue I can see with a Save or Die threshold system is that, depending on how healing and the threshold system work,  it could make in-combat healing  the best defence against such attacks, making healers more needed.

It tends to encourage two combat styles - a  defensive  low-death-rate 4e type grind, healing up anyone close to the threshold or an ultra agressive, swingy, higher death rate 3e-type "kill the monsters before they kill you" style. I prefer the low death rate of the former but not the grind, and don't really like the all-or-nothing gamble of the latter.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Mar 5, 2012)

Not a fan. I can see this mechanic eliminating save or die spells altogether, at least for players. No spellcaster is going to waste a slot on a "finish him" spell -- they'll just tell the fighter "just whack it one more time".

What _might _work is some kind of mechanic when players and creatures get a bonus or penalty to the save based on how many HP they have left. That could be fiddly, however. Ultimately, I'm not sure what the best solution is, but this isn't it.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 5, 2012)

I posted a comment to the article itself that sums up my thoughts:

"To address the general question, though, this is one area I think could be very hard to get right for every taste. I actually think the appropriateness of Save or Die links back to the character generation system; it's a spectrum that D&D over the editions has travelled along:

At one end is essentially random character generation; in AD&D magic users even rolled for what spells they knew (if you went by RAW), all characteristics were rolled and magic items and spells learned were in the DM's gift. There was no character design aspect of play - the challenge was to play whatever the dice gave you to the best of your ability. In such a set-up, random death fits. In early editions, you could play extremely well and still die; that was part of the charm, in a way. As a game, it was like soccer: skill in play was certainly possible, even desirable, but even the best teams lost sometimes because Lady Luck was always in the driving seat.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have character design or "build" systems where the player is to a large extent in control of their character. Character design is part of the strategy of the game. I think random death works poorly for this style of play, not just because the players put so much time into character building, but because the more extreme builds tend to have "blank spots" - levels where they work poorly - and being able to skip these makes extreme builds more useful than they ought to be.

The system suggested would work well, I think, with the first type of game - it allows random death but after a tense bit of "preliminary". For the latter type, though, I would much prefer the 4E medusa approach: multiple saves with a chance for allies to intervene."


----------



## Noir le Lotus (Mar 5, 2012)

I really don't like the kind of Save-or-die as explained in this article.

I'm not a big fan of SoD but I think that if they are well used, they are something that make players more careful on how they play. There is nothing worse that a high level party who just charges stupidely any mobs they encounter just because they have 200 hp and can't be killed in one round. 

Save-or-Die are here to remind your players than their PCs are not immortal and can die.


----------



## Ratskinner (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't think it sounds like "-25 hp 15ft radius". I do think it plays into the idea that HP are not physical damage. That is, normally your high HP fighter is plenty on top of things to avoid the medusa's gaze. Until he's under 25 hp, then the energy, luck, skill, etc. that he has left aren't enough. (Although I think I would prefer that a "trap" save like that start causing rolls rather than just work.)

I voted for it. I think it gives lots of ways to dial lethality up or down without eliminating stacks of critters from the MM (which I did in 3e). Its also easily replaced with another system if you don't like this one, with the added bonus of giving you a guideline for the severity/difficulty of whatever save mechanic you want to use instead.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 5, 2012)

Not a huge fan of what's in the article. Maybe for some spells and some monsters perhaps, but not across the board. The medusa, for example, your character looks at it, save or turn to stone. Done. Not 'save or you're slowed. Save again or you're slowed even more. Save for the tenth time and you're stone."


----------



## LeStryfe79 (Mar 5, 2012)

I like save or die in boss or mini boss encounters, or even in traps guarding ultra rare treasure. I also like more expensive resurrections. I don't think the character should be reduced in effectiveness, but rather think the cost up front should be much higher. The problem in old D&D, in my opinion, was the frequency of such situations. Save or die ettercaps or level draining wrights lounging around town in a 2nd level adventure is a little much. This style of play can quickly turn into vicious circles of cheap milieus. That said, I like high stakes and fantastic rewards, and that's an area i think D&D lost me on lately.


----------



## Gilladian (Mar 5, 2012)

The only thing this sort of mechanic (which I really dislike the sound of) will do is ensure that SOMEONE in the party will play a cleric who keeps a ready source of healing during combat at hand.  Thus forcing the cleric back into the role of buff-before, heal-during combat - BORING!

No. Adventuring means risk. Risk of death. I play a very low-death campaign, generally. But if I include a death-effect, I want it to be sudden, dramatic, and truly fatal.  Not - the monster dinks you down to nearly dead, and then before it can use it's cool death ray, the cleric heals you up... blah blah blah.


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 5, 2012)

I think it could work. And with some modifications, it could even work for people who do not like it at first blush.

For instance, for gaze attacks, if you are flat-footed, maybe it should be save or die period, because that is the instant it which you are not prepared to _not look at the medusa_. If you are prepared, that is when the medusa has to wear you down until you make a mistake and then die.

For spells, I think the simple solution would be to have spells like flesh to stone have a duration of two or three rounds. Flavour it as the magic " clinging " to the target. 

( Tangentially, this gave me what I think is an interesting idea for an entirely different kind of game: all spells are essentially " living spells  " which die when they take sufficient dispelling damage or when they go off. Durations are represented by losing a set number of hit points per unit of time. )


----------



## Kzach (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't mind save or die as a rare element that the players are aware of and can make some effort to counter, mitigate or avoid altogether, but if it's just randomly popped into encounters, or if it's used too often, it just makes games frustrating and annoying.

Maybe that's the answer? A save or die mechanic that only comes into play rarely and with warning? Elite or Solo creatures only and even then, only on named creatures like The Medusa of Smelly Swamp who legend tells can kill a man with a single gaze. Plenty of warning there and nice and rare.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm not a huge save or die fan. People talk about them serving some sort of purpose about teaching people some random lesson or what not, but I've hardly ever seen it. The vast majority of times what I've seen is it teaching people that not saving sucks, or that the DM is an A-Hole. 

That said- I'm not totally against the IDEA of save or die, just the implementation.

The majority of DMs I've seen who use them, use them inappropriately. They basically set the PCs up just for what seems like a cheap gotcha moment. It's not actually something that "smart play" can protect them from. Instead it just feels like a cheap trick. At worst it ends up making it feel like the DM is that bad guy in a movie who walks in and slaughters a bunch of people to "prove he's serious"  basically a power trip. 

It's not always the DMs fault. The way it's implemented kind of makes it too easy to use it inappropriately. Especially when you're tired or just so busy you forget to give the PCs the various hints you planned to dole out that something save or die like might be ahead. 

I've also seen it in the hands of a PC turn every encounter into a cheap boring everyone sit there while the mage casts save or die spells over and over. Instead  of smart play they just spam save or die. Gee that's fun. (Even if they put it back into the game for monsters, I don't ever want to see them appear as random spells PCs can just learn whenever they want.)

Like I said above, I like the IDEA of save or die, I just don't like the way it's worked in the past. I think Save or Die should be reserved for DMs to basically house rule in. If the players trust the DM enough to allow him to house rule in something like that when he feels appropriate he's more then likely a good DM who isn't abusing it.   And if it's something the DM specifically house ruled in for the purposes of this certain quest or whatever he's also more likely to remember to leave room for "smart play."


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> Not a huge fan of what's in the article. Maybe for some spells and some monsters perhaps, but not across the board. The medusa, for example, your character looks at it, save or turn to stone. Done. Not 'save or you're slowed. Save again or you're slowed even more. Save for the tenth time and you're stone."




"You must spread experience ...  "


----------



## avin (Mar 5, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> Not a huge fan of what's in the article. Maybe for some spells and some monsters perhaps, but not across the board. The medusa, for example, your character looks at it, save or turn to stone. Done. Not 'save or you're slowed. Save again or you're slowed even more. Save for the tenth time and you're stone."




Agreed. Medusa should petrify on sight. 

But that should be a rare effect, packs of ghouls paralizing and killing is bad for the game...  

Whatever it turns out, should be modular. Save or Die for those who like, Save or some consequence for those who don't.

Except for Medusa, she always kills.


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Mar 5, 2012)

Many people on this thread are complaining that this proposed system means that save-or-die effects  won't work on anyone unless they're already nearly dead. But I think  that's a misreading of the article.

Taking a Medusa for example. Her save-or-be-petrified threshold would be X hit points.

1) Low level characters would have fewer than X hit points even when  fully healed. For them, a Medusa is a terrifying "you might be turned to  stone by failing a save in a surprise round with nothing you can do to  stop it" monster.

2) Mid level characters would have a bit more than X hit points when  fully healed. For them, a Medusa is still scary. Sure, they can't be  turned to stone in a surprise round if they're fully healed; but if they  are surprised while weakend from previous fights or if the medusa (or  her allies) hit them a couple of times they're rapidly into save-or-die  territory. They're unlikely to be able to fight a medusa without someone  dipping into that territory.

3) High level characters would have a lot more than X hit points when  fully healed. For them, a Medusa is a simple fight. As experienced  adventurers they're unlikely to be turned to stone unless they're very  weakened from previous fights. If that's not the case, the medusa is  unlikely to be able to weaken them into save-or-die territory unless  she's allied with other harder monsters - in which case they're the ones  that are scary; not her.

To me, that sounds ideal. Low level characters need to avoid encounters  with medusae; mid level characters still need to be wary and scared; and  high level characters aren't going to roll a 1 on the first round and  be killed by a creature so much weaker than them.

And the beauty is that each type of monsteer with a save-or-die attack  will have a different value for "X"; meaning that "low level", "mid  level" and "high level" is relative to the monster, not absolute.

It's only characters who are high level *compared to the monster*  who won't get hit by the save-or-dies unless they're nearly dead. Low to  mid level characters (again, *compared to the monster*) will still  be in danger from them most or even all of the time.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 5, 2012)

I agree that its nice to have a specific proposal. 

And I agree that I don't like it much.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 5, 2012)

Thinking about it more- even though "make it a module" seems to be turning into D&D's version of "We'll fix it in post!" I think this might actually be something that would benefit from being a "module."

I think anyone can admit that SoD have a definite effect on the tone/experience of a campaign.

It would be nice to see a section of SoD that could be added to a campaign, with advice about what exactly they do.


----------



## Bobbum Man (Mar 5, 2012)

jbear said:


> Will the limit placed on wizard spells ability to instant kill lead to a lot of metagaming so as to calculate the amount of HPs a monster has left or will there be a gamey mechanic introduced/put in place like 'bloodied' that the DM declares and so the players know this.
> 
> Which if the latter was the case, many people (not myself) who dislike the strong game mechanics involved in 4e will surely dislike something like this also. As I am someone who likes good game mechanics, as I like to think of D&D as a game that I play, this wouldn't be an issue for me. But I sense it would be for many who prefer the game mechanics to intrude as little as possible.
> 
> Or am I off base?




I think you're offbase on this last point.

It would be a fairly easy thing to include values on the character sheet for "bloodied" (= 1/2 total HP value) and perhaps "wounded" (= 1/4 total HP value). These aren't really mechanics per se, more like descriptors.

I don't think that old schoolers will have aproblem with something that describes a relavent detail of the world/situation.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 5, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> One problem with the HP threshold that I can see, is that I tend to track my hp by points of damage taken.  I'm sure there are others who do it that way too.  The power word spells had something that worked in previous editions with such things, except that it was with no save.




It's easy enough to keep track of if the thresholds are always multiples of ten.

If not, then it becomes harder for most people.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 5, 2012)

In the specific case of the medusa, it would need more details.

1) Targets <25 HP turn to stone.
2) Targets 25> HP take damage each round.  (HP as fatigue/luck.)
3) Targets attempting to attack the medusa are at a massive penalty to attack her, since by the intent of the power, they are using their superhuman combat training to avoid looking at her. Circumstances may make this easier or harder.
4) Targets who are unable to look away, or who for some reason forgo the looking away part, turn to stone.
5) Specific mechanics exist to fight/look at a medusa without suffering from the gaze.

... since I presume most people throwing a medusa at their party don't want the party's fighter to just ignore the medusa's gaze and hack at her toe-to-toe.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 5, 2012)

The beauty of the hp threshold system is that it's easy to adjust. If you want save or die to occur more often, raise the threshold. If you want a save every round or with every hit, make the threshold some ridiculously high number. 

Behold the modularity inherent in the system!  When presented with a dial, why not just be happy that you can set it to what you want instead of complaining that it can be adjusted to a setting you don't want?


----------



## gloomhound (Mar 5, 2012)

I think a medusa's gaze should have a different mechanic than other examples of save vs death.


----------



## gyor (Mar 5, 2012)

First save or die mechanic I liked and I bet the assassin uses it alot as well.

 It makes sense. When your at full health you immune responses are much stronger and you are going to be more preceptive against dangers. So with the Medusa when your attacking by looking in your shields reflection and if you briefly catch her gaze your body is better condition to fight the effect. When your down to 25 hp your hurting, bleeding,or exhausted, and so you make mistakes, look directly at the target more often, and you immune system is surpress. It also scales better. Also Demigods and Gods should be immune to lethal/puterfying Save or Die effects like they were in most editions.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

I think this is a good and useful mechanic, but beware of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome. In the context of the medusa, I strongly dislike it. It makes no sense to me that a medusa's petrifying visage only works on low-level characters or those who've been through a fight. Why is it that a high-level fighter can look a medusa in the eye with impunity? Or if it's some kind of abstraction where the fighter isn't actually looking the medusa in the eye, what exactly _is_ the fighter doing? It gets way too metagamey, way too fast.

On the other hand, where ghouls are concerned, the idea seems just fine. It makes sense to me that a ghoul's paralyzing touch is more effective on a weak or wounded combatant.

If there's one thing Wizards should have learned from 4E, it's that any proposed mechanic--no matter how elegant in a system sense--needs to pass a narrative "smell test." If you have to stop and scratch your head and think about how to reconcile the story with the mechanic, the mechanic isn't going to work as written for a large chunk of people. I'm scratching my head over the medusa. I'm not scratching over the ghoul.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 5, 2012)

I like 3 saves or die.  I think we wouldn't have to drastically change the petrifying gaze of a meduse at all.  It just takes a bit of time to turn completely and heroes and nasty monsters can overcome such a thing.    If they want to do save or die powers vs minions go for it.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 5, 2012)

25 hp seems like a kludge. Maybe SoD if bloodied or something like that would work better.

An alternative way would be to roll damage. If that's enough to kill the target, your get kill/petrify otherwise either no effect or a secondary effect, depending on spell.

Example Medusa: If the target fails a save and XdN damage would be enough to take it below 0 hp, it is petrified. Otherwise, the target takes no damage.

Example Disintegrate: The target takes YdM damage (save halves). If the damage is enough to take it below 0 hp, the target is reduced to dust.


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 5, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> On the one hand, Monte's idea seems OK.  But when I imagine how it works, I feel this would mean a Medusa has a gaze field that says "all characters within the gaze have -25 to HP."  Not the same "feel".




What?  The proposal is that characters under 25 HP have to save or die, not that they just die.

Anyway, the medusa example (and other gaze attacks) needs to account for the fact that it's a gaze attack, not an aura attack.  The aura effect is really an approximation of characters trying to fight the medusa without looking at it directly.  Effectively, the rule is saying that you need to have 25 hp to do that.  I'm not sure I would ever get to that rule by thinking about "avoiding a gaze attack", but the justification seems plausible enough if that's the rule you want.

I might say something like: "Characters attacking or attacked by a medusa must save or be petrified if they have 25 or fewer hit points after the attack."  Or maybe the medusa has an aura that forces a save if you target or are targeted by a creature in the aura?

It's OK if the "avoid gazing at the medusa" rules are _a little_ complicated.  After fall, if you're fighting a creature with a deadly gaze attack, what makes the encounter interesting is fighting creatures while avoiding looking at them directly.  The rules fail if they don't capture that dynamic.

-KS


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I think this is a good and useful mechanic, but beware of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome. In the context of the medusa, I strongly dislike it. It makes no sense to me that a medusa's petrifying visage only works on low-level characters or those who've been through a fight. Why is it that a high-level fighter can look a medusa in the eye with impunity? Or if it's some kind of abstraction where the fighter isn't actually looking the medusa in the eye, what exactly _is_ the fighter doing? It gets way too metagamey, way too fast.




The idea is that a non-injured/exhausted high-level character is able to reliably fight the medusa without gazing at it directly, while less experienced or more wounded/exhausted characters are not.

I agree that the mechanics need a stronger "avoid the gaze" aspect, but  using hp threshold as part of those mechanics seems plausible to me.

-KS


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> The beauty of the hp threshold system is that it's easy to adjust. If you want save or die to occur more often, raise the threshold. If you want a save every round or with every hit, make the threshold some ridiculously high number.
> 
> Behold the modularity inherent in the system! When presented with a dial, why not just be happy that you can set it to what you want instead of complaining that it can be adjusted to a setting you don't want?




Exactly. Having a good lever to move the system one way or the other is what is crucially missing from traditional SoD. The only lever you have with traditional SoD is to adjust the roll itself--thus the proliferation of bonuses to saves in AD&D through 3E. But at some point, that simply removes the danger to a 5%, auto fail on a 1. It's important for them to get the numbers close to right, but it is more important to have the lever in the first place. If you don't like medusas in such a system, you can always adjust the threshold or remove it altogether. 

People objecting to it on contrary grounds for that point in particular are really stating that they don't want to be bothered to do even that minimal work--or that they want the "official" version to back them up when they decide to be use the harder options. Heck, it would be easy to include in the mechanics two or three stages of lethalness. Once the lever is in place, we are only talking a single number for a threshold. You could just as easily include three number, with the most lethal one often replaced with a "-" for "Sorry Charlie, you're dead."  Pick your column univerally or by monster, and off you go.



Dausuul said:


> I think this is a good and useful mechanic, but beware of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome. In the context of the medusa, I strongly dislike it. It makes no sense to me that a medusa's petrifying visage only works on low-level characters or those who've been through a fight. Why is it that a high-level fighter can look a medusa in the eye with impunity? Or if it's some kind of abstraction where the fighter isn't actually looking the medusa in the eye, what exactly _is_ the fighter doing? It gets way too metagamey, way too fast.




That's an easy one too. For effects nasty enough to have this objection, when the threshold is not met, the attack does hit point damage. The hero *can* look her straight in the eye if he wants. Then he has abandoned his threshold and gets to attempt the save like everyone else. Or he can lose the required hit points in order to not need to even try the save.

Of course, once you go there, you might choose not to have the threshold at all, so that you don't have to worry about tracking them. Instead you have a "HP amount required to avoid a Save" -- or "Heroic Avoidance" cost. For any SoD, pay the HA cost or attempt the save. If the medusa's HA is 25, then anyone with 25 or less hit points is kind of stuck. 

(The HA method doesn't have quite the range of flexibility of the threshold system, but if you want to build a penalty in for avoided attacks, it might be worth the trade to keep from worrying about when people hit thresholds or healers trying so hard to avoid them.)

If it were up to me, I'd go with the HA method for most such effects, and then tack on the previously suggested requirement of Death Saves (three strikes and you are out) as a rider on the really nasty ones.  That's simple, and the rider on top of hit point damage is not something that will be easily ignored.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2012)

Anselyn said:


> You have misread it.
> 
> It's an IF ... THEN statement.
> 
> It doesn't say that the gaze will reduce you to 25 HP.




Nope. It reduces your HP by 75. in 4E, once reduced to 0HP you only die when you fail three saves or take 50% of your max HP in damage. A 100hp PC effectively has 150HP to survive on outside of healing.

If you have 100hp, that means this ability takes off 25HP+50HP=75HP.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

I like the idea of certain very powerful spells requiring lower health in order to function.  Granted the biggest problem as he points out is that players will need metagame information such as enemy HP values.  The spell won't just light up on our spell bar when we get the monster low enough.  Of course, this also depends on how the DM plays things, some DMs are OK with giving out monster HP, others might play it up a little bit.

I think this is a feature that could tie into a "bloodied"-like condition, that way players wouldn't need to be given explicit information like HP, but only a general idea of the monster's status.  IE: "The monster lets out a wailing cry of agony from it's grievous wounds!"  *psst: it's now bloodied*


Spells or abilities that would one-shot a full-health player or a monster(provided there isn't a massive power difference between the two) are IMO, not fun.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2012)

Simply circumventing the "dying" phase and causing 0HP to finish off a PC would be terrifying all by itself.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Nope. It reduces your HP by 75. in 4E, once reduced to 0HP you only die when you fail three saves or take 50% of your max HP in damage. A 100hp PC effectively has 150HP to survive on outside of healing.
> 
> If you have 100hp, that means this ability takes off 25HP+50HP=75HP.




Are you missing a step here?  I can't follow this logic at all.  Are healing surges involved or something?


----------



## Astrosicebear (Mar 5, 2012)

Removing certain status effects from the game, paralysis, petrification, insanity, etc, removes the need for the system to handle those effects.  In addition, monsters then no longer need these status effect attacks, and everything becomes bland deals HP damage.  At the same time, the mechanical needs of the system to handle those status effects disappears as well.  Spells and rituals dedicated to dealing with effects become useless.  In effect the system becomes bland.

Now, no one was talking about removing those effects, but removing Save or Die is practically the same thing. 

I liked Mearl' take on the HP threshold.  I also thing many DM's do stay away from save or die monsters, and this would be a good way to get them to challenge their parties without having to worry about bad rolls and TPK's.

It would be easy to list in the new DM that the monsters are presented as basic challenges.  If the DM does not wish to use save or die features, do not use them, have them deal damage all the time, and lower the experience the creature gives by 25%.

Additionally, if the DM so wishes to remain true to lore of the monster, remove the HP threshold or increase it to make the monster more challenging.  Award 50% more experience for defeating the creature.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Are you missing a step here?  I can't follow this logic at all.  Are healing surges involved or something?






You start at 100 HP.

During the battle you are reduced to 25HP.

At 25 HP, the medusa turns you to stone.

You miss out on the buffer from your negative bloodied value (50HP). In 4E, 0HP puts you into the state of "dying." You don't actually DIE until you reach negative bloodied value or you fail three death saves.

That's effectively 75HP of damage from the medusa's effect.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> You start at 100 HP.
> 
> During the battle you are reduced to 25HP.
> 
> ...




OK, see, that was a better way to phrase it.  I understand what you're saying now.

It also makes me think that if that's the way 4th Ed battles go, no wonder people complain about fights taking forever.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Nope. It reduces your HP by 75. in 4E, once reduced to 0HP you only die when you fail three saves or take 50% of your max HP in damage. A 100hp PC effectively has 150HP to survive on outside of healing.
> 
> If you have 100hp, that means this ability takes off 25HP+50HP=75HP.




Being turned to stone is incapacitated, not dead.

I like the idea of people being restored when a medusa dies. If implemented, that would help. It makes more sense than being able to brew a potion using their bodyparts.

(what does a medusa feed on? In my cosmology, it's the tortured souls of those trapped in stone )


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> The idea is that a non-injured/exhausted  high-level character is able to reliably fight the medusa without gazing  at it directly, while less experienced or more wounded/exhausted  characters are not.
> 
> I agree that the mechanics need a stronger "avoid the gaze" aspect, but   using hp threshold as part of those mechanics seems plausible to me.




I guess it comes down to how the ability is worded, then. Something like this could work: "Any creature that looks directly at a medusa turns to stone. Averting one's eyes imposes a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Opponents with less than X hit points must make a save each round to avoid accidentally looking at the medusa."

What worries me is that Wizards, in a misguided effort to make the mechanic "simple," will strip this down to: "Opponents have -2 to attack the medusa*. Opponents with less than X hit points must make a save each round or turn to stone."

In a typical combat, the two are functionally identical, since PCs would presumably choose not to look at the medusa and accept the -2 to hit. But the second version gives the DM no guidance when it comes to narrating the effect, or understanding how to adjudicate corner cases. It would wreck immersion for me.

[SIZE=-2]*Or just add +2 to the medusa's AC.[/SIZE]


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> When presented with a dial, why not just be happy that you can set it to what you want instead of complaining that it can be adjusted to a setting you don't want?



Because the presence of a dial and the need for the underlying system to account for the dial may make the effect not work as well or as smoothly as it would if it was just hard wired to work correctly in the first place.

And, to be clear, there is a difference between, "I'm unhappy" and "I'll be other there playing that other game that makes me MORE happy."


----------



## grimslade (Mar 5, 2012)

I like the article. I initially dislike the mechanic. HP thresholds are good math, but can be lousy gameplay without good story. It is a 'proc' system. Opponent is at X% hp, you get this sweetener to your attack or this attack becomes available. I guess the classic is crit mechanics. +2d6 flame on crit for a flame tongue or max damage on crit.
I don't mind the Bloodied mechanic. Hypocritical, I guess, but a single level of obvious hp differentiation is good. There needs to a visual sign that someone is in trouble and repercussions for foes/PCs in trouble. 
Maybe SoD becomes straight damage until its threshold is met. Single SoD roll, 25 hp/round petrification damage if fail until <25hp, then Petrified. Heals can keep someone up, but the tension is still there. On going damage is clunky but if it is chunky enough, it should not be too onerous. Maybe you could include a 'permanency' save after combat. Being turned into a newt, but you get better.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 5, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> The idea is that a non-injured/exhausted high-level character is able to reliably fight the medusa without gazing at it directly, while less experienced or more wounded/exhausted characters are not.
> 
> I agree that the mechanics need a stronger "avoid the gaze" aspect, but  using hp threshold as part of those mechanics seems plausible to me.
> 
> -KS




Honestly, i like save or die, but would rather not have it at all than introduce a whole new subsystem like this in order to water it own.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 5, 2012)

No, not working.

Most of the classic SoD abilities are ambush abilities. Open a door and a medusa stares at you from across the room. A Pack of ghouls jumps out from a mausoleum at an unwary traveler. The fear of SoD isn't that they finish the fight early, its that they take you out before you have a chance. 

First, there needs to be a separation between save vs. death and save vs. status ailment. Abilities like paralysis, petrification, non-lethal poisons, etc should have a fairly short duration or an easy way to counteract. (In Pathfinder, smearing medusa blood on a recently stoned foe reverses the petrification). Perhaps setting the HP threshold for actual death attacks (the kind you need to raise dead or root around the pockets for spare change) is appropriate, but I'd really hate to see a group of ghouls beat a foe around for a minute before paralysis kicks in; it looses the need for the ability.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 5, 2012)

That's basilisks, but the principle is the same.  A low-level party can reverse the stoning with the dead basilisk.


----------



## kitsune9 (Mar 5, 2012)

I like save or die mechanics. I think they should be rare though (only one or two poisons, a handful of monsters, a handful of spells, and a handful of traps). Save or die should pretty much be reserved for high level because at lower level, massive damage from monsters, etc. should be more applicable.

Save or die has always been a real game tension for me in tournament play because the stakes are so much higher. If I play a home game, unless I have a ball-buster DM, if my character dies, the DM is going to provide some way for him to get raised. Not so much in tournament play. If I have little funds and my character dies then I'm out of luck. Add to the tension and stakes each time I sign up for a module. I love that sense of dread. Makes me play smarter and seriously consider the consequences of my actions.

As a DM, I'll use save or die, but it's going to be rare and I won't even begin to consider them until the PC's are around 10th or 11th level. Once the PC's get up those levels, then I'll use one or two (max) save or dies in a mod.

I can see how if save or dies are abused by heavy-handed DM's then it's a bad mechanic. It's kind of like a DM who always favors using poison or only using undead in a fight-it can be tiresome.


----------



## Meophist (Mar 5, 2012)

I recall playing a game that was like this, where an instant-death attack only worked if the opponent had a certain number of hit points or less. I can't remember what game it was, however.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 5, 2012)

First question is frequency of death in D&D. Decide how common/uncommon PC death should be, then we can discuss save or die. If you want to see PC death once or twice a session in your zombie apocalypse game, sure save or die is awesome, who needs fiddly rules and difficult to kill PC's. If you want to play Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli and see the end of the story with your character, then save or die sucks. And then there is everything in between.

I prefer less lethal systems, but either way is fine with me. This is something very easy to house rule as DM. You can always use fewer save or die monsters (or none at all), and/or end all save or die effects at the end of short/extended rest, and/or whatever else floats your boat. Or if you like more lethal, forget the save, if death ray hits, you die, roll up a new character. It sounds like next edition will be D&D: The house rule edition, so what's one more.

Edit: Side note, 4e Executioners have been killing monsters *no save*, when they are down to 10/20/30 hit points, since level 3. So even a "die no save" rule based on current hit points in the hands of PC's is feasible.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 5, 2012)

The problem with save or die is it brings a lot of baggage with it. It assumes that you want a level of lethality and threat that may not jive with your particular playstyle and necessitates easy resurrection.

I like death to be rare and dramatic. Not something that can occur in the first round of combat with a poor toss of the dice. I also don't like Raise Dead magic. I want death to be rare but meaningful and dramatic. Once you're dead, thats it. No coming back.

Save or die doesn't fit with my playstyle at all and honestly, I don't want it. 

That said, if they did implement something like Mearls is suggesting, I am tentatively receptive, but I almost think that instead of HP threshold, you should use an alternative tracking system.

For example, how about you create an affliction track that works sort of like HP. Whenever a save or die effect comes into play, it does affliction damage instead. Whenever that affliction damage reaches a certain threshold, bad things happen to you. Like turning to stone.

The idea is based on the way that HERO system handles transformation effects. Essentially, HP represents a buffer between health and death. Abilities that bypass that buffer are too powerful, so you essentially have those abilities do "damage" but its not traditional damage. It accumulates affliction damage that has no effect on you until it would have done enough damage to kill you. In other words, the medusa might have a 10d6 gaze. Whenever you look at her, you take gaze damage. By itself that damage has no effect, but as soon as it totals your max HP, you turn to stone.

It doesn't have to work like that, but thats the general idea. You could use a 4e or M&M 3e inspired tiered save system instead. Or I could also live with some kind of Fate point mechanic, where every PC has a certain number of Fate points and any time they fail a save or die effect, they can spend a Fate point to counter it.

But my acceptance of such a system depends entirely on how many Fate points PCs get and how easy they are to recover. I can live with a tiered save or die approach, but otherwise, I would prefer save or die to be a completely optional module. I have no interest in old school save or die mechanics as they were.

I think the breakpoint with this issue is that some people want cold save or die effects even if it means you can be ambushed and dead before you even get an initiative roll, and I absolutely do not.


----------



## gyor (Mar 5, 2012)

I actually also had my own idea of dealing with monster savr or die attacks being based on a character choice. For example the Banshee's scream gives the character a choice he can risk the save or die roll or he can plug his ears and take a substanial defense and attack roll penalty instead. So basic you choose between a 
large penalty but, being safe against the save or dies lethal effect or risk the save or die and have no penalty. The risk level is up the player.

 Mike's idea is good too of coarse.

Ps damn ninja'd on this idea, that'll teach me to only skim posts.


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I think this is a good and useful mechanic, but beware of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome. In the context of the medusa, I strongly dislike it. It makes no sense to me that a medusa's petrifying visage only works on low-level characters or those who've been through a fight. Why is it that a high-level fighter can look a medusa in the eye with impunity? Or if it's some kind of abstraction where the fighter isn't actually looking the medusa in the eye, what exactly _is_ the fighter doing? It gets way too metagamey, way too fast.




A fighter can't look a medusa in the eye with impunity any more than he can take an axe to the face with impunity. In both cases his hit points represent the fact that he's an experience combatant who can fight _without_ doing the above.

When he's worn down after many battles? That's when he is as vulnerable as a low level character without his experience would be.

The difference being that he needs to get all the way down to "number of hit points an axe hit can do" before he'll actually take an axe hit to the face and fall over, whereas he can get unlucky by failing a saving throw against a medusa's gaze while he's still got plenty (exact number based on the medusa's description) left.



> On the other hand, where ghouls are concerned, the idea seems just fine. It makes sense to me that a ghoul's paralyzing touch is more effective on a weak or wounded combatant.




It's nothing to do with things only affecting weak or wounded combatants. It's about people who are good at fighting (which is represented by having lots of hit points) being able to avoid being hit for a while.



> If there's one thing Wizards should have learned from 4E, it's that any proposed mechanic--no matter how elegant in a system sense--needs to pass a narrative "smell test." If you have to stop and scratch your head and think about how to reconcile the story with the mechanic, the mechanic isn't going to work as written for a large chunk of people. I'm scratching my head over the medusa. I'm not scratching over the ghoul.




You seem to be having problems with your "narrative smell test" because you're trying to shoehorn the effect into a hit-points-as-wounds narrative, whereas D&D has always used a hit-points-as-general-fighting-ability narrative.


----------



## Boarstorm (Mar 5, 2012)

I really like Mearls' proposed system.

The only issue I have is that the wizard is always more likely to be turned to stone/disintegrated/etc, due to lower health pools.  ( I am assuming that pretty-much-universal-mechanic will remain in Next).

While this may make sense that the wizard is more likely to get hit (and paralyzed) by a ghoul, I think he should have some advantage when dealing with, say, a soul trap.

I hate to bring up "Physical HP" and "Mental HP" again, because it's redundant, but SOME acknowledgement of classes areas of strength needs to be built into the system.

Perhaps the answer is in saving throw modifiers once again?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 5, 2012)

I like the idea and I line Crezy Jerome's idea of spending hit points as expenditure of luck to avoide the gaze.

On the players side then Save or Die effects should only work on bloodied creatures.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> OK, see, that was a better way to phrase it.  I understand what you're saying now.
> 
> It also makes me think that if that's the way 4th Ed battles go, no wonder people complain about fights taking forever.




In 4E, when you're knocked out, attacks against you auto-crit when they hit. Basically the DM can finish you off you in one round unless the battle is nearly won already, if your team isn't protecting you properly. Otherwise, even with nothing attacking you, you can die in three rounds by yourself. People die in Encounters all the time, and that's way before the really crazy stuff shows up.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Mar 5, 2012)

Further to my earlier suggestion I think it's worth analysing: What would make one able to avoid petrification at the hands of Medusa..?

Canonically, it's having the knowledge of her gaze and the wherewithall to bring a mirrored shield. This is a bit gimmicky, sorry Perseus. So, being able to fight her without looking in general - you can fight blind, incurring suitable (considerable) penalties. You can fight normally, in which case one might argue that weapon skill, or fighting prowess in general, or perhaps just luck prevent you from seeing into her eyes.

At the end of the day, a saving throw (particularly a 4th Edition saving throw) is a character having no choice but to leave it up to fate as to whether they make it or not. In the hack and slash, there's plenty of luck to determine how often you're hit, how many hit points you're on, but to get to a save-or-die dice roll is a character's absolution of responsibility - no skill, no spell, no weapon or armour can save them. This is dramatic, inherently dramatic and it seems to me that a fixed hit point threshold diffuses some of that drama. So do multiple saving throws really.

I suggest.. you have to make a save when you take a given amount of damage. What would make you accidentally look more than a smack in the face? The threshold could be your level + x, your con + x, some combination, but you would have no control over the moment when it happens. As for those poor 1st level commoners - they don't know Medusa, they wouldn't even try to look away..

Oh and I'll throw in an alternative.. you have to make a save when you're critically hit. In fact, the irregularity of criticals is a great way to make these save-or-die effects tense, but no so frequent that everybody dies. For Medusa, I'd have her immobilise you as a matter of course, but you're only going to lithomogrify if you get really hurt. Works for ghouls too!


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

Blacky the Blackball said:


> You seem to be having problems with your "narrative smell test" because you're trying to shoehorn the effect into a hit-points-as-wounds narrative, whereas D&D has always used a hit-points-as-general-fighting-ability narrative.




I'm not going to wade into that argument again on this thread. But 4E lost a ton of players because it failed this exact "smell test." The 4E treatment of hit points is one of the most common complaints I've seen among people who went to Pathfinder. If 5E treats hit points the same way, those people won't come back, no matter how many times you tell them they're smelling it wrong.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> The problem with save or die is it brings a lot of baggage with it. It assumes that you want a level of lethality and threat that may not jive with your particular playstyle ...



This gets down to the idea of what constitutes a "playstyle".  
My opinion on it has nothing to do with desire for a high or low level of lethality and everything to do with creating a simulation of actually being in the story.

If you were writing a story and would never do it that way, then it shouldn't happen that way in the game either.  But in this case "shouldn't" applies to the creative experience value of the game.  If someone has a "win the game" approach then they are talking about something only tangentially related to that at best.




> and necessitates easy resurrection.



No it doesn't.


----------



## nightwalker450 (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I'm not going to wade into that argument again on this thread. But 4E lost a ton of players because it failed this exact "smell test." The 4E treatment of hit points is one of the most common complaints I've seen among people who went to Pathfinder. If 5E treats hit points the same way, those people won't come back, no matter how many times you tell them they're smelling it wrong.




I think after reading enough of comments like this, 5e is dead already. Those that are playing earlier editions are not open to anything except a reprint of their own edition. WotC created another excellent edition with 4e, that was what a lot of people were looking for from their game.  So they are just going to create another fragment, filled with more new players, and those that look to the latest and greatest only.

I'm usually latest and greatest, because that means improvement.  But this reeks too much of retreading things already done (and failed in many people's eyes), with many articles (most Monte) being not so subtle hate on 4e.

Your edition is great, for you. My edition is great for me. If we can't embrace that there's a chance that maybe our games can both benefit from some of the other editions qualities then WotC is publishing their last edition.


----------



## grimslade (Mar 5, 2012)

Maybe you save vs medusa's gaze with your Int, if your a wizard, quick thinking and book training make you a tougher opponent to petrify. 
The nice thing with the periodic damage is that you can scale the SoD threat. Fighting Medusa, Queen of the Gorgons? The damage threshold is 75 to turn to stone with 75 hp of petrification damage each round on a failed save. Fighting an ancient medusa crone with terrible cataracts? The threshold is 5 with 5 hp/rd petrify damage on a failed save.


----------



## CM (Mar 5, 2012)

Besides the old Power Word spells, I seem to recall the 3e Death domain having a similar power. Let's see:

You may use a death touch once per day. Your death touch is a supernatural ability that produces a death effect. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against a living creature (using the rules for touch spells). When you touch, roll 1d6 per cleric level you possess. If the total at least equals the creature’s current hit points, it dies (no save). 
​
So it's not unprecedented for such a power to be in the hands of PCs. I think the rule as presented is simple and works pretty well. If we're talking about a PC's one-shot spell, I would hope that there is some kind of compensatory effect if the target isn't below the HP threshold.

For example, _flesh to stone _spell: If the target is below the HP threshold, it must save or turn to stone. If above the HP threshold or the save is successful, it is slowed (turning to stone) and can attempt to save each round on its turn to shake off the effect. If the target drops below the HP threshold while under this effect, it must immediately save or turn to stone. A paralysis, sleep, or death effect could use the exact same rules (perhaps with a different save type being required) except you could sub out different effects: sleep would weaken instead of slow, death effects could stun, paralysis effects could daze, and so on.

Disintegrate: If the target is below the HP threshold, it must save or be immediately disintegrated. If above the HP threshold or it successfully saves, it takes 10d6 damage (or whatever is appropriate). 

Death poison: If the target is below the HP threshold, it must save or die. If above the HP threshold or it successfully saves, each round on its turn it takes poison damage and can attempt a save to shake off the effect. If the target drops below the HP threshold while still poisoned, it must immediately save or die.

I think this could work well for a number of types of effect. It combines a little bit of 4e's multiple-save concept but still allows for instant effects if the target is vulnerable.


----------



## Andor (Mar 5, 2012)

nightwalker450 said:


> Your edition is great, for you. My edition is great for me. If we can't embrace that there's a chance that maybe our games can both benefit from some of the other editions qualities then WotC is publishing their last edition.




The irony! It burns!


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 5, 2012)

Some of you might be mis-reading something: the article does not refer to having a percentage of your h.p. remaining before something bad happens, but a flat number.

Which means - as was pointed out above - low h.p. classes e.g. Wizards, Thieves, etc. are kinda screwed over on this one.  Now this might be good or bad or neither depending on your point of view, but it has to be noted.

As for another suggestion that has cropped up several times here, that the SoD kicks in when you are bloodied: that makes the huge (and quite possibly wrong) assumption that the "bloodied" mechanic will be in 5e at all.

Personally, I don't mind save-or-die in moderation: iconic monsters, some spells, occasional poisons, and I likes me some Grimtooth now and then.  Where 1e missed the boat was in making pretty much all poisons flat-out deadly instead of giving them a whole range of effects; later editions have largely fixed this, but 1e played by RAW was very nasty this way.

Lanefan


----------



## jedavis (Mar 5, 2012)

CM said:


> Besides the old Power Word spells, I seem to recall the 3e Death domain having a similar power. Let's see:
> You may use a death touch once per day. Your death touch is a supernatural ability that produces a death effect. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against a living creature (using the rules for touch spells). When you touch, roll 1d6 per cleric level you possess. If the total at least equals the creature’s current hit points, it dies (no save).
> ​So it's not unprecedented for such a power to be in the hands of PCs. I think the rule as presented is simple and works pretty well. If we're talking about a PC's one-shot spell, I would hope that there is some kind of compensatory effect if the target isn't below the HP threshold.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I was strongly reminded of Death domain too.  Random death threshold would make things a lot more interesting - rather than 25 HP or die, try 8d6, with (in the 3.x idiom, at least) a save to half that.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, for one, avoiding a medusa's gaze shouldn't be a Fort save. It should be a Reflex save, or maybe a Perception check, to represent you reacting to the approach of the medusa and averting your eyes before you see her.

Let's ponder the different styles of SoDs.

*Gaze Attack.* At some point you're unable to avert your gaze, and you die.

*Poison. *The substance does horrible things to you, either killing you or crippling you.

*Death Spell. *The spell kills you if you fail the save, or injures you if you succeed.

*Paralysis/Hold Spell. *The spell leaves you vulnerable to a coup de grace, but when it wears off you're fine.

*Mind Control. *The spell makes you unable to aid your allies, and instead turns you into an enemy, but when it wears off you're fine.

Several of those options above aren't really that different, from a mechanical perspective, from "you take a lot of damage, and it might kill you." A 'death spell' ends up with one of two options - you're alive or you're dead. In the rules of D&D, that's not TOO terribly different from a fireball. Afterward, you're alive or you're dead. If you just modeled the death spell as a) doing a LOT of damage, and b) having some debilitating effect even if the target survives the damage, it ends up with the same game-play result, and with a good narrative feel.

Poison is pretty similar. Just pick an appropriate condition to apply.

Paralysis and Hold Spells? I'd like to see these work as, "The target is slowed and weakened (save ends). If the target is bloodied or becomes bloodied (feel free to substitute "below HP threshold of X") before he succeeds his save, he is paralyzed for Y amount of time."

(Preferably there would also be low-level spells to break these effects. Maybe if you just cast cure spells and get the person's HP back above bloodied, he gets a save to break out.)

Mind control? Something similar. The target is dominated (save ends). If he ends up bloodied before he makes his save, he's instead dominated for X time.



So, finally, the medusa's gaze. How to do it? Well, it's basically another "you're alive or you're dead" options. But it doesn't _feel_ right for the medusa's gaze to do damage.

I'd run it this way. First, tweak HP a bit so when you're at 0 or below, you're helpless, but not unconscious. That way, if the medusa shoots you with an arrow and you're cowering on the ground at negative HP, she can slide by and stone your ass.

Second, make it totally a player's choice how much risk he's willing to take. Closing your eyes negates the gaze attack, and assuming the PC knows there's a medusa around, he can do that on his turn and be immune until his next turn. But if he chooses to have his eyes open on his turn, he remains vulnerable until the start of his next turn. He can target the medusa more easily, but he has to make Reflex saves to avert his gaze quickly enough before she can glare at him.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

nightwalker450 said:


> I think after reading enough of comments like this, 5e is dead already. Those that are playing earlier editions are not open to anything except a reprint of their own edition.




I play 4E and have since it was released. Its superior balance, mechanical support for the DM, and expansion of options for non-casters are valuable enough to me that I put up with the things I don't like about it, including its treatment of hit points. For other people, however, that equation balances out differently.

Everything I've seen indicates that Pathfinder and 4E players can come together on the hit points issue, but _only_ if each side acknowledges the validity of the other's concerns. For Pathfinder fans, that means acknowledging that 4E fans have a valid complaint about having to rely on divine magic/healsticks, and about the lack of a way to recover resources between fights.  For 4E fans, that means acknowledging that Pathfinder fans also have a valid complaint about the narrative not matching the terms used ("attack," "hit," "damage," "heal," "bloodied," etc.) and about the lack of lasting consequences for serious injuries.

There are quite a number of ways a system could address all of these concerns and work for everybody. A wounds/vitality system is one approach that's seen a lot of interest on ENWorld, and has the benefit of being relatively easy to "modularize." I can think of others. But if each side sticks its fingers in its ears and insists that the solution is for the other side to just give in, yeah, you're not going to see an agreement there.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't like Mearls' suggestion.

I'd like to see save or die effects work in stages. Each stage of the progression leads to a flavorful and logical next step. The final stage is death/turned to stone/what-have-you.

Whether this is on failed saves or subsequent attacks doesn't matter as much to me.

In regards to these spells in the hands of PCs, I agree with Mearls that the spell shouldn't be used up with no effect. Make these type of spells (using 4E parlance) "Sustain: Standard" with subsequent rounds of sustainment moving the effect up a stage (probably with further attacks/saves).


----------



## Libramarian (Mar 5, 2012)

This is a more general comment but I don't think it's a good idea to try to please risk-for-reward gamers and story gamers at the same time with particular mechanics.

We need a high level switch that changes the whole game over to a different mode.

Such as a "death flag" mechanic. Your character can't die until you've given your permission to the DM.

There you go. Now you don't have to water down classic game concepts halfway. Those who don't like unexpected character death can die exactly as often as they want.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Behold the modularity inherent in the system!  When presented with a dial, why not just be happy that you can set it to what you want instead of complaining that it can be adjusted to a setting you don't want?




Because only the dm can choose the setting.  I like save or die and I won't play in a D&D game where disintegrate makes you go "ouchie, I got a booboo."


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 5, 2012)

> On the other hand, the save or die mechanic can be incredibly boring. With a few dice rolls, the evening could screech to a halt as the vagaries of luck wipe out the party.





This stems from the basic assumption that pulling the lifeless body of a PC out of a fray, retreating to revive that PC (if possible), and then returning as a better equipped party to overcome that previous obstacle isn't an option that should be a natural part of the game.  It assumes too much, IMO.  It's not a "screeching halt," it's just one of many paths in which the game can head.  For those who want the game to hinge on the above assumption, DMing advice can be included to avoid such situations.


----------



## grimslade (Mar 5, 2012)

nightwalker450 said:


> I think after reading enough of comments like this, 5e is dead already. Those that are playing earlier editions are not open to anything except a reprint of their own edition.
> Your edition is great, for you. My edition is great for me. If we can't embrace that there's a chance that maybe our games can both benefit from some of the other editions qualities then WotC is publishing their last edition.




We are talking about an optional rule here. SoD is looking to be on the outs for base rules, but with an optional sidebar for inclusion. This is how older and more recent editions can move to the latest and greatest, through compromise. The hp debate is a bone of contention in all editions, not just 4E vs previous. Someone mentioned the EGG vs. White Dwarf argument in early 1E, so no sweat, hit points are left vague for that reason. Healing surges put stress on the compromise, but really I always thought of them as adrenaline surges anyway.

Back to Save or be wounded rapidly to stone....  
I can see a range of optional systems. True save or die. Fail your save take a wound until you die. Save or suck. All sorts of stuff. Although, does anyone like save or suck in lieu of SoD?


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> This stems from the basic assumption that pulling the lifeless body of a PC out of a fray, retreating to revive that PC (if possible), and then returning as a better equipped party to overcome that previous obstacle isn't an option that should be a natural part of the game.  It assumes too much, IMO.  It's not a screeching halt it's just one of many paths in which the game can head.  For those who want the game to hinge on the above assumption, DMing advice can be included to avoid such situations.




If there's a monster with a save-or-die mechanic going on, I'm going to wager that "retreat and retry" isn't going to be much of an option anyway.  Okay, it's easy to not look in the medusa's eyes when you've got your backs to her and running away.  Additionally(working under the medusa issue here) dragging a stone statue that was once your friend is A: very difficult in the sense that it's going to weigh several hundred pounds, and B: runs a high risk of damaging the character while hauling them out.

Now, presumably the medusa is a sentient creature and it's possible it could be reasoned with.  Perhaps some tribute(that's gonna be costly baby!) to appease it to let them go.  Other creatures with lower intelligence levels, this probably isn't going to happen.  

So realistically unless you have some sure-fire escape route or some guaranteed way to break combat for a while, escape isn't going to be possible.  Beyond that, why were you fighting this thing to begin with?  Certainly it possessed something you needed or impeded your path to the thing you needed.  What's to say the "thing you needed" is still going to be there?  The sheer arrogance of the creature guarding it/living where it's located?

Retreat is sometimes possible in certain combats.  But I think that almost anything with a save-or-die effect is going to be very much a "win-or-die" fight.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 5, 2012)

One thing I dont like about his idea is that, love or hate em, SOD tended to be a great equalizer. That there was a means by which you could be taken out outside of the HP mechanism. I kinda like when the system has multiple avenues like that.

His way you can avoid the SOD by stacking HP, which is one of the means by which you avoid unconscious...meaning its just a more frustrating way of being taken out of the battle as you wont recover after the fight (without specific resuscitation).

I see where he is coming from and accept his analysis, I dont accept his solution.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

Another thing to keep in mind: The medusa gaze belongs to a small subset of save-or-die effects, the ones where it's important for _narrative_ reasons that a PC subjected to the effect is slain instantly. It feels wrong to have a medusa's gaze slowly petrify. It should happen in a flash, the moment you look at the thing. Likewise, there isn't a way to do "half damage" that fits with the concept. You're either stone, or fine.

But there aren't many effects like this. The only others I can think of offhand are a couple of high-level "insta-kill" spells like _disintegrate_. Poison should take time; not even the fastest-acting modern nerve agent is lethal in six seconds. Mind control might take effect instantly, but heroes have a long tradition of throwing off mental domination through raw willpower, which opens the possibility for multiple saves over time. Polymorph effects could quite reasonably take several rounds to complete the transformation. (I'm thinking of the "You're all pigs!" scene from "Willow" here.)

As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die. I don't think it's a good idea to try and jam the medusa into the same box as ghouls and poison needle traps.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die.




I think that is true, but it also runs in mulitple directions.  When has a D&D version *ever* had a hammer that it wasn't quite willing, nay eager, to abuse the heck out of?  Oh, look when we can use "powers" do X.  Let's use them for a whole lot of things that don't work very well, with them, too.  Hey, those "feat" things are nifty.  Every time we hit some little widget that doesn't fit into the rest of the system, just make it a "feat".  "Alignment" divides up some key conflict points well--so let's put more on it than it can carry.  

To get people to feel good about SoD (or powers or feats or prestige classes or splat books or niche classes or alignment or huge spell lists or sub races ...), first convince us that there are sharp limits on it, and when something needs to break out of those limits, we'll use something that is a better fit for that thing.  

The early guys had an excuse.  They were making this stuff up as they went along, and were, if anything, too prone to make up a whole new mechanic for a slightly different thing.  So a bit of consolidation on their part, even if occasionally misplaced, can be overlooked.  But this later stuff is like some academic relational database designer worried more about the symmetry of his specification diagrams than whether it really works or not.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Another thing to keep in mind: The medusa gaze belongs to a small subset of save-or-die effects, the ones where it's important for _narrative_ reasons that a PC subjected to the effect is slain instantly. It feels wrong to have a medusa's gaze slowly petrify. It should happen in a flash, the moment you look at the thing. Likewise, there isn't a way to do "half damage" that fits with the concept. You're either stone, or fine.



I think this could depend on the age and maturity of the Medusa in question.  It could be like spiders, where younger ones are more potent because they can't control their powers, and older ones have more control and could perhaps turn part of you to stone, turn you to stone slowly, ect...  Or we could put it in reverse, where the powers of younger ones are simply not as potent as their elders and thus may leave you slowly turning to stone or may have only part of you turn to stone, or turn you half-way to stone.



> As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die.



I agree, which as I put above, there are plenty of ways to represent the Medusa's "stone gaze" without outrightly making it a save or die.  Perhaps an older medusa may delight in the torment of her victims slowly turning to stone, but also retain a 1-2x daily-type ability of making her gaze SOD.  

I think variety and mild limitations would go a long way to making SOD more acceptable, potent, and fun.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The early guys had an excuse.  They were making this stuff up as they went along, and were, if anything, too prone to make up a whole new mechanic for a slightly different thing.  So a bit of consolidation on their part, even if occasionally misplaced, can be overlooked.  But this later stuff is like some academic relational database designer worried more about the symmetry of his specification diagrams than whether it really works or not.




As a software developer who spends a lot of time working with relational databases... you speak the truth, sir. 

(Sadly, I need to spread some XP around.)


----------



## Kannik (Mar 5, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> The problem with save or die is it brings a lot of baggage with it. It assumes that you want a level of lethality and threat that may not jive with your particular playstyle and necessitates easy resurrection.
> ...
> That said, if they did implement something like Mearls is suggesting, I am tentatively receptive, but I almost think that instead of HP threshold, you should use an alternative tracking system.
> 
> For example, how about you create an affliction track that works sort of like HP. Whenever a save or die effect comes into play, it does affliction damage instead. Whenever that affliction damage reaches a certain threshold, bad things happen to you. Like turning to stone.




Must spread XP around before... and all that.

I concur with what you're saying.  Save or Die may be able to add excitement and tension to the game, but I think it has an equal or greater potential to be anti-climactic or add frustration to the game.  

I think the excitement/tension aspects can be handled in much more elegant ways and eliminating the need and downsides of instant death.  Effects that occur over time (perhaps with multiple saving throws -- turning to stone gradually with detrimental effects) that allow the party or the player to intervene is much more exciting to me and builds much more drama and tension than "oh, hey, now you're dead."  Temporary effects that last until the end of the fight or until the party has a reasonably easy way to return the PC would still be a major blow but are not necessarily instant killers.  Things that can do serious (HP) harm in one blow are nasty enough on their own.  Thresholds such as Mearls describes might not work that bad either (when a PC is at 1/4 or less of their HP, this can take effect, and so you have to keep your strength up).  Any of these would be dangerous and things to avoid, and still leave some avenues open to rectify them if a PC is affected by them (and if the party cannot do what's necessary, then the PC dies).

Then include a module for those who really want to re-create the style of play where you can die, not pass go, and not collect $200.  

In some ways it is similar to me as saying "I don't want a DM who railroads me," because you want to choose what your fate is, and to be crafty and think.  Let the players choose, be crafty and think as they run across dangerous creatures and traps, even when they've already been hit by it (good hollywood scene of the choice -- do you save the mage from turning to stone or do you fire off a spell that may finish the big bad right now... maybe the mage is screaming to ignore him, or the opposite... ) and I think it would prove to be much more amazing than I-rolled-a-3-and-now-i'm-dead.

peace,

Kannik


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Dausuul said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing to keep in mind: The medusa gaze belongs to a small subset of save-or-die effects, the ones where it's important for _narrative_ reasons that a PC subjected to the effect is slain instantly. It feels wrong to have a medusa's gaze slowly petrify. It should happen in a flash, the moment you look at the thing. Likewise, there isn't a way to do "half damage" that fits with the concept. You're either stone, or fine.
> ...




Agreed, as to both sentiments.

Each monster is somewhat like its own sub-system, and it's alright if different monsters use different systems to replace save-or-die.  Some monsters can use a hit point threshold.  Other monsters can use a multiple-saves mechanic.  Other monsters might use a save-or-die, where the circumstances under which the monster can apply its save-or-die effect is something that the PCs can control.  (Arguably, gaze monsters are good candidates for this last treatment: save-or-die if you look; alternate suckage if you don't)  And, maybe some just use save-or-die.

Demanding that save-or-die be consistency replaced with the same mechanic is just the sort of foolish consistency that D&D should avoid.

-KS


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 5, 2012)

Kannik said:


> Effects that occur over time (perhaps with multiple saving throws -- turning to stone gradually with detrimental effects) that allow the party or the player to intervene is much more exciting to me and builds much more drama and tension than "oh, hey, now you're dead."




That just seems boring.  "Oh look, a medusa, who cares I have to fail 3 saves to turn to stone.  There is no tension until 2 saves are failed.  Only minor annoyances such as -2 to hit or whatever, which is not much different than the medusa having leather armor on, or having precast a prayer spell or what have you.

Looking at a medusa with sod present presents an "oh crap" moment as the die bounces across the table, hoping for a good roll.  Even high level characters crap their pants, because all 20 sided dies have ones on them.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Retreat is sometimes possible in certain combats.  But I think that almost anything with a save-or-die effect is going to be very much a "win-or-die" fight.





That's the kind of thinking that leads to TPKs, my young Padawan.   You could just as easily describe a situation where you manage the task, since you are making it up anyway, but a defeatist mindset isn't going to allow it, I suppose.  In any event, sometimes "defeat" is part of the game and I'm not one to believe that padding all the sharp corners makes the game any more inherently fun.  I'm fine with the idea of including some advice for those who think their group needs a less dangerous game but it need not be built into the core for my tastes.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Mar 5, 2012)

I find it unfortunate that all discussions of save or die effects end up revolving around the Medusa. I'll address that quickly and move on. There are two creatures being discussed, _the_ Medusa and _a_ medusa (much like _the _Pegasus and _a _pegasus).

_The_ Medusa is a singular creature of legend. In that legend, her gaze kills every time without question. For those who want this creature in a campaign setting, there is no need for any save or die rules. Characters that gaze into Medusa's eyes die. Whether this is fair or not is dependent on how the DM provides information and runs the encounter.

_A_ medusa is a creature that is conceptually based on _the_ Medusa, but is already different simply by not being the only one. I have no problem whatsoever with having a separate monster using more restrictive save or die rules. To be fair, though, we should probably give it a somewhat different name, like Medusa-kin or the like.

Include a nice sidebar describing the historical myth of Medusa and how to use it in a game.

For other creatures, such as the Basilisk or Cockatrice, I think the proposed system might work well. It can work well for spells as well.

Though how those spells and abilities are presented matter. The effects of all save-or-die abilities should always start with a lesser ability, and then have the save-or-die effect be dependent on hit points. For example, _Disintegrate_ starts by describing the damage it deals, then goes on to say that creatures below a certain number of hit points must save or die.

The order of presentation matters. These are _not_ powerful death effects with token abilities on a miss. These are powerful attacks with the potential for a save-or-die effect. Closely sticking with this design philosophy will make for a more satisfying experience.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 5, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Because only the dm can choose the setting.  I like save or die and I won't play in a D&D game where disintegrate makes you go "ouchie, I got a booboo."




So you refuse to play 3.x then I take it?


----------



## Scribble (Mar 5, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That just seems boring.  "Oh look, a medusa, who cares I have to fail 3 saves to turn to stone.  There is no tension until 2 saves are failed.  Only minor annoyances such as -2 to hit or whatever, which is not much different than the medusa having leather armor on, or having precast a prayer spell or what have you.
> 
> Looking at a medusa with sod present presents an "oh crap" moment as the die bounces across the table, hoping for a good roll.  Even high level characters crap their pants, because all 20 sided dies have ones on them.




This I disagree with completely based on the way things played out with the death saves at my 4e table. Each and every roll that counted towards the dreaded three was a tense moment, as the player in question preyed he could hold on just a bit longer until someone might be able to get there and heal him. The anticipation and dread DID grow with each roll, but it never started out "boring."


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 5, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Characters that gaze into Medusa's eyes die.





Not as such, for they are turned to stone.  While that seems to have been irrevocable in the myth, not so in the game of D&D.  I've played with groups that smashed such a statue and carried off just a finger for the purposes of bringing the victim back.  I've played with others who defeated a medusa then revived the entire statuary to build themselves a mercenary group.  Turned to stone need not be the end of adventuring.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Not as such, for they are turned to stone.  While that seems to have been irrevocable in the myth, not so in the game of D&D.  I've played with groups that smashed such a statue and carried off just a finger for the purposes of bringing the victim back.  I've played with others who defeated a medusa then revived the entire statuary to build themselves a mercenary group.  Turned to stone need not be the end of adventuring.




This is a good point. If you can undo petrification by (for instance) killing the medusa and using her blood on the victims, then old-school SoD petrification becomes much more tenable. Just make the save easy enough that the medusa is highly unlikely to petrify the whole party at one go.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Kannik said:


> Must spread XP around before... and all that.
> 
> I concur with what you're saying.  Save or Die may be able to add excitement and tension to the game, but I think it has an equal or greater potential to be anti-climactic or add frustration to the game.



Again, this only applies to a "win the game" perspective.  Which is fine if that is what you want.

But I've been in games in which characters got turned to stone.  And I've seen reactions of "Damn!"  BUT, these moments were still a ton of fun and remain talking points years later.  The instant excitement and rush of what to do now is the absolute opposite of anti-climatic.  

On the other hand, if I was a player and circumstances were such that my character looked at Medusa and I got slowed a bit, then that would be a complete and total killjoy then and there.  The DM has just told me I can't possibly defeat Medusa and I'm not even allowed to face Medusa.  Instead I'm trying to outlast this multiple mulligan style thing with a vague outer resemblance to Medusa.  

Defeating Medusa is certainly more fun than losing to Medusa.  But losing to Medusa is still huge fun if being in your own version of "me against Medusa" is the goal.  But any encounter, win or lose, against a not-Medusa is as fun as a wet paper bag.  

Now, all you have to do is stop calling it Medusa and it can be fun, because the anti-fun comes from the fundamental wrongness of it.   And, if you just want to play a tactical game with marginal to meaningless narrative substance, then you have a perfectly fun "game" that way as well.

IMO, there are other media that offer these alternatives vastly better than RPGs do.  I don't claim that RPGs can't do them, clearly they can.  And clearly some people find those to be the high points of their RPG experiences.  But the thing that TTRPGs offer in a way that no competition can really compare is story telling with a reasonably consistent system and yet not predestined result.  RPG design strays away from its strength at its peril.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 5, 2012)

Boarstorm said:


> I really like Mearls' proposed system.
> 
> The only issue I have is that the wizard is always more likely to be turned to stone/disintegrated/etc, due to lower health pools.  ( I am assuming that pretty-much-universal-mechanic will remain in Next).
> 
> ...




They're more likely to have to make a save vs being turned to stone - but, they are not necessarily more likely to be petrified.  If the wizard's save is better than the fighter's save, it gets balanced out in the long run.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> That's the kind of thinking that leads to TPKs, my young Padawan.



I know, but in my experience it's easier to wind up with disgruntled players when the other players CHOOSE to let them die.  I'd rather my whole party die and everyone start over, pat each other on the back for a good try and cook up a whole new party than make one player feel like a doof for dying and be angry at the party for leaving them.



> You could just as easily describe a situation where you manage the task, since you are making it up anyway, but a defeatist mindset isn't going to allow it, I suppose.



I don't think of this as defeatist at all.  Even if I've got a TPK on my hands, the party gave it a good try, perhaps the dice were against them, perhaps they screwed up.  This is natural and especially against a SOD monster, expected, succeeding against a SOD monster is IMO, supposed to be incredibly tough and basically an "all or nothing" fight.

Sure, I could DM handwave it so that the party successfully carries the newly statuesque Joe out of the dungeon safely, but that feels disingenuous.  I've been known to knock over a monster when the party gets them to 1HP instead of zero, but I feel that playing "The DM says so" card robs my players of the risk and associated reward.



> In any event, sometimes "defeat" is part of the game and I'm not one to believe that padding all the sharp corners makes the game any more inherently fun.  I'm fine with the idea of including some advice for those who think their group needs a less dangerous game but it need not be built into the core for my tastes.



As I've said before, I want SOD to be rare and powerful.  While classically a medusa is capable of turning an entire army to stone, it's my opinion that any type of great power has it's limits.  Perhaps THE Medusa herself could turn an army to stone, but the ones an adventurer encounters might only have such a power available for 1 or 2 shots and have a variety of lesser stone-gaze powers at more regular disposal.  

Taking this kind of approach eliminates the SOD TPK right off the bat, if it's simply not possible for all but the very powerful of gorgons to turn many people to stone at once then the party isn't going to risk a TPK one-shot.

It also places resource management on the side of the monsters as well.  A lot of creatures have incredibly powerful abilities that they can use so often they might as well have no limit.  If the monster, like the player, has to creativly manage their powers, I think it makes the game much more engaging.  Is the medusa going to SOD someone this turn?  Maybe she's readied the action, maybe she's used it all up?  Who knows?  I think that getting creative with SOD will go a lot farther in creating tension than simply telling everyone that they're the newest lawn ornaments in the gorgon's garden.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 5, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> A good point. Though it means were still talking about Medusa.





That is the distinction that *you* are making, though I wouldn't suggest that it needs to hold true from myth-source to game (which I think might be your underlying point).


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 5, 2012)

I think the threshold should simply be based on level or hit dice, not hp. There are plenty of spells that have worked this way in the past. One of my favorites is color spray. Used on low-level creatures, it basically ends the combat for any creatures that fail the save, but it never stops being useful. In the Mearls example of the medusa who turns the town guards to stone but leaves the hero (this is a great example btw), perhaps she manages to slow the hero down instead (maybe she only turns his arm to stone, resulting in a slowed effect which is permanent until someone casts stone to flesh). In other words, monsters like these are a real threat to almost everyone, but heroes are a cut above.

But unless they are dramatically altering the way hp works (which I hope they do not do), they should not base this stuff on hp remaining. Power words were always something under-utilized after 2nd edition because they changed the rules for getting hit points (making it much easier to get lots of 'em) without really adjusting the hp thresholds for those spells.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 5, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That just seems boring.  "Oh look, a medusa, who cares I have to fail 3 saves to turn to stone.  There is no tension until 2 saves are failed.  Only minor annoyances such as -2 to hit or whatever, which is not much different than the medusa having leather armor on, or having precast a prayer spell or what have you.




My suggestion was that the stages be flavorful.

I envision movie scenes where the unlucky hero starts turning to stone from the ground up. To emulate that flavor I'd go with 1) immobilized; 2) dazed and immobilized; 3) turned to stone.

The stages can still be impactful and cause growing tension. They don't all have to start at "-2 to hit."

And, as others have said, the individual creature can skip any of those stages the DM wishes to emulate the power of that particular creature. _The_ medusa could go straight to "stage 3." Or all of the medusas in your game could do the same.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> So you refuse to play 3.x then I take it?




I think you mean 3.5 (and 3.5 RAW at that).
3.X implies any variation and 3.0 Disintegrate was SoD.


I can't speak for JRRNeiklot, but while I prefer the SoD version, the extreme high damage variant also works well enough for me because (A) it almost never comes out different then SoD and (B) in the extreme cases that it does, you can still describe a narrative out in which the character takes terrible damage but isn't slain outright.

Again, I prefer SoD outright and (B) has never actually happened at my table.  But the point is that there is no narrative absolute regarding the spell disintegrate and there has always been precedent within the game for saving and taking some damage but not being destroyed.

There are cases for which SSSoD is perfectly valid (poisons, for example)
There are cases in which partial effects are perfectly valid (Disintegrate)
There are case in which the effect is instant and all or nothing (Medusa)

In every case the narrative merits of the item in question drive what is right and what is wrong.  It is when you start putting mechanics AHEAD of narrative that you lose the beauty of what RPGs can be.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I know, but in my experience it's easier to wind up with disgruntled players when the other players CHOOSE to let them die.  I'd rather my whole party die and everyone start over, pat each other on the back for a good try and cook up a whole new party than make one player feel like a doof for dying and be angry at the party for leaving them.





Well, that's the defeatist mindset, I'm afraid, that I don't feel the rules need to protect all groups against.  Though I do recognize that you have encountered that with your own group(s?) and would suggest there are problems with that mindset that no amount of rules adjustments would change.  The rest of your post goes on to assume the TPK is the norm so I won't go into why that premise makes further posting from me less than productive in this context.  No offense, as it has been your experience and I am not saying that it has been otherwise for you and perhaps some others.


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 5, 2012)

Scribble said:


> This I disagree with completely based on the way things played out with the death saves at my 4e table. Each and every roll that counted towards the dreaded three was a tense moment, as the player in question preyed he could hold on just a bit longer until someone might be able to get there and heal him. The anticipation and dread DID grow with each roll, but it never started out "boring."



Well then you and I have had VERY different experiences playing 4e. I have played 4e with a few different groups, and falling unconscious never seems to worry anyone until they already have two failed death saves under their belt. After a PC falls unconscious, it is not uncommon for two players who have never even met each other to say, "Don't worry. You have at LEAST three rounds to heal the fighter before he actually dies." It is actually almost laughable how the 4e "death save" mechanic trivializes the so-called lethality of combat.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 5, 2012)

The real issue here is making sure DUNGEONMASTERS are aware of what these SoD effects and the monsters that use them _mean_ to their adventures and encounter design.

In 4E, one of the bigger issues was that it was only the monster's power level (minion/standard/elite/solo) that told DMs the kind of thing they were throwing at their parties.  Actual effects were not demarcated in that way.  As a result, we'd hear stories of DMs creating encounters with 5+ monsters who dished out the Weakened effect, or the Dazed effect etc., because they didn't know any better.  And this is the same problem that could creep up with the use of SoD effects.  Without being very, very clear about what using like five basilisks in a fight could mean... you'll end up with lots of poorly thought-out encounters with a lot of unexpectedly unwanted results.

I myself have no problems with the regular old Save of Die spells... if for no other reason that I am acutely aware of what they CAN do.  Thus, I don't introduce them into an adventure if I'm not willing to accept whatever results might come from them.  I think DDN can certainly follow along these lines... it's just imperative that the writers of the Monster Manual make explicit the fact of _just what these monsters with these abilities can do_.

There are two ways I think you could do it.  First is to just put all monsters with SoD effects in Appendix A of the DDN Monster Manual.  Appendix A is the "deadliest of the deadly" monster section, and thus any DM who uses a creature from it should really think long and hard before selecting it.

Now if that option doesn't sit well with people (moving certain monsters out of the alphabetically listings into their own little pen)... the second is to make all these monsters with Death, Disintegrate, Petrification, Instant Killing Poison etc. all SOLO monsters (assuming the interpretation of 4E's monster power levels.)  That was the _one thing_ they really tried to hit home for us in 4E.  The Solo was supposed to be able to take on a party of 5 pretty well (at least in theory).  We knew that using a Solo monster was meant to be a big deal.  Thus, in DDN if you only gave SoD effects to monsters who are meant to be "Solo"... it immediately tells the DM that this monsters isn't your prototypical one.  It's a big deal.  It's power is meant to be looked at a little more closely.  It's not a creature you send three or four of them out there just on a whim.

If the beholder and the medusa and the ancient dragons have powers that are meant to kick the ever-living crap out of a party and potentially kill them on sight... just make sure the DM is aware of this going in so he makes the active choice to throw this encounter at his players.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My suggestion was that the stages be flavorful.
> 
> I envision movie scenes where the unlucky hero starts turning to stone from the ground up.



Can you offer an example?  
Did the hero in your example stop turning partway through the process?  (ie made a 2nd or 3rd save)


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 5, 2012)

edit: double post


----------



## Scribble (Mar 5, 2012)

airwalkrr said:


> Well then you and I have had VERY different experiences playing 4e. I have played 4e with a few different groups, and falling unconscious never seems to worry anyone until they already have two failed death saves under their belt. After a PC falls unconscious, it is not uncommon for two players who have never even met each other to say, "Don't worry. You have at LEAST three rounds to heal the fighter before he actually dies." It is actually almost laughable how the 4e "death save" mechanic trivializes the so-called lethality of combat.




Guess we did because I've never had an experience as you describe.  Most of mine was the player begging someone to get to him.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Well, that's the defeatist mindset, I'm afraid, that I don't feel the rules need to protect all groups against.  Though I do recognize that you have encountered that with your own group(s?) and would suggest there are problems with that mindset that no amount of rules adjustments would change.  The rest of your post goes on to assume the TPK is the norm so I won't go into why that premise makes further posting from me less than productive in this context.  No offense, as it has been your experience and I am not saying that it has been otherwise for you and perhaps some others.




I think you misunderstand me somewhat.  I don't think TPK is the norm for ALL encounters, only that a TPK is likely and expected on my behalf if anything I've bothered to design for a "climactic epic battle" is up to snuff.  I want my players to really feel like they've gone up against incredible odds and really pulled it out.  I don't throw these things around lightly.  I realize that everyone's experience is different, it's simply been mine that whole TPK is often easier to rebound from in a productive manner than a single party death.  This is not universal, but I feel the sense of comradeship is greater when everyone tries and dies, as opposed to one guy getting left.

Hey that's just me, remember, in my adventures you're probably going to experience a creature with a SOD once or twice over 20 levels, probably both within the realms of 15-20.  These are epic, incredible, amazing battles of life and death that wrap up greater story-arcs.  I'd never throw out SOD in random encounters or just mundane dungeon-crawls.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Can you offer an example?
> Did the hero in your example stop turning partway through the process?  (ie made a 2nd or 3rd save)




Well, the one example I can think of is Willow, in which 



Spoiler



Willow throws a magic petrifying acorn at Queen Bavmorda, who catches it by reflex. At once her hand turns to stone and the petrification starts spreading up her arm. For a few seconds it looks like she's about to become a statue, but then she succeeds in throwing off the effect and her arm and hand revert to living flesh.



It's not common though. That's the only case I can recall.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Well, the one example I can think of is Willow...
> 
> It's not common though. That's the only case I can recall.



Thanks

I'd absolutely buy a SSSoD mechanic for that narrative.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 5, 2012)

My last campaign was run under 3.5E rules and ended just about 2 years ago now.

It was full of death & destruction, and I pulled out all the stops as a DM to try to defeat the players.   However, my group was also very large and had a PC cleric and a PC psion that both regularly would whip out "Revivify" in the middle of a combat to save a fallen comrade.  They also had an NPC ally cleric/paladin that was pretty handy in a pinch as well.

If I ran an evil lich, I made sure the lich would cast the best necromantic spells available - Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, Horrid Wilting, etc.  Not to mention several from the Spell Compendium like Avasculate and Mass Avasculate.  I mean, going back to 1E days, Finger of Death has been the "signature" spell of the lich, no?

If you run a lich without those big "save or die" spells, aren't you nerfing the lich's capability?

Most of the campaign, though, the players were going against clerics of the evil god of slavery & tyranny, so were constantly subjected to "save or suck" effects like Domination (a lot deadlier prior to 4E) and the various Charm spells.  However, when they got up against the toughest clerics, spells like Implosion, Destruction, Harm, Mass Harm, were also tossed at the PCs.

One of the memorable combats was when the party's dwarf fighter shockingly failed his Fort save and got hit with Implosion, dying instantly.  The party cleric then sacked 5,000XP for the "extra special" version of Miracle and was able to bring him back fully restored with a Standard action instead of the normal 10 minute casting time needed for True Resurrection, turning the tide of the penultimate combat of the campaign.

Similarly, when the party's goliath barbarian got hit with a Maze spell by an evil mage, she was zapped into the maze, needing a natural 20 to get out because her INT was 10... and, in the first round there, she rolled that natural 20.  Would have sucked to have her out of combat for 2-3-4 rounds or more.  That occasion got a lot of celebration at the table.

However, there were certainly occasions when the players shut down a powerful encounter with a single spell as well (or the aforementioned party dwarf going crazy on a balor, landing 5 hits in one flurry of attacks, including 2 or 3 crits and nearly killing it in one round)

I definitely think Save or Die has a place in the game.

So, I was initially against the idea of thresholds when I started this thread. 

However, now, I do like the idea of some sort of hit point threshold to prevent it from being abused against parties that can't handle that level of danger being thrown at them.  My group, as I said, had 4 high level casters in a sorcerer, cleric, psion and paladin/cleric... not to mention a human fighter, a dwarf fighter, a goliath barbarian, an elf paladin of freedom and a human rogue/spellthief.  So, they could handle just about anything from the various monster manuals.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Well, the one example I can think of is Willow, in which
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thats funny, it is the way I've always imagined petrification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=m8hH0LmZQec#t=23s


----------



## dkyle (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm generally on board with Mike's idea.  It basically means that Save or Dies aren't completely bypassing the HP system, and are really just conditional damage; i.e., this does X additional damage if that would kill the target.

An idea for a mechanism that might scale nicely:

Save or dies are simply HP-based saves.  The attack would have a DC, and the defender would roll d20 plus their current HP.  The DC would be significantly higher than one for an ability-score-based save.

For example (assuming spells are primarily attacks, like in 4E):

Finger of Death
INT vs. Dexterity: 2d8+INT damage. In addition, target makes an HP save against DC 15+CL.  Dies on failure.

So, for a 20th level Wizard, it would be 35 DC.  A target with 34 or more HP saves no matter what.  Less than that, there's a chance of death.  But at 14 HP, death is automatic.  If we assume around 100 HP for a typical level 20, I think that's reasonable.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

dkyle said:


> An idea for a mechanism that might scale nicely:
> 
> Save or dies are simply HP-based saves.  The attack would have a DC, and the defender would roll d20 plus their current HP.  The DC would be significantly higher than one for an ability-score-based save.
> 
> ...




I like this idea,and I think it could work for a lot of things in addition to SOD, but it's a good solution to prevent incredibly powerful abilities from as you say, completely bypassing all normal systems of protection(AC, HP, ect..)


----------



## FireLance (Mar 5, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Because only the dm can choose the setting.  I like save or die and I won't play in a D&D game where disintegrate makes you go "ouchie, I got a booboo."



That's an irrelevant point, IMO. If you're playing with a DM who doesn't like SOD in the first place (and you're _still_ playing with him after you have communicated your gaming preferences and he has refused to accommodate them), then you simply won't encounter any SOD effects. Same difference, to me.


----------



## KesselZero (Mar 5, 2012)

Anselyn said:


> It doesn't say that the gaze will reduce you to 25 HP.




He's referring to the fact that in 4e, you don't actually die until you hit your negative bloodied value (negative half your hp). This means that if you have 100 HP and you're instant killed when you hit 25 HP, you've essentially been dropped to -50 HP-- or taken 75 damage.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 5, 2012)

dkyle said:


> I'm generally on board with Mike's idea.  It basically means that Save or Dies aren't completely bypassing the HP system, and are really just conditional damage; i.e., this does X additional damage if that would kill the target.
> 
> An idea for a mechanism that might scale nicely:
> 
> ...




BRILLIANT! I can't XP you right now, but that is a fantastic idea. I love it when game mechanics are elegant and intuitive and fit in perfectly with existing mechanics. This idea nails it for me! Well done! 

I could absolutely accept a save or die that works this way. Even better is it provides a framework that other mechanics can build off. A wizard might be able to take a feat that lets them boost their effective HP when making an HP save for a willpower style effect, and so on.

I would still have a natural 20 always saves even if you can't normally make it. I don't like 1 always failing, but I could see some people would like that. Have feats that increase the threshold of auto-success. So say the DC is 35 and normally HP of 14 would fail except on a 20 (because its a 20). Maybe have feats that can bump up auto-success to 19-20. Sort of like how Improved Critical increases your critical range. Lots of ways to customize and get more traction out of this. But its a good solid idea. I approve.


----------



## CM (Mar 5, 2012)

airwalkrr said:


> Well then you and I have had VERY different experiences playing 4e. I have played 4e with a few different groups, and falling unconscious never seems to worry anyone until they already have two failed death saves under their belt. After a PC falls unconscious, it is not uncommon for two players who have never even met each other to say, "Don't worry. You have at LEAST three rounds to heal the fighter before he actually dies." It is actually almost laughable how the 4e "death save" mechanic trivializes the so-called lethality of combat.




<Straying off-topic>

This is very much a DM issue. 

The advantage 4e has here is that the bad guy can take a big bite out of the dying PC (coup de grâce) and then everybody's eyes go wide and it's very much an "Oh S&%#" moment. The character might not not die from it, but I assure you they will think twice about letting somebody lie dying again.

Besides, those same players would be letting the dying guy lie for up to _9 rounds_ in 3e...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 5, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> So you refuse to play 3.x then I take it?




Yep, but I will note that disintegrate actually disintegrates in 3.0.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 5, 2012)

FireLance said:


> That's an irrelevant point, IMO. If you're playing with a DM who doesn't like SOD in the first place (and you're _still_ playing with him after you have communicated your gaming preferences and he has refused to accommodate them), then you simply won't encounter any SOD effects. Same difference, to me.




Not true, unless he bans spells from the phb.  Since my group is a bunch of old friends, it's no big deal, we just wouldn't play 5e, we'd play something else that makes us happier.  Which is not what WOTC seems to want in an edition made specifically to bring folks like us back.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 6, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Can you offer an example?
> Did the hero in your example stop turning partway through the process?  (ie made a 2nd or 3rd save)




In _The Neverending Story_, the scene in the swamp. The hero had to fight back against the despair or he would be dragged into the swamp to die.

I can recall scenes where a character fights against petrification, continuing to plod forward even though he's turning to stone. I can't think of an example where a character turns back. But I think you're conflating what I proposed in this thread with 4E's SSSoD. I never said anything about turning back.


----------



## Kannik (Mar 6, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That just seems boring.  "Oh look, a medusa, who cares I have to fail 3 saves to turn to stone.  There is no tension until 2 saves are failed.  Only minor annoyances such as -2 to hit or whatever, which is not much different than the medusa having leather armor on, or having precast a prayer spell or what have you.




Sure, I wouldn't suggest that either as a way to run it.  I would try something like that if you fail your save, on your next turn you are immobilized, the turn after that you are unconscious, and a turn after that you are stone.  This gives you, the affected player, one turn to try do something, your party one other turn to try to do something (and at that point you're out of the fight), and then you're stone.  Gets even more interesting should two in the party be affected at the same time... 

Or maybe L&L's suggestion here is a good one, with a min HP barrier.  Suddenly those crits that knock off a lot of HP just got a lot scarier in this encounter... 

Or maybe it's a limited use ability by the creature, with a reversible effect in some significant way by the PCs... 

I think there are plenty of ways this could be written up to be scary, impactful and dramatic, and what ways could be used are likely different for different creatures, or if it was a trap, or something else.



> Looking at a medusa with sod present presents an "oh crap" moment as the die bounces across the table, hoping for a good roll.  Even high level characters crap their pants, because all 20 sided dies have ones on them.




Personally I'm hoping that the tighter math hinted at in D&DN means high level characters are not so powerful that both low level creatures become totally blasé to them or that they overwhelm even even-level creatures.  

peace,

Kannik


----------



## FireLance (Mar 6, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Not true, unless he bans spells from the phb.  Since my group is a bunch of old friends, it's no big deal, we just wouldn't play 5e, we'd play something else that makes us happier.  Which is not what WOTC seems to want in an edition made specifically to bring folks like us back.



Still kind of missing the point, I'm afraid. What 5e is supposed to do is to give groups a variety of options on how to play the game. In the case of SOD, for example, you can adjust the dial to "more lethal" (hp thresholds are always set above the PCs' hit points) or "less lethal" (hp thresholds are set very low, so that PCs are only in danger of SOD when they are near death in the first place). 

If you and your DM aren't on the same page, 5e isn't going to help you. If you and your DM are on the same page, your group can play 5e with highly lethal SODs while another group plays 5e with the less lethal option. Why do you care that some other group has the option to make SOD less lethal if you can have the more lethal option you want?


----------



## Kannik (Mar 6, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Again, this only applies to a "win the game" perspective.  Which is fine if that is what you want.
> 
> But I've been in games in which characters got turned to stone.  And I've seen reactions of "Damn!"  BUT, these moments were still a ton of fun and remain talking points years later.




I am uncertain exactly what you are trying to put forth in this post with the "win the game perspective" -type statements.  If you are stating that alteration of SoD effects will reduce the game to guaranteed win encounters, or even moreso, that alteration of SoD effects will remove nasty elements that the party will need to work around, both in and out of combat, and lead to epic stories told over and over again to one's gaming buddies for years to come, then I disagree.  I think there is no reason to believe that there is no other mechanic that can be constructed that generates the desired outcomes of SoD-type effects (those listed just above, for example) while reducing or removing the undesirable outcomes of SoD-type effects.  

And, btw,  this is being spoken from someone whose PC has been turned to stone and played on in the excitement that arose from it.  Removing adversity, even being turned to stone, is not the intent.

Lastly, if you are stating that people who dislike or have an issue with straight-up SoD effects just want to "win the game," just want to play a "meaningless narrative substance" game, and any modification to it has an air of "fundamental wrongness" to it, well, I would call all that false and an unnecessarily dismissive statement.

peace,

Kannik


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 6, 2012)

What I like about the hp threshold is that a similar mechanic, Power Word spells, exist in several editions of the game, and many folks are comfortable with that mechanic.


----------



## Andor (Mar 6, 2012)

dkyle said:


> I'm generally on board with Mike's idea.  It basically means that Save or Dies aren't completely bypassing the HP system, and are really just conditional damage; i.e., this does X additional damage if that would kill the target.
> 
> An idea for a mechanism that might scale nicely:
> 
> ...




I think this would be workable, *IF* there was a simple and handy mechanism to gauge about how effective the spell would be. A sense motive check or the like to gauge remaining level/power/meat points so that the mage spell doesn't get blown on a foe it couldn't possible effect.

It also depends on the growth scale of HP. If it's like 3e where you could see characters with a hundred HP rountinely, then it would work better as "Save vs con-10 or die, get a +1 to your roll for every 5 hp remaining."


----------



## 13garth13 (Mar 6, 2012)

*Gotta go old school on this one!*

Put me down for old-fashioned, turn your trousers brown, everything hinges on that single roll of the die for your character, scary-as-heck SOD mechanics (although some of the threshold ideas are interesting and certainly applicable for some creatures, to be sure, I want gorgon breath, medusa gaze, catoblepas breath/gaze, bodak gaze, Finger of Death spell, etc etc to be single roll type stuff).

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 6, 2012)

dkyle said:


> An idea for a mechanism that might scale nicely:
> 
> Save or dies are simply HP-based saves.  The attack would have a DC, and the defender would roll d20 plus their current HP.  The DC would be significantly higher than one for an ability-score-based save.
> 
> ...



Interesting idea, though given how high h.p. totals can get the d20 might be too narrow a window.

It's a tiny bit more math, but one could have the save modified by +1 per x h.p. remaining, where x could be 5, or 10, or whatever.  Or, for more difficulty, modify it by -1 for each x h.p. below full you are.  Note that this also works with saving throw tables as well as the DC system.

Easy save: d20 + 1 per 2 h.p. you are currently at.
Tougher save: d20 + 1 per 10 h.p. you are currently at.
Nasty save: d20 - 1 per 5 h.p. you have lost.

The problem again, however, is that by tying it to number of h.p. you are either benefiting or screwing over the classes that naturally tend to have more h.p. e.g. Fighters.  To really make this work across the classes the modifier would have to tie to what % of your total h.p. you are at or have lost, but that's even mathier.

And then there's all the other save modifiers...yikes.

Lan-"for grade 5 you will need a calculator"-efan


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 6, 2012)

Lots of thoughts from 11 pgs of reading.

1>  I agree with having hit points being an affect on SOD mechanics.  We discussed several ideas in the previous SOD thread.  I proposed that SOD mechanics would put a 'flag' on the character that would go into effect when they received enough physical damage and 'affliction' damage to total their hit points.

2>  The suggestion to change the hit point limit when SOD effects occur is an interesting way to still cause players to worry (I can now be knocked out of the fight when I still have 25 hit points left!) but reduce the lethality from every SOD is a deadly event.

3>  I like that people have pointed out the threshold for where the SOD mechanics could kick in is in the control of the DM.  DM's liking more lethality can have no upper limit on the threshold and people with no desire for SOD could put the limit down to the floor of 0 hit points.  Different threshold for different groups and different playstyles.

4>  I do agree with several of the people that one mechanic does not fit all the SOD situations.

Look at your basic 100' pit trap.  It makes little sense that a group of players can dance a congo line around it because they have enough HP to avoid it.

You could make a ruling that every round being on the edge of the pit 'inflicted' damage as you were 'sliding' over the edge.  The problem would be that many would call gamist foul and ask where were the swords or Sarlock teeth that were sucking you down to your doom.

There are also many SOD mechanics that are related not to death (or its sub-forms like petrification) but to horrible conditions like Blindness and Deafness (death is often easier to fix then blindness in DnD).

5>  I also agree that SOD does have a place in game play.  Players don't feel 'danger' unless they have a risk of losing something.  I just recently dealt with my players not respecting the hints of danger they were in.

I repeatedly warned them (sounds of animals growing more numerous), mentioned in a in-between game post when I asked on further plans that I had plenty of resources still in the temple, and asked whether they were staying and fighting or making a run for it with what they could grab.  Two left with the suggestion and seven stayed.  Of those seven, two invited trouble by shooting missiles at the Four PF Summoners with Brood option (who had spent the last 5 rounds summoning level 1 summons).

If players feel they are going to always get a 'fair' fight or be coddled then they will treat things as a Sunday picnic.  I swept the 20 creatures down on the Seven players that were remaining to fight (five of which in later rounds went screaming for the exit after the first two).  The last two were on last legs (but my summons were on last legs only having a round or two left).  I still didn't inflict the 'worst' I could do with my resources but it was enough to make them realize they needed to play smart or they could get killed.

A SOD encounter is nasty but it teaches play lessons and gets players to treat 'danger' and hints of warning as serious things to pay attention.

6>  I also agree that one mechanic is not the solution.  Mike Mearles idea is great for adding another tool to the tool box.  The more tools the better.

I recently ran a Carrion Crawler encounter and replaced the tentacles of paralysis with each hit removing 5' of base speed.  When a character was reduced to 0' of speed then they were paralysed.  It worked well as a mechanic for that game and allowed me to use a dangerous monster in a way that was 'scary' and memorable (several players lost speed and went into the next encounter moving slow).

One of the strengths of DnD has been the richness of the monsters with their different mechanics.  This is why I liked the Monster Vault because it listed many monsters with different versions of essentially the same attack allowing the monsters to be used in a variety of ways.

Overall Conclusion

It is great to have a suggestion for a new way to use SOD and implement the rules but it is also great the many other suggestions in this thread for other possible mechanics and ways to handle other SOD situations.


----------



## GreyLord (Mar 6, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> What I like about the hp threshold is that a similar mechanic, Power Word spells, exist in several editions of the game, and many folks are comfortable with that mechanic.




Power Word: Kill

Hmmm...he seems to have to many HP to kill.

That's similar to what I thought on Mearl's explanation in relation to an older version example.

PS:  Then I turned around and became CE and voted for Save or Die!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In _The Neverending Story_, the scene in the swamp. The hero had to fight back against the despair or he would be dragged into the swamp to die.



And I buy that, but it isn't the same thing.  I've never disputed that there are other things where multiple saves apply.  I even said so.  But there are also cases in which it doesn't work well.

I don't think there is ANYONE saying nothing anywhere can have multiple save options.  The question at hand is: Is SoD ALSO acceptable.  

So if you are only commenting on something we all already agree on, what is your point?



> I can recall scenes where a character fights against petrification, continuing to plod forward even though he's turning to stone. I can't think of an example where a character turns back. But I think you're conflating what I proposed in this thread with 4E's SSSoD. I never said anything about turning back.



I'm conflating your point with the context of this thread.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2012)

Kannik said:


> Lastly, if you are stating that people who dislike or have an issue with straight-up SoD effects just want to "win the game," just want to play a "meaningless narrative substance" game, and any modification to it has an air of "fundamental wrongness" to it, well, I would call all that false and an unnecessarily dismissive statement.



In an absence of context, fair enough.  But if we specific a justification of  narratively appropriate SoD being "anti-climactic or add(ing) frustration" simply because the character may fail, then the assessment is accurate and reasonable.


----------



## RHGreen (Mar 6, 2012)

How about something like:


Medusa Gaze

10d6 - if attack is equal or higher than HP you are petrified (vs save).
If you have more HP than the attack then you are fine. (no damage at all from attack)

You could have a defensive roll that reduces that attack perhaps?

Maybe the defensive roll IS the save roll?



Thinking.........


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 6, 2012)

Late to the party and all...

I don't like the the "if you're under X hit points, this is really deadly" ploy - too metagamey for my likes.

Instead, I'd prefer a condition track, somewhat like 4E's disease track.  Attack hits, afflicts you with a condition.  You get two to three saves to shake it off, and the condition keeps getting worse each time you fail.  With enough failures, you're dead (or worse).  Even if you make the save, there might be some side effects (lost hit points primarily).


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2012)

BryonD said:


> the anti-fun comes from the fundamental wrongness of it.   And, if you just want to play a tactical game with marginal to meaningless narrative substance, then you have a perfectly fun "game" that way as well.
> 
> IMO, there are other media that offer these alternatives vastly better than RPGs do.  I don't claim that RPGs can't do them, clearly they can.  And clearly some people find those to be the high points of their RPG experiences.  But the thing that TTRPGs offer in a way that no competition can really compare is story telling with a reasonably consistent system and yet not predestined result.  RPG design strays away from its strength at its peril.



Is it really necessary to imply that everyone who doesn't play like you do is therefore playing some other thing that RPGs can do OK, although other media (TV? movies? videogames? you might at least be specific in your casting of aspersions) do it better?

4e-style SSSoD is not radically different, in it's play, from a system with SoD plus Fate Points - which is a pretty common RPG design. It has nothing at all to do with "story telling" vs "tactical games with marginal to meaningless narrative substance".


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 6, 2012)

WOOT!  Mearl's idea is really close to the one I proposed in the other thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2012)

There's a continuum, of course. You can re-fluff, re-jigger, re-orient, and re-mechanize different elements in different ways. 

But the question has to be: to what end?

What is the play benefit of entirely removing SoD mechanics against PC's? The game becomes less swingy, more predictable, less deadly. This is valuable for some games, but it's certainly not a style everyone appreciates.

What is the benefit of SoD mechanics, when they are used? The game becomes more swingy, less predictable, more dynamic. This is also valuable for some games, but it's certainly not a style everyone appreciates. 

Myself, I tend to prefer swing. I like the game to go from OH NO to OH BOY a lot. So killing a PC is fine, and raising it the next round with some bonus is also fine -- instant death, instant resurrection. In fact, if you're dead for longer than a few rounds, you're DEAD, dead. 

But in keeping that symmetry, you could say ritual resurrection, _ritual death_. You can only cause instant death via ritual (something like the folklore surrounding voodoo dolls, or even older shamanism), and raising someone is likewise a difficult task. Time is probably less of an issue here, but there are probably some limits: died within a day, or a week. 

Or you could say that no one ever really dies, and thus no one ever has to get raised (the 4e solution, in a functional way, IMXP). 

I'd personally do a different answer for each creature, like thus:

 *Basilisk*: Meeting their gaze turns you to stone, but you get a save every round to throw it off.
 *Medusa*: Meeting their gaze turns you to stone instantly and forever; they are high-level, Solo encounters ("Boss Monsters"), and you will need rituals to undo their effects (though you should have the requisite rituals at the level at which you're encountering them).
 *Banshee*: Hearing their voice deals necrotic damage (it ages you). Most common folk (at single-digit HP) die instantly, but heroes can endure it for a time.
 *Ghoul*: You get to save each round against the paralysis.
 *Sirens*: Their voices dominate you, but you can save each round against it. 
 *Assassins*: They deal enough damage, once in the encounter, during a surprise round, to kill you in one blow. After that, they're less threatening. 
 *Spawning Undead*: If they kill you, you rise as their spawn. A ritual is required to help lay your soul to rest (and then you can maybe be raised).
 *Vampire*: As a "boss monster," it's save-or-be-dominated.
 *Deadly Poison*:  It's save-or-die time.   

etc. 

I don't mind save-or-die effects in certain roles, though certainly I think 1e and 2e may have overdone it a bit (and 3e largely kept the same dynamic). The bypassing of HP isn't inherently a problem for me -- it adds variety and dynamics to the gameplay, which makes things more interesting. 

I'm not sold on the "reduce it to X hp first" trick as a panacea, because that still mandates the whole "whittle it down" approach. That should not always be the approach that a party takes to combat. Sometimes, the party should take a "kill it quick before it kills you" approach, or the "ambush attack!" approach, and not every combat should be an X-round slogfest.


----------



## am181d (Mar 6, 2012)

I'd start with "What kind of play experience do you want to have?"

I'm thinking of the Medusa, and here's how I'd want it to work:

* Low-level characters just get turned to stone instantly

* Higher-level characters turn to stone slowly, but can fight through the effect, and it dispels when the Medusa dies

(So the powerful warrior can stagger towards Medusa, slowly turning to stone, slowing down, stiffening up, and finally gets to melee range just as he's almost done, and swings, lopping her head off*.)

*Also, I could do with some good decapitation and dismemberment rules for killing monsters.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 6, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> Late to the party and all...
> 
> I don't like the the "if you're under X hit points, this is really deadly" ploy - too metagamey for my likes.
> 
> Instead, I'd prefer a condition track, somewhat like 4E's disease track.  Attack hits, afflicts you with a condition.  You get two to three saves to shake it off, and the condition keeps getting worse each time you fail.  With enough failures, you're dead (or worse).  Even if you make the save, there might be some side effects (lost hit points primarily).



While I wouldn't mind a condition track, I don't see a hp threshold as particularly metagamey.

The orc barbarian crits you with his greataxe! You take 25 points of damage!
If you had 25 hp or less, the greataxe smashes into your chest, and you are now dying.
If you had 26 hp or more, you manage to dodge aside at the last second, perhaps sustaining a serious cut, but you are still alive.

The red dragon breathes, sending a blast of flame at you! You take 25 points of damage!
If you had 25 hp or less, you are caught in the centre of the blast, and are now dying.
If you had 26 hp or more, you manage to duck under the flames at the last second. You might be scorched, but you are still alive.

The medusa glances at you, hoping to subject you to her petrifying gaze!
If you had 25 hp or less, you stare the medusa full in the face. Make a saving throw or be turned to stone.
If you had 26 hp or more, you manage to avert your eyes at the last second. You are not petrified ... yet.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 6, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Why do you care that some other group has the option to make SOD less lethal if you can have the more lethal option you want?




I don't.  In fact, I think they should have the option.  But it shouldn't be the default.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 6, 2012)

am181d said:


> I'm thinking of the Medusa, and here's how I'd want it to work:
> 
> * Low-level characters just get turned to stone instantly
> 
> ...



You know, a two-tier threshold might work for something like this.

Medusa's gaze: 
25 hp or less: Instant petrification - make a saving throw or be petrified.
26 hp or more: Creeping petrification - make a saving throw or take 10 hp of damage; _second failed save:_ you are also slowed; _third failed save:_ you also take a -2 penalty to attack rolls; _fourth failed save:_ you are immobilized instead of slowed; _fifth failed save:_ you are petrified.

EDIT: This way, each failed save gets you closer to petrification, either by dropping your hp below the threshold, or by moving you along the creeping petrification track.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 6, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I don't.  In fact, I think they should have the option.  But it shouldn't be the default.



Since I have decided that I should consider distinctions such as "core" and "default" to be meaningless, you are welcome to lobby for your favored approach to be the default. I will be happy with my options.


----------



## Grandpa (Mar 6, 2012)

[/zzz] Just a dumb, tired thought that's probably been discussed before: if the purpose of save or die is fear-inducing super-scary monsters that would (should?) be a higher level anyway, why not just make save or die effects apply if a monster is +_x_ levels higher than you? And maybe you save or die monsters -_x_ levels lower, for giggles. And maybe some magic weapons give you +_x_ "effective" levels vs. certain monsters. [zzz]


----------



## Grydan (Mar 6, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of save or die, for players _or_ monsters.

However, if such things are to exist, I find the proposed system unnecessarily clunky.

If you want SoD effects to interact with the HP system, don't go half-way, go all the way.

Instead of: 
_The medusa's gaze forces creatures currently at 25 or fewer hit points to make a save or be turned to stone._ 

why not
_The medusa's gaze forces creatures to make a save or take 25 damage. If this attack reduces a creature to 0 or fewer HP, the creature is turned to stone. _

For all characters at 25 or fewer hitpoints, this is functionally identical. For characters above 25 hitpoints, it's still a threat, unlike "I can't even look at you until you've been beat up enough".


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 6, 2012)

Grydan said:


> why not
> _The medusa's gaze forces creatures to make a save or take 25 damage. If this attack reduces a creature to 0 or fewer HP, the creature is turned to stone. _




The main problem I have with that is: Where does the 25 damage come from when you are not turned to stone?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Is it really necessary to imply that everyone who doesn't play like you do is therefore playing some other thing that RPGs can do OK, although other media (TV? movies? videogames? you might at least be specific in your casting of aspersions) do it better?



I didn't say anything about playing like me.  But there are strengths and weakness which can be compared.  

I've got no quibble with what is huge fun to any given individual.  But I've been consistent on this point for years and the market results have matched my assessments.  Variations in unique indiviual preferences are neither disputed nor accepted as evidence overriding the larger dominant trend.



> 4e-style SSSoD is not radically different, in it's play, from a system with SoD plus Fate Points - which is a pretty common RPG design.



I completely disgaree with you there.  The incremental effects portion of SSSoD is a key feature in 4E and in the details of this conversation.  A SoD system with all or nothing results but a AP system for allowing a player to either possibly or even automatically override a failed role is an entitrely different thing.  



> It has nothing at all to do with "story telling" vs "tactical games with marginal to meaningless narrative substance".



Taking alone and out of context I agree that there is no obligation that the two be connected.  And I don't claim it is universal.  but I do claim it is a common overlap and I'll also stick to that as a reasonable assessment in the more specific context of the conversation.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2012)

FireLance said:


> The medusa glances at you, hoping to subject you to her petrifying gaze!
> If you had 25 hp or less, you stare the medusa full in the face. Make a saving throw or be turned to stone.
> If you had 26 hp or more, you manage to avert your eyes at the last second. You are not petrified ... yet.



Anything that passes the "if you look at Medusa you turn to stone" test is good.  And this covers that criteria.

However, once the narrative issues are covered it is still reasonable to select the best option for game play.  IMO this still doesn't do a great job.  A big part of the fun is knowing that death (or non-death petrification) can be a split second away.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Where does the 25 damage come from when you are not turned to stone?



Presumably, it reflects the rising tension, which undermines your heroic spirit and wears you down, as you struggle to fight the medusa without meeting her gaze.


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 6, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> The main problem I have with that is: Where does the 25 damage come from when you are not turned to stone?




This is the point where you see your veins turning black and your skin going grey but you haven't petrified yet.

Your body is still fighting off the 'poison' of petrification.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 6, 2012)

Grydan said:


> Instead of:
> _The medusa's gaze forces creatures currently at 25 or fewer hit points to make a save or be turned to stone._
> 
> why not
> ...




I'd rather see:

_The medusa's gaze forces people to make a constitution save. On a failed save they take 2d12+12 damage and are slowed.*
If this reduces them to 25 or less hitpoints they are instead turned to stone._


----------



## Meophist (Mar 6, 2012)

Kynn said:


> i see what you did there



I actually didn't intend to be snarky. The game I remember wasn't D&D, but either a TCG or video game.

I think the hit point threshold was something like a thousand hit points, which doesn't quite match up with D&D.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 6, 2012)

I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies for that, but I will simply say that 4E's implementation of cascaded save-or-die effects (petrification being the most obvious) was a massive hit at my table and is about the best compromise I can imagine.

I really don't want, as a DM, to be asking players how many hit points they have left before deciding which attack to use, and I really don't want, as a player, to wonder where the DM has set his "dial" so that if the medusa looks at me I'm screwed. This is why the game *needs* clear condition milestones like Bloodied or whatever you want to call it, and why tiered effects like this should be keyed off those.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 6, 2012)

Boarstorm said:


> I really like Mearls' proposed system.
> 
> The only issue I have is that the wizard is always more likely to be turned to stone/disintegrated/etc, due to lower health pools.  ( I am assuming that pretty-much-universal-mechanic will remain in Next).
> 
> ...




Even just having some saves be int-based could do it. 
But honestly I don't think a wizard has a stronger grip on their soul than a fighter anyway. The wizard messes in matters beyond the ken of normal men. Which means they open themselves up to such things.
I can only really see them having an advantage when they use some form of magic to defend themselves.


----------



## dkyle (Mar 6, 2012)

Meophist said:


> I recall playing a game that was like this, where an instant-death attack only worked if the opponent had a certain number of hit points or less. I can't remember what game it was, however.




It might not be where you're thinking of, but in Dungeons & Dragons Online, Vorpals and similar weapons were changed fairly recently so that the auto-kill on natural 20 only works on things with 1000 or less HP.  If they have more than that, they take 100 damage.

While I don't mind it, I think it's overall a disliked change by the community.  The biggest problem is that it was a one-sided nerf; casters got to keep their full insta-kills.  It also happened around the time that casters got some major buffs of their own, among which was removing the HP caps on Power Words (but giving them a long cooldown).


----------



## nightwalker450 (Mar 6, 2012)

Here's how I would run a Medusa (and since this chat, have been thinking of throwing one at my party in the near future)...

Aura 5: Any creature that starts its turn in the aura is subject to the following attack
+X vs Fortitude
Hit: The target makes a death save, on the first failed death save the target is slowed until the end of the encounter, on the second failed save, the target is restrained until the end of the encounter, on the last failed save the target is petrified permanently.
Special: Any creature can choose to be blinded until the start of their next turn, instead of being attacked.


----------



## Andor (Mar 6, 2012)

I think it depends on how you fluff things.

FREX Classically Medusa is supposed to be so ugly that the sight of her turns men to stone. This should be a save or die effect, you see her or you don't.

Otoh these days it's more usually presented as a species with a mystical power in it's gaze that turns people to stone.

As a magical effect coming from the Medusa I'd have no problem with incremental effects. Heck it could even be straight HP damage with lost HP representing body parts turned to stone. The only difference is that at death you need a flesh-to-stone rather than a resurrection spell.

Otherwise it could be incremental saves, speed damage, condition effect track, a single save but with three rounds of petrification during which increasingly harder countermeasures will be effective.

In other words, fluff matters. Mechanics should support fluff. Conversely you should write your fluff to match your mechanics.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 6, 2012)

Personally, I think the medusa is a terrible example of a SoD.  The medusa should simply be a "Die."  If you don't take precautions to not meet her gaze, like a blindfold or a mirror, you will see her and turn to stone, full stop.

Now, this sort of lethality means that only a truly cruel DM will introduce a medusa without giving a lot of object clues as to what is coming.  But that's fine, a medusa should be treated not as a monster (because its HPs and other stats are necessarily secondary), but as a puzzle.

Any encounter that has the potential of immediate lethality should not use the mechanics that underlie the combat pillar.  Avoiding such a hazard should be viewed as under the purview of the "exploration pillar", and treated accordingly, such that embracing the narrative is the only way to overcome the challenge.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 6, 2012)

TwoSix said:


> Personally, I think the medusa is a terrible example of a SoD.  The medusa should simply be a "Die."  If you don't take precautions to not meet her gaze, like a blindfold or a mirror, you will see her and turn to stone, full stop.
> 
> Now, this sort of lethality means that only a truly cruel DM will introduce a medusa without giving a lot of object clues as to what is coming.  But that's fine, a medusa should be treated not as a monster (because its HPs and other stats are necessarily secondary), but as a puzzle.
> 
> Any encounter that has the potential of immediate lethality should not use the mechanics that underlie the combat pillar.  Avoiding such a hazard should be viewed as under the purview of the "exploration pillar", and treated accordingly, such that embracing the narrative is the only way to overcome the challenge.




Though I disagree with making Meduas' have just "DIE" effects, I heartily agree with the rest.  Most every monster of any real power you run into has clues and hints about what it is and what it can do, long before you ever encounter it.  If I intended to have my party encounter a Medusa somewhere, they'd likely see indications of it's power several encounters, possibly even levels before they went up against it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2012)

Andor said:


> As a magical effect coming from the Medusa I'd have no problem with incremental effects. Heck it could even be straight HP damage with lost HP representing body parts turned to stone. The only difference is that at death you need a flesh-to-stone rather than a resurrection spell.
> 
> Otherwise it could be incremental saves, speed damage, condition effect track, a single save but with three rounds of petrification during which increasingly harder countermeasures will be effective.
> 
> In other words, fluff matters. Mechanics should support fluff. Conversely you should write your fluff to match your mechanics.



I've said before that a different monster inspired by Medusa but not actually considered to be "Medusa" is beyond question a valid alternative.  

If you just are flat out opposed to SoD then simply don't use the "classic Medusa".

When all is said and done you can't simulate overcoming (or failing) Medusa ("classic") unless the model actually reflects it.  If the underlying system is intended to be capable of modeling "classic" Medusa, that does nothing to prevent people from just other surrogates.  But if the system is designed from the ground up with the presumption that a SoD effect is to be avoided, then it is highly unlikely it will be capable of providing the "vs. classic Medusa" result that other alternative systems offer.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 6, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Though I disagree with making Meduas' have just "DIE" effects, I heartily agree with the rest.  Most every monster of any real power you run into has clues and hints about what it is and what it can do, long before you ever encounter it.  If I intended to have my party encounter a Medusa somewhere, they'd likely see indications of it's power several encounters, possibly even levels before they went up against it.



Getting the mechanics right is critically important.
The DM running a good game is ALSO critically important.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 6, 2012)

As I noted in my above xp comment, we should divorce this discussion from the particular example of THE Medusa. Resist the temptation to use a legendary, mythical creature as a standard monster. I blame AD&D (and BECMI) for making such an epic creature into an encounter for low-mid level heroes.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 6, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Getting the mechanics right is critically important.
> The DM running a good game is ALSO critically important.




Yep, and it's not like it's difficult to throw a save, or an extra save or two in front of a spell that would normally be "you die" when I'm at the table.


----------



## keterys (Mar 6, 2012)

The D&D medusa, ie the generic monster of which there are hundreds or maybe even thousands, sometimes hiding in closets, sometimes even encountered in _packs_ is not The Medusa.

That's probably a very high level creature, especially if you allow it to affect things like gods.

P.S. I now have a vision of the standard "Surprise! It's a medusa" D&D trope adopted to one bursting out of a cake.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 6, 2012)

Death =/= Game Over

There are lots of ways to lose one's characters temporarily in older versions of D&D. Death is actually one of these and not necessarily the final curtain.   

I'm not saying there is no way at all to lose a character permanently in D&D. It's simply the majority of so called game ending rolls were more Save Or Roll up a Temporary PC, not Save or Absolute Character Death (and never Save or Leave the Table - [Sorry Blackleaf]).

Dead characters can be resurrected, reincarnated, wished back to existence, heck, maybe even summoned and bound into another creature's body. "I'm playing two characters in one body!"

Temporary characters can retire when you get your old one back and be there in case it happens again. Becoming a thrall did not need to be the end either. However the time limit on getting Buddy back is probably a little shorter (yet less expensive) than death.

The catch is, there was a limit on how many times a character could lose everything (typically what we think of as death) and come back from it. This limited NPC villains too, so it wasn't all bad.

In the end, "The game can end for characters before retirement or natural death" should be in the rules the players read prior to play. Then give some basic overview of how such might happen. If the players are okay with it, game on.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 6, 2012)

BryonD said:


> But if the system is designed from the ground up with the presumption that a SoD effect is to be avoided, then it is highly unlikely it will be capable of providing the "vs. classic Medusa" result that other alternative systems offer.






shidaku said:


> Yep, and it's not like it's difficult to throw a save, or an extra save or two in front of a spell that would normally be "you die" when I'm at the table.




It's not like it's difficult to add a sidebar to the medusa entry that states: "to achieve the 'classic' medusa result, just skip stages one and two so that a successful attack by the medusa results directly in turning the character to stone."

It is more difficult to design stages one and two that are flavorful and balanced. Not impossible by any means, but not usable out of the box like the medusa I propose with SSSoD as the default and a SoD sidebar.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 6, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Dead characters can be resurrected, reincarnated, wished back to existence, heck, maybe even summoned and bound into another creature's body. "I'm playing two characters in one body!"




This is very, very campaign-dependent. Many DMs of my acquaintance, including me, disallow resurrection except in very rare cases.

Now, you could argue that I'm not playing the game as intended and therefore I shouldn't complain about save-or-die. My response is that enough DMs object to resurrection that 5E should take that preference into account during design.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Presumably, it reflects the rising tension, which undermines your heroic spirit and wears you down, as you struggle to fight the medusa without meeting her gaze.




That's what I had in mind when I suggested the "Heroic Avoidance" option earlier.  I must not have been clear the way I wrote it up.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 6, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> Death =/= Game Over
> 
> There are lots of ways to lose one's characters temporarily in older versions of D&D. Death is actually one of these and not necessarily the final curtain.
> 
> ...




For my group and many others, the issue isn't that SoD means the PCs die. The two biggest issues for us are

1. A player whose PC fails an SoD often misses out on playing for an hour or more. This is really bad when a group only plays for 2-3 hours once a week.

2. It makes fights against BBEG anti-climatic, anti-cinematic. As another said better than I, SoDs are both stressful and boring.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 7, 2012)

I think there are legitimate issues. The first one you bring up is more about PC generation time. Ours takes about 10 minutes, but first timers usually take longer. For a game that plays for 100s of hours having a backup handy isn't out of the question, plus there are other options than playing a PC.

The other concern is difficult to overcome. It comes down to how fragile the characters are. IMO death isn't really climactic or cinematic. Having "anything you can imagine and express" as means to escape death, or better, overcome life's challenges highlights how it's the living that is profound.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 7, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> I think there are legitimate issues. The first one you bring up is more about PC generation time. Ours takes about 10 minutes, but first timers usually take longer. For a game that plays for 100s of hours having a backup handy isn't out of the question, plus there are other options than playing a PC.




Making a new PC isn't usually an option without breaking immersion. If a character dies in the middle of a fight in a dangerous area, that player won't come back into the game until the fight is over (maybe 30 min, maybe 60 min), and then after the party finds a suitable time/place to revive the PC. The remedy to this situation is for the game to have shorter fights, I would say.

As to other options: playing assistant DM is usually more trouble than it's worth, especially since a player half-heartedly then fights the remaining PCs. Having two PCs is great, unless the party already has 5-6 characters, and only if the players want multiple characters.

If the game is using SoDs, this situation (a player not being able to play) happen more often. Again, I'm not talking about a character dying and not coming back--that is rare after a certain level. I just mean when a PC is knocked out of a fight due to a single bad roll--that could be death, paralysis, petrification, and (perhaps worst) domination.

Sure, it's a game, and sometimes people "lose". On the other hand, I'm not running a tournament in my dining room: these are my friends and we want to play.


----------



## scott2978 (Mar 7, 2012)

I personally like having SoD effects in my campaigns. I also agree with those who say that having a PC die is not a great idea. So, I usually just make sure the PC's have a "way out" of death if it does occur. Either they have the gold and a friendly Cleric who can resurrect them _(True Res is the only way to go though as losing a level is often even worse than death and can unbalance the group to boot)_ or a magic item that can bring them back, or a house rule mechanic like a Fate Point that a PC can spend to "avoid death" and instead just be unconscious at -9 hit points. I also let PC's spend their Fate Points on other PCs and not just themself. This has the effect of keeping the _suspence of defeat_ without having the pains of actual death. Of course, if there are no more Fate Points left in the group someone could still die. I always had the PC reset back to 1 Fate Point at each new level. I had also considered some mechanic that gave them bonus xp if no Fate Point had been spent on them during their previous level, but never got around to implementing it.


----------



## scott2978 (Mar 7, 2012)

--Oops, mis-post--


----------



## Mercule (Mar 7, 2012)

I skipped most of the preceding pages, so this may have been said. I like the basic idea. It reinforces the idea that hit points aren't just toughness. They include luck, skills, and combat sense.

To go with that idea, I'd still like to see save-or-die effects deal damage, because avoiding Medusa's gaze while trying to fight her is a very high-stakes crap shoot. Maybe have the save-or-die attacks turned into ultra-damaging attacks that have a special effect if they drop the target to 0 hp (or some other arbitrary threshold, as Mike described).


----------



## pemerton (Mar 7, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> That's what I had in mind when I suggested the "Heroic Avoidance" option earlier.  I must not have been clear the way I wrote it up.



Another possibility is that I didn't read all of the thread before posting . . . but who can tell?

Anyway, great minds and all that.


----------



## RHGreen (Mar 7, 2012)

Right so a Save Or Die is basically a finishing move in the Mearls mechanic.

Save Or Dies are 'all or nothing.' A Medusa either gazes or not.

If you just make them so they cause really high damage, but that damage(die) is only applied if it takes the PC to 0HP.

It is a similar mechanic to Mearls, but has a random damage effect.

Character can have extra defence against certain attacks.

Elves get Defence+5 versus Ghoul Paralysis and Charm.


When you pull one off a loud voicee bellows 'Fatality'


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Yep, and it's not like it's difficult to throw a save, or an extra save or two in front of a spell that would normally be "you die" when I'm at the table.



Well, I was referencing the general idea of clues and the like.

But I can absolutely see how you could keep SoD and then just justify saves to avoid the save.  In effect you have SoSoD rather than SSoD.  And from a mechanics point of view, there is no difference.  You can always tack more "So"s on front of a SoD.  It is just when SSSoD starts giving you "wrong" things like being slowed by Medusa that I start looking for better games.

So yes I agree.
But at the same time I'm personally going to be a bit stingy with those extras saves at my table.  To me those become things where, most of the time, the player is responsible for getting their character into (or keeping them out of) the need for saves.  

But every situation is unique and every group will have its own read on how best to manage each situation.  

And in the end that comes down to a case for "leave save or die in, as is, and give groups the tools to mitigate to their own taste"


----------



## nightwalker450 (Mar 7, 2012)

PC creation doesn't take 10 minutes in any game, except for the very first session.

Usually you are loosing MONTHS or YEARS of character development when your character dies. And if resurrection is your answer, than why do you need SoD? SoD is not at all scary, if it involves restoring to your last save point.

Death should be meaningful, and not random.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's not like it's difficult to add a sidebar to the medusa entry that states: "to achieve the 'classic' medusa result, just skip stages one and two so that a successful attack by the medusa results directly in turning the character to stone."
> 
> It is more difficult to design stages one and two that are flavorful and balanced. Not impossible by any means, but not usable out of the box like the medusa I propose with SSSoD as the default and a SoD sidebar.



You may very well be right.

But in the end I think that is where WotC's back is against the wall.

I've got an awesome game right now.  I'm sticking with it unless they come up with a more awesome game.  Coming up with a new game that works adequately won't be anywhere near good enough.  
I've got zero brand loyalty and zero interest in "new shiny".  I want what the best option.  

If the game is founded on ideas like "here is how to protect characters with a stack of extra saves but if you want to fix the narrative there is a sidebar over there", then they won't come close.  

There is no need to 5E to appeal to me any more than there was for 4E.  And the 4E crowd is the bird in the hand.  But if they want to increase their fan base, they need to make some real changes.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> But in the end I think that is where WotC's back is against the wall.
> 
> I've got an awesome game right now.  I'm sticking with it unless they come up with a more awesome game.  Coming up with a new game that works adequately won't be anywhere near good enough.
> I've got zero brand loyalty and zero interest in "new shiny".  I want what the best option.
> ...




An unflavorful sidebar probably wouldn't be the best approach. I could see how one could view it as an after-thought.

What if the narrative for the medusa entry spoke towards the bloodline of D&D medusae to the progenitor of their bloodline? "Medusa-kin" narrative explains that their power takes more time to fully turn someone to stone and expresses this in SSSoD mechanics. "Lesser Medusa" are more powerful and are expressed in SSoD mechanics. While "Greater Medusa" have direct links to the originator of their species and have a SoD mechanic.

If not that, then how would you suggest WotC could be inclusive and provide the 'best option?'


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 7, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What if the narrative for the medusa entry spoke towards the bloodline of D&D medusae to the progenitor of their bloodline? "Medusa-kin" narrative explains that their power takes more time to fully turn someone to stone and expresses this in SSSoD mechanics. "Lesser Medusa" are more powerful and are expressed in SSoD mechanics. While "Greater Medusa" have direct links to the originator of their species and have a SoD mechanic.'




If the MM ends up having several variations of each monster like the 4E MMs did... then there's no reason *not* to do something like this.  Heck, I'd go even further with what you have here by not only making three medusa versions of SSSoD, SSoD, & SoD... but also make them Standard, Elite, and Solo.  That way the DM reading the book _really_ knows what they are getting into.  You can throw several Standard "medusa-kin" at a party and be fairly confident in the party's work to counter the effects as they occur... or you go for broke by putting them up against a single Solo "Greater Medusa" that has the true SoD mechanic.

The biggest thing though is that I think any monsters with true SoD _need_ to be Solos.  The mechanic is too important/cool/deadly/story-driven to have it be on monsters that are meant to be found as a pack encounter for the party.  That just takes the 'oomph' out of them.


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 7, 2012)

nightwalker450 said:


> PC creation doesn't take 10 minutes in any game, except for the very first session.
> 
> Usually you are loosing MONTHS or YEARS of character development when your character dies. And if resurrection is your answer, than why do you need SoD? SoD is not at all scary, if it involves restoring to your last save point.
> 
> Death should be meaningful, and not random.




Thank you for making that point. I am always confused whenever I hear someone argue for shorter character creation times. It takes me longer to come up with an interesting background than it takes me to make a PC in any edition of D&D. 

And as nightwalker says, the actual character generation happens in game, both as I figure out how to give the character his voice and as the character develops relationships to other PCs and NPCs.


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 7, 2012)

I must say i am rather amused how concerned people are about simulating the gaze of a Medusa realistically in a game where any fighter can ignore being threatened with a Knife and no trained warrior will ever die from falling of a horse. 

D&D always made huge concession to fun ignoring realism in areas where our real life experience actually tells us what should happen.  

But apparently making those concessions to the "realism" of a Medusa is a problem even though there is no real Medusa.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 7, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> I must say i am rather amused how concerned people are about simulating the gaze of a Medusa realistically in a game where any fighter can ignore being threatened with a Knife and no trained warrior will ever die from falling of a horse.




The knife part true. The horse part, you can fix.

DM: You fall from your horse. I'm rolling 10d6 for damage.
Player: Wait! What!!!??????
DM: It was a big horse.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If not that, then how would you suggest WotC could be inclusive and provide the 'best option?'



I really don't know.

Obviously I would like to see them please me, but you remain "the bird in the hand" and they neglect that at their peril.

In then end what you said meets the criteria I established.  So I've no complaint.  Whether solving the issue monster-by-monster is the best solution is open to debate.  But if they want to throw a really big net then options will be required.  This kind of "check the box you like" approach may be the answer.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 7, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> I must say i am rather amused how concerned people are about simulating the gaze of a Medusa realistically in a game where any fighter can ignore being threatened with a Knife




The fighter doesn't ignore the knife. That's why it becomes much more lethal when he's helpless and the knife-wielder can coup de grace him.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> I must say i am rather amused how concerned people are about simulating the gaze of a Medusa realistically in a game where any fighter can ignore being threatened with a Knife and no trained warrior will ever die from falling of a horse.
> 
> D&D always made huge concession to fun ignoring realism in areas where our real life experience actually tells us what should happen.
> 
> But apparently making those concessions to the "realism" of a Medusa is a problem even though there is no real Medusa.



"Realism" is a false issue here.  But that aside....

There is no precedent for looking at a Medusa and NOT turning to stone.  There is vast precedent in heroic literature for characters to avoid would-be fatal knife stabs.

The system I advocate gets fantasy knives correct and gets fantasy Medusa correct.  I'm happy with the consistency there.

If you want surprise knife attacks to be moire deadly, check out the Black Company approach in which HP work as normal but under the right circumstances (surprise/crit/etc..) weapon damage is instead applied directly to CON.  Suddenly every fight and every STAB is very serious.

I also have long used a falling house rule that every "1" on falling damage dice is 1 CON damage rather than 1 HP damage.

But, again, the bottom line is forget the false standard of "realism" and focus on getting the things to work in the game the same as they do in great stories.  Make that change and your complaint here goes away.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> So yes I agree.
> But at the same time I'm personally going to be a bit stingy with those extras saves at my table.  To me those become things where, most of the time, the player is responsible for getting their character into (or keeping them out of) the need for saves.




I am certainly all for DM discretion when it comes to the lethality or grittyness of a campaign.


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> "Realism" is a false issue here.  But that aside....
> 
> There is no precedent for looking at a Medusa and NOT turning to stone.  There is vast precedent in heroic literature for characters to avoid would-be fatal knife stabs.




There is no precedent for looking at a Medusa. These is a single _*story*_ about a guy fighting decked out in magic items fighting a Medusa in a very one-sided combat. So all you have is anecdotal evidence here.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Mar 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I also have long used a falling house rule that every "1" on falling damage dice is 1 CON damage rather than 1 HP damage.




This is a great house rule, consider it stolen 
I'd XP you for your trouble, but it appears I like your ideas too much


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 7, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> The fighter doesn't ignore the knife. That's why it becomes much more lethal when he's helpless and the knife-wielder can coup de grace him.




So maybe the Medusa should require a saving throw when the opponent is helpless?


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> But, again, the bottom line is forget the false standard of "realism" and focus on getting the things to work in the game the same as they do in great stories.  Make that change and your complaint here goes away.




It is easy to think of many scenarios where it is a huge problem for the story that an unarmed, unarmored fighter does not feel overly threatened by several armed opponents. 

Try to threaten your 3rd to 5th level PCs with 10-20 club- and knife armed  beggars or 2-6 city guards with crossbows, and they will be amused, even if their gear and their spells are locked away. In a story, those PCs would beat feet. In D&D, the PCs will take out the opposition without serious injury and then take their stuff.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> There is no precedent for looking at a Medusa. These is a single _*story*_ about a guy fighting decked out in magic items fighting a Medusa in a very one-sided combat. So all you have is anecdotal evidence here.



"Anecdotal"?  Really?

That "one story" also happens to the THE STANDARD.



> In a story, those PCs would beat feet. In D&D, the PCs will take out the opposition without serious injury and then take their stuff.



This from the guy who just called the Perseus myth an anecdote???

There are plenty of examples in which this simply isn't remotely true.  (Clash of Titans happens to feature both 1-look = stone Medusa and also *bring on the lot of ya* fighting, but that is just an anecdote)

There are gritty game systems out there for gritty games.  Do you want to talk about those in the new edition of D&D forum? And if so, why?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> So maybe the Medusa should require a saving throw when the opponent is helpless?



If they are helpless then maybe there should be no SOD, but instead just D.


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> There are gritty game systems out there for gritty games.  Do you want to talk about those in the new edition of D&D forum? And if so, why?




No I don't. That's why I think SoD doesn't belong in D&D.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> No I don't. That's why I think SoD doesn't belong in D&D.



I don't think many people would call 1E "gritty" in the context we were just discussing (one thrust knife kills) and yet SoD has a long tradition in D&D.  

There is a significant distinction between "gritty" and "high potential for character death."


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I don't think many people would call 1E "gritty" in the context we were just discussing (one thrust knife kills) and yet SoD has a long tradition in D&D.
> 
> There is a significant distinction between "gritty" and "high potential for character death."




I'm not sure I see that distinction. Why would you even want a game with high probability of character death that is not gritty?

Also I think "We always used to do it like this" is not the best argument for anything, especially as the last edition of the game works just fine without it.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 8, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> I'm not sure I see that distinction. Why would you even want a game with high probability of character death that is not gritty?




Lots of reasons. 
The most obvious is if you're going for Gaming, without much roleplay. It's not gritty, because that's about the roleplay, it's just deadly, because that makes the game more fun.

But there are other reasons too.


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 8, 2012)

What I find interesting is this discussion is currently all swirling around the proper representation of Medusa in DnD.

The history of Medusa and monsters in DnD has historically been quite varied.

There have been the Great Monster Medusa of say Birthright or Ravenloft and then there have been the lesser Medusa that seem to have colonies of the critters.

There have even been male Medusa in DnD.

Some of the Medusa are bi-pedal walkers and some have serpent bodies.  I've even seen a few that looked like a pile of snakes traveling in a serpent ball with a human head.

There have been dozens of versions created for different settings, for different Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

One of the strengths of DnD is the ability of the DM to express their creativity in the monsters.

This is why traditionally the Monster Manuel has been the last book to buy and the last book that I bother to look at for ideas.

90% the Pegs provided don't fit my want, need, or story focus.  I might borrow a rule or idea here or there from this monster or that but after that I'll create as I like.

Some days I'll want my players feeling their lives can be snuffed out at a whim of a candle and some times I'll want them to have a real slog.  I even modify monsters on the fly after assessing what players have arrived for the night and what kind of moods they are in.

If they want to pound stuff then I'll give them stuff to pound and if they want to negotiate then I'll give them stuff to negotiate.

If the company wants to give me something useful in a MM entry then give me some options, a framework to hang the options on, a few story seeds, and some details on which I can fit the creature into overall game framework (curse you Flail Snail and Flumph, where the heck do I put you?)


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 8, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> I must say i am rather amused how concerned people are about simulating the gaze of a Medusa realistically in a game where any fighter can ignore being threatened with a Knife and no trained warrior will ever die from falling of a horse.
> 
> D&D always made huge concession to fun ignoring realism in areas where our real life experience actually tells us what should happen.
> 
> But apparently making those concessions to the "realism" of a Medusa is a problem even though there is no real Medusa.




You have some insightful posts, so I thought I'd respond to one. Simulation is a concern for some players, but it isn't the be and and end all either. In the past the game did clip off extraordinarily rare odds in its rolls. When games tried to put them back in, like with exploding damage rolls (cumulative max results keep rolling), they invariably limited how long PCs could adventure before the odds caught up to them too, not just dealing it out to the enemy. It would be unheard of for anyone to live to old age from peasant living alone, much less the dangerous business of adventuring (though maybe some prefer that in their games, I don't).

However, while I do think the game makes concessions in some places to enable simplicity behind the screen, it can do a fair job of simulating stuff like combat too. A single knife can kill pretty much any creature when not actively defended against. A fall from a horse is 1d6 and a few poor HP rolls early on even for a Fighter means a 10' fall can still drop someone below zero. -10 (a glaring PC-only rule) obviously keeps PCs alive when they would more commonly die due to injury. Will HPs be dropped? Maybe we'll get multiple options with the benefits and drawbacks of each, who knows? But some level of abstraction will live on.

My main point is, interesting character challenges should lead to interesting player strategies. Medusa Save or Turn to Stone is pretty classic. It involves shared eye contact, so both creatures must be able to see and have direct line of sight on the other, no cover, no blindfolds, nada. It means arc of vision is accounted for, for humanoids normally 180°, and facing by creatures pointed at each other in that arc. That stuff isn't in the game anymore. They may have never been in many people's games, but bizarre outcomes due to the rules arise like hydra heads needing to be cut off (yeah I went there) when the rules can't account for corner cases.

I'd prefer to see players think up ideas like "we're better off negotiating here; what do we have to offer?" or "maybe we could send the monk in blindfolded? Let's test that out first like this..." Hack & Slash play really was about charging in and smacking stuff with one's sword until everything fell. It used to be the odds were on average 50% to do that (so in no one's favor). Changing the odds by thinking outside the box was how we changed that. And IMO creative thinking is really what these glass cannons promote. They're not about ruining the players fun or exiling them from the game table randomly. And I'd rather not see made popular the opinion that 'anything not solely designed for attrition-based play is the problem.' I say we need more diversity of rules, not less. These are the times when the rules need to step in and promote more interesting game play, not less.

I'm not Simulation or Nothing. What I see is a design challenge that can be overcome creatively and, if done well, could really amaze people. Rather than bemoaning these difficulties and avoiding them by changing the fiction, why don't we think of means that highlight their uniqueness and really push the players to get creative too?


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2012)

Just assume the Medusa for some reason has a special tag, and move discussions to anything other than the Medusa, and you're better off.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> I'm not sure I see that distinction.



Again the point, as raised *by you* was a question of comparing the deadliness of knives vs. the deadliness of Medusa.

If not being afraid of death by a single knife attack equates to not being gritty, then I'd like to know how you consider 1E gritty.

And yet Medusa was SoD in 1E.  And the potential for character death was quite high in 1E.

Whether or not you see it, the dichotomy you have challenged was there.



> Why would you even want a game with high probability of character death that is not gritty?



Well, I don't know where "high probability" came from, but I'll just presume you misspoke and meant "high potential".

My Pathfinder game is pretty WaaHoo.  I've run gritty in the past.  Pathfinder, not so much.  I find these days I just like the high fantasy stuff.  That is nothing but personal taste.  If the gritty mood strikes me I lean toward GURPS and/or Warhammer (2E).

And yet the current campaign I'm running has seen quite a few PC deaths.  Four of the starting five PCs are deceased and a handful of replacements have fallen as well.  I think the total is 7 deaths in 16 sessions.  



> Also I think "We always used to do it like this" is not the best argument for anything



I agree 100%.  Of course blindly abandoning things that have worked before is at least equally as foolish.  

That is why I prefer to actually look at the merits and flaws on a case by case basis.



> , especially if the last edition of the game works just fine without it.



Big "if" there.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2012)

Well, as far as setting the "standard" for the medusa, we have 40 years of D&D medusas where you can have staring contests with them all day long, in every single version of the D&D medusa, and not turn to stone.

How is that not a standard?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> What I find interesting is this discussion is currently all swirling around the proper representation of Medusa in DnD.
> 
> The history of Medusa and monsters in DnD has historically been quite varied.



I think it is highly important to maintain a distinction between mechanical representation and narrative.

It is true that Medusa of legend is a unique character.  As is the minotaur.  As is Pegasus (though in that case there were others of that breed)

In D&D with a race of minotaurs they are half bull and half man.  A half-pig and a half-squirrel called "minotaur" would still be wrong.  

You can home brew your own world and lift the Medusa out of the MM and say that she is a unique creature because that fits the myth.  Or you can home brew your own world and say that in THIS fictional world there are millions of "medusa".  


If an instance of "medusa" functions as Medusa then it is ok.  If an instance of medusa doesn't function like Medusa then you just have a pig/squirrel minotaur.  The functionality of these statements have no reliance on whether or not your home brew has stayed true to the uniqueness in the myth or has taken the myth as a template for an entire race.

It is simple enough to just as the question "If I make this a unique creature in my home brew, does it now match the myth?"  You may be completely offended by the idea that someone would want more than one in their setting.  That is fine.  But if you can't answer the first question with an affirmative, then you are already lost.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, as far as setting the "standard" for the medusa, we have 40 years of D&D medusas where you can have staring contests with them all day long, in every single version of the D&D medusa, and not turn to stone.
> 
> How is that not a standard?



I reject that claim.

And we have had this exact conversation before.

If you run YOUR games in such a way that you describe making a save as looking at Medusa and not suffering the results, then I don't think anything in the rules is going to matter from there for better or for worse.

In every (Pre-4E)version of D&D I've ever played the rules were 100% compatible with "If you look at Medusa you turn to stone".  Period.
If a player were to ever say they look at Medusa, they would turn to stone.  No Save allowed.

The presumption is that the characters wish to avoid looking.  


Now, anyone who wants to just say that a save means staring her in the eye and telling her to get bent is free to do so.  The rules don't DEMAND anything of the players.  The rules also do not prevent you from being Wolverine with a machine gun in Camelot.

But they have always completely supported the ability to get Medusa right.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I reject that claim.
> 
> And we have had this exact conversation before.
> 
> ...




Do I really have to go and quote every single Monster Manual again?  I mean, you already admitted I was right once, so, why the sudden change of heart?

No, the presumption has NEVER been "you avoid looking her in the eye".  Not once.  Not one single instance of the medusa in D&D has followed this model.  EVERY single version, from Basic D&D onwards (I can't speak to OD&D, I don't have access to those books) says that if you look at a medusa THEN you make a saving throw.

You can continue to present your homebrew as what the rules say all you like, but, you've always been wrong.  Provably wrong.  Go back and actually READ the books.  In 3e, it's a FORT save, not a will save (which is what avoiding doing something is), in earlier editions, it was save vs petrification - the exact same save as if you were hit by a Stone to Flesh spell or a Gorgon's breath attack.

Now, you can certainly house rule all you like.  That's fine.  But, please, stop presenting your house rules as something that's always been in the rules, because never, not one single time, in all the history of D&D, has the medusa worked the way you claim it does.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, as far as setting the "standard" for the medusa, we have 40 years of D&D medusas where you can have staring contests with them all day long, in every single version of the D&D medusa, and not turn to stone.



I was going to raise the same issue as BryonD - why does a successful save not represent averting one's gaze? - and then read your follow up post.

So I looked at some monster descriptions.

From the d20 SRD:

A medusa tries to disguise its true nature until the intended victim is within range of its petrifying gaze, using subterfuge and bluffing games to convince the target that there is no danger. It uses normal weapons to attack those who avert their eyes or survive its gaze​
This states that it is possible to survive the gaze of a medusa. Also, there are these rules for gaze attacks:

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. 

An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. 

. . .

If visibility is limited (by dim lighting, a fog, or the like) so that it results in concealment, there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won’t need to make a saving throw in a given round.​
These rules very strongly imply - they more-or-less entail - that the save is required only as a _consequence_ of meeting the gaze.

From OSRIC:

[T]heir more feared attack mode is their gaze, which petrifies any creature that looks into their eyes. The creature may attempt a save vs petrifaction to avoid this.​
The reference of "this" is ambiguous - does it refer to "looking into their eyes", or does it refer to "petrification having looked into their eyes"? There is this bit of rules text that runs your way:

A character attempting to fight a medusa without looking at her must accept a penalty of -4 on his or her “to hit” rolls.​
That implies that, if you don't take the -4 penalty then you _are_ looking at the medusa, which in turn suggests that the save is to avoid petrificatin rather than to avoid looking into the medusa's eyes.

*TL;DR*: you are definitely right for 3E, and probably right for AD&D/OSRIC, although I think in this latter case there is a bit more interpretive wriggle-room.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 8, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> Making a new PC isn't usually an option without breaking immersion. If a character dies in the middle of a fight in a dangerous area, that player won't come back into the game until the fight is over (maybe 30 min, maybe 60 min), and then after the party finds a suitable time/place to revive the PC. The remedy to this situation is for the game to have shorter fights, I would say.



Said player could easily be spending that time rolling up a replacement...but you're right about shorter fights.  Revival in the field makes a big difference too; once you get to that point bringing a dead PC back becomes relatively straightforward, but before that point a temporary replacement is often the next step.



> As to other options: playing assistant DM is usually more trouble than it's worth, especially since a player half-heartedly then fights the remaining PCs.



This is why you always want to keep one or two NPCs in the party: people can take them over when their own character goes down.



> Having two PCs is great, unless the party already has 5-6 characters, and only if the players want multiple characters.



Having two PCs each is *the answer* in a high-lethality game.  (says he, who has an average party size in his game of about 10)



> If the game is using SoDs, this situation (a player not being able to play) happen more often. Again, I'm not talking about a character dying and not coming back--that is rare after a certain level. I just mean when a PC is knocked out of a fight due to a single bad roll--that could be death, paralysis, petrification, and (perhaps worst) domination.
> 
> Sure, it's a game, and sometimes people "lose". On the other hand, I'm not running a tournament in my dining room: these are my friends and we want to play.



Fair enough, but it also comes down to expectations.  D&D is not the sort of game where one can reasonably expect to be fully involved all the time, for a whole bunch of reasons including but not at all limited to character incapacitation.  Most of the time yes, but not all.

Lan-"everybody must get stoned"-efan


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 8, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Said player could easily be spending that time rolling up a replacement...



Which really isn't a lot of fun.  If there's an expectation of death in the game, it's probably better to come prepared with an alternate character.  But there's still an underlying issue of dispensability here, and a tactical issue.



> This is why you always want to keep one or two NPCs in the party: people can take them over when their own character goes down.



This works if we assume that players are familiar with the classes of those NPCs.  If the guy who only plays fighters suddenly has to take over a sorcerer, or a cleric, it may result in even more death due to their lack of knowledge.  Plus, there's a growing tactics issue.



> Having two PCs each is *the answer* in a high-lethality game.  (says he, who has an average party size in his game of about 10)



For players who are skilled enough to run two characters yes.  This gets progressively more difficult and turns become more time-consuming as players advance to higher levels.  If you have players who are VERY fluent with the game and capable of taking quick turns, that's great, this works, but there's also the tactics issue here.

The one that I've been leading up to is basically this:  D&D is a team game, in most situations you're working with and cooperating with other players, players who you have to communicate with.  Sometimes effects remove those modes of communication(deafen, blind/darkness).  Without metagaming, you basically now can't communicate with your party.  Problematically, you can't NOT communicate with yourself, and as it's been said, attempting to not metagame is the height of metagaming.

Not to mention that D&D is supposed to establish a system of co-dependence within a party(that's why they're sticking it out together and not alone), if every player is their own party, then we're wondering, "why is this group of people together?"


Even if I wanted to run a high-lethality game, there's no way I could follow your suggestions.  Character creation is more than just rolling stats and picking powers/feats, it's an investment.  Making multiple characters because they're all going to die next week makes them meaningless.  Why put the love and effort into creating, developing, role-playing a character you're going to replace in a week?  Secondly, I'm a slow player, I take time to consider my options, and there's no way I could run multiple characters, or just jump into an NPC.  

I'd like to see ways to run a high-lethality game without filling the dumpster with dead characters every week.  The THREAT of lethality is what's important, not actual death.  Expecting to die, coming very close to death, seeing a single character die and knowing you could be next, that's what creates tension.  Throwing characters into the meat grinder is more a war-crime than a tension builder.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 8, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Said player could easily be spending that time rolling up a replacement...but you're right about shorter fights.  Revival in the field makes a big difference too; once you get to that point bringing a dead PC back becomes relatively straightforward, but before that point a temporary replacement is often the next step.
> 
> This is why you always want to keep one or two NPCs in the party: people can take them over when their own character goes down.
> 
> ...




I have been in games such as you describe, Lanefan, and I have even run them a couple times. This is especially true for a one-shot game, or a short campaign designed to only play a specific series of adventures. In such games, players don't make the same investment in creating a story, a personality (as in my current campaign), because they know the PC may die. *In fact, they fear SoD and death much less, since they aren't committed to their somewhat disposable characters.* If the new PC is lower level, and with less gear (or even level 1), a couple deaths means that the adventure is over, because the party isn't tough enough to continue--well, time to start a new game. That has happened to me as a DM three times over the years, and to me once as a player. Yay.


My current group (and my group from back in the 80's) prefer a campaign with ongoing character development. That means PC deaths are rare and usually permanent, and players control one PC at a time (perhaps one plus a backup). By limiting (or eliminating) SoD, PC deaths come as a consequence of at least a few actions, not single instances of bad luck.
Even when a PC dies, that makes for a more memorable and satisfying experience.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 8, 2012)

Regarding the medusa, the pre-4E rules don't explicitly say you can look at the medusa and survive, but they push in that direction. (Correction after reading a few more posts: they _do_ explicitly say this.) In 3E, for instance, you make a Fort save to not turn to stone. If the save is to avoid looking at the medusa, this makes no sense--it ought to be Reflex. Fortitude is for when you're "toughing out" something, which implies that you are in fact "toughing out" petrification. Likewise, AD&D made the saving throw "Petrifaction or Polymorph," implying that you were resisting the transformation into stone rather than avoiding ever meeting the medusa's gaze in the first place.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Mar 8, 2012)

Player's don't intentionally have staring contests with Medusas.



They sometimes do entertain having Level-draining experiences with Succubi.

How 5e handles Succubi is probably more important than Medusa from the player standpoint.

1e was 1 level drained per round with 1 minute rounds.  So you can last 1 minute per level with no mechanics to force further contact.  That seems like a suitable length of encounter.  Good old fashioned junior high fantasy role-playing.

2e and 3.x had much shorter rounds and added mechanics to force unwanted continuing engagement.  Commonly a PC wouldn't last more than 1-2 minutes with near guaranteed fatality.

4e sounds a lot more like marriage.  She only kisses you once per day, doesn't kill you, but makes you do whatever she wants.  And she's not even a demon anymore.


DMs worry about how the Medusa is modelled, players pay more attention to the Succubus.  2e/3e Succubus was more in the Save or Die vein with the mechanics.


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2012)

Honestly, I'm a lot more curious how the _Beholder_ works


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Do I really have to go and quote every single Monster Manual again?  I mean, you already admitted I was right once, so, why the sudden change of heart?



To the contrary, you are the one that gave up and walked away....



> No, the presumption has NEVER been "you avoid looking her in the eye".  Not once.  Not one single instance of the medusa in D&D has followed this model.  EVERY single version, from Basic D&D onwards (I can't speak to OD&D, I don't have access to those books) says that if you look at a medusa THEN you make a saving throw.
> 
> You can continue to present your homebrew as what the rules say all you like, but, you've always been wrong.  Provably wrong.  Go back and actually READ the books.  In 3e, it's a FORT save, not a will save (which is what avoiding doing something is), in earlier editions, it was save vs petrification - the exact same save as if you were hit by a Stone to Flesh spell or a Gorgon's breath attack.
> 
> Now, you can certainly house rule all you like.  That's fine.  But, please, stop presenting your house rules as something that's always been in the rules, because never, not one single time, in all the history of D&D, has the medusa worked the way you claim it does.



As I said, there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from playing that way.

And yet everyone I've ever played with seems to implicitly understand the concept.  

If you don't grok concept being the guiding principle and the idea that the rules presume that they don't have to reteach every bit of mythology to you, then so be it.  

I think you are far and away a radical corner case here for whom this isn't glowingly obvious.  

But that really doesn't matter.  In the end if I was the only human on earth that wanted Medusa to actually be right, the fact would still remain that pre-4E every version of D&D has been fully compatible with that ideal.

I'm not saying that you can't turn things on their head to your hearts content.  Of course, I'm also not the one with a sig declaring that my own experience is limited to "ludicrous" gaming.  

What I am saying is that:
-every pre-4E system was fully capable of getting it right
-every group I've ever played with has understood this without need for any conversation
-I'm a bit shocked that this isn't obvious to you as well, much less that you claim the opposite to be understood.
-I think that is an interesting note that fits in extremely well with so many other debates we have had and your negative comments about so many of your historic experiences.
-I don't care one way or another if a system allows you to get it wrong, I don't even really care if it EXPECTS you to get it wrong, so long as it also provides QUALITY options for getting it right.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> These rules very strongly imply - they more-or-less entail - that the save is required only as a _consequence_ of meeting the gaze.



But the 3E rules for "gaze" are not specific to Medusa.  
They are applying a general rule for gaze attacks to the specific case here.

There is no obligation under those rules to describe being subject to a gaze attack as having yourself SEEN the source of that attack.  

If you want to hold this to a standard that I must prove that getting it is wrong is ruled out, then I simply won't go there.  I again readily agree there is room for getting it wrong.  

But if you combine the generic gaze rules with what is common knowledge about Medusa then it is trivial to come to the correct conclusion.  It is only by refusing to use common knowledge and rational thinking that the potential for confusion comes.  

I've said many times before, on other topics, that no rule system can ever cover every situation and if you expect to play an RPG purely by the guidance of the rules with no DM thoughtfulness, then the quality of that experience will be very limited.  And in this specific example I believe that the threshold of DM thoughtfulness is very low indeed and the reduction in quality for not applying it is very high.  But there is no stick there to enforce that.  You can ignore that or use it as you will.

Again, the bottom line remains that you are completely free to choose to get it wrong.   But you can also choose to get it right entirely by the rules.  
And I'm shocked by the idea that there are people throwing such basic common understanding by the wayside.  If they just find it more fun and choose to play that way then more power to them!!  I fully endorse play what you like.  But claiming this is understood and intended is silly.

In the end I guess I'd just say that I'd wager that playing in a game DMed by any 3E designer and saying "I look at Medusa" would not be responded to with "roll a fort save" but instead "ok, you forfeit your save, you turn to stone."


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> If you don't grok concept being the guiding principle and the idea that the rules presume that they don't have to reteach every bit of mythology to you, then so be it.
> 
> I think you are far and away a radical corner case here for whom this isn't glowingly obvious.




I agree with you on how the medusa _should_ work. But the written rules about medusae explicitly state you can survive the medusa's gaze--at DC 15, it's not even very hard--and all the mechanics support that interpretation.



			
				d20SRD said:
			
		

> It uses normal weapons to attack those who avert their eyes *or survive its gaze*.




This, combined with the fact that the gaze attack rules specifically mention the medusa, makes the intent of the rules crystal clear. If you look at the medusa, you get a Fort save. If you avert your eyes, you get a 50% chance to avoid looking at the medusa, and a Fort save if that fails, with the drawback that the medusa gains concealment against you. You're tying yourself in knots trying to claim that the rules don't say what they clearly do.

Now, can you house-rule it to work differently? Of course you can! But if you're willing to adjust the RAW with house rules, I don't see your beef with the 4E version. It's the easiest thing in the world to replace the progressive saves of 4E with "Turn to stone. Turn directly to stone. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 XP."

What I don't understand is why you're so invested in proving that The Old Way Was Right. Why not just say the old way was wrong, the new way is also wrong, and you think a third way is the way to go? I'm perfectly ready to say I don't like how medusae have been handled in D&D from day one. Any saving throws should be Reflex-based and should be contingent on averting your eyes--if you look straight at the medusa, that's all she wrote. Furthermore, the medusa should be designed as a high-level solo monster, something you'd fight in the equivalent of low epic tier. We'll see if 5E's designers agree.


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2012)

The medusa has not worked the way some people want in any edition of D&D. The D&D medusa is not the Medusa from myth. 

So, how it works in D&D Next is pretty immaterial. Which is why we should talk about _some other monster_ and some other mechanics.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I agree with you on how the medusa _should_ work. But the written rules about medusae explicitly state you can survive the medusa's gaze--at DC 15, it's not even very hard--and all the mechanics support that interpretation.



What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?

Again, I remain rather shocked that this is even a conversation.  

It is obvious enough, to me, that the idea is applying the general "gaze attack" mechanics to the specific case of Medusa and using that to answer the question "did you see her?" and NOT the question "did seeing her turn you to stone this time?".


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Mar 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?




I once described a big lizardy thing poking its head around a corner, and one of my players told me he was staring it in the eye to show he wasn't afraid (he was expecting it to be a wyvern).

It was a basilisk.

We all agreed (including him) that he shouldn't get the normal saving throw; and when we'd stopped laughing long enough the rest of the party killed it and recovered his statue.


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 8, 2012)

Blacky the Blackball said:


> I once described a big lizardy thing poking its head around a corner, and one of my players told me he was staring it in the eye to show he wasn't afraid (he was expecting it to be a wyvern).
> 
> It was a basilisk.
> 
> We all agreed (including him) that he shouldn't get the normal saving throw; and when we'd stopped laughing long enough the rest of the party killed it and recovered his statue.




This is as good as the campaign I played in that thought it would be a good plot device if he had a nuclear bomb/missile detonate inside the cargo hold of our ship playing Alternity.

The GM kept insisting that he had calculated that according to the rules the bulkheads of the ship would contain the explosive and we'd be okay.

The whole group just looked at the GM and shook their heads and said, 'No, we're dead'.

This ended our Alternity campaign.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 9, 2012)

BryonD said:


> But the 3E rules for "gaze" are not specific to Medusa.
> They are applying a general rule for gaze attacks to the specific case here.
> 
> There is no obligation under those rules to describe being subject to a gaze attack as having yourself SEEN the source of that attack.



There is the passage that refers to _surviving_ the gaze of the Medusa, that both Dausuul and I cited.

There is the fact that if you are blindfolded or otherwise are not looking at it or cannot see it (perhaps based on a concealment % chance), you don't need to save.

There is the fact that it is a Fortitude save, which is obviously a "toughing it out" thing rather than an "averting one's eyes" thing (the latter would be either Reflex as Dausuul suggested, or Will - to avoid the lure of the gaze - as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggested). For the sceptical, here is the relevant text from the SRD on Fortitude saves:

These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health.​
A Fortitude save does not represent averting one's eyes. It represents, in this case, "standing up to" the petrifying gaze of the Medusa, which threatens the "vitality and health" of one's body.



BryonD said:


> If you want to hold this to a standard that I must prove that getting it is wrong is ruled out, then I simply won't go there.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Given that the rules state that it is possible to survive the gaze of a medusa - presumably by toughing it out, given that the save in question is a Fortitude save, I don't agree. I'm not holding you to some standard of not getting it wrong. I'm just quoting the relevant rules text.

As I said in the post to which you replied, what you say _may_ be true of AD&D (a Petrification save, for example, might reflect averting one's eyes at the last minute, rather than toughing it out) although I think the OSRIC text pushes somewhat in Hussar's direction. But it seems to me just obviously false of 3E.

This is one respect in which the difference between the strongly simulationist leanings of 3E - including its simulationist reconceptualisation of saving throws - and the more fortuen-in-the-middle approach of AD&D becomes apparent.



Dausuul said:


> You're tying yourself in knots trying to claim that the rules don't say what they clearly do.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What I don't understand is why you're so invested in proving that The Old Way Was Right.



This.



Dausuul said:


> But if you're willing to adjust the RAW with house rules, I don't see your beef with the 4E version. It's the easiest thing in the world to replace the progressive saves of 4E with "Turn to stone. Turn directly to stone. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 XP."



And this. I don't see any difference between houseruling away the saving throw of the 3E PC who goes eyeball-to-eyeball with the Medusa, and houseruling away the first two SSs of an SSSoD Medusa.

And just to reiterate - as I said above, I think AD&D _may_ be a different beast here. The wiggle room in the OSRIC text at least opens the possibility to the alternative reading, although I think it is still most naturally read as implying that the save represents resistance/endurance rather than averting one's eyes.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2012)

No, BryonD I didn't give up and walk away, I had actually shown you to be wrong, and figured that nothing more needed to be said after you agreed.  But, apparently, it needed to be pinned down a bit more.  So, with that in mind:



			
				Molvay Basic Page B39 said:
			
		

> The sight of a medusa will turn a creature to stone unless the victim saves vs Turn to Stone.




Pretty cut and dried there.  

Let's move on to 2e D&D:



			
				2e Monstrous Manual said:
			
		

> found here Once the medusa is within 30 feet, it strikes, trying to get its victim to look into its eyes. Any creature within 30 feet must make a saving throw versus petrification or turn instantly to lifeless stone.




Again, you only make a saving throw AFTER you look at the medusa.  No save for avoiding its gaze.

Now on to 3e D&D, and let's actually use the books, not the SRD shall we, since the books trump the SRD:



			
				3e Monster Manual Page 131 said:
			
		

> It uses normal weapons to attack those who avert their eyes or survive its gaze




Always helps to go to the primary source.  So, I'll admit, I can't quote from OD&D or the 1e Monster Manual or the 3.5 Monster Manual, but, in 3 of the 6 pre-4e editions, you are flat out wrong.  

So, can we please, please, have a SoD discussion without descending yet again into your medusa fetish?


----------



## D'karr (Mar 9, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And just to reiterate - as I said above, I think AD&D _may_ be a different beast here. The wiggle room in the OSRIC text at least opens the possibility to the alternative reading, although I think it is still most naturally read as implying that the save represents resistance/endurance rather than averting one's eyes.




The text in the 1e Monster Manual is:


> Medusae are hateful humanoid creatures which dwell in dark caves or caverns, venturing forth on occasion to seek prey. They try to beguile humans to look into their eyes.
> 
> The gaze of a medusa's eyes will turn creatures within 3" to stone unless they make their saving throw versus petrification. If an opponent averts his eyes, the medusa rushes up so that its asp-like head growth can bite at the victim. The range of such attacks is but 1', and the victim bitten must save versus poison or die. If the medusa's gaze is reflected back, the creature will turn itself to stone! Medusa speak both....




It seems clear that averting your sight is not part of the petrification save.  You must save if you have gazed into her eyes.  If you save you don't turn to stone.  If you decide not to look she comes forward and attacks with her "snake-hair".


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2012)

Heh, it's kinda fun to look at the evolution of a monster side by side by edition.  After all, the whole "Look into her eyes" thing is a 2e addition, removed in 3e.  In 2e, you could also keep a dead medusa's head and use it for a weapon for several days.  Now how's THAT for broken.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 9, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], the Modlvay text seems pretty cut and dried!

And [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], thanks for that. Generally OSRIC follows the AD&D text pretty closely, but in this case there is a bit of divergence.

I would still be willing to allow the interpretive wriggle room in AD&D, because it is a common feature of AD&D to be inconsistent or sloppy in its rules text (even within books, let alone across them), and the "averting the eyes" interpretation would fit with the essay on saving throws that is towards the end of the combat chapter in the DMG. (From memory, Moldvay Basic does not have the same text on saving throws, _and_ it a more tightly written edition, which means I don't think that it opens up the same wriggle room.)

I don't see that there is any wriggle room in 3E, though, because (i) it has an explicit account of what a Fort save means that is quite different from AD&D, and (ii) it has an explicit reference to surviving a Medusa's gaze (both in the SRD which I quoted and the MM which Hussar quoted). Unlike the AD&D text, this stuff is all unambiguous and all pushes in the same direction.

And just for compleness: in a staring contest with a Medusa, the SRD indicates that a character would have to roll two saves per round:

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. 

. . .

A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action. The creature simply chooses a target within range, and that opponent must attempt a saving throw. If the target has chosen to defend against the gaze as discussed above, the opponent gets a chance to avoid the saving throw (either 50% chance for averting eyes or 100% chance for shutting eyes). It is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before its own action and once during the creature’s action.​
With two saves required per 6-second round, even a character who fails only on a 1 has only about a one-third chance of lasting a minute.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Heh, it's kinda fun to look at the evolution of a monster side by side by edition.  After all, the whole "Look into her eyes" thing is a 2e addition, removed in 3e.  In 2e, you could also keep a dead medusa's head and use it for a weapon for several days.  Now how's THAT for broken.



Frankly, it was even more broken in the original myth, because the head lasted for a good deal longer than just several days. It's obvious that 2e's fetish for game balance completely destroyed all semblence of simulationism, and 3e was even worse.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 9, 2012)

jodyjohnson said:


> Player's don't intentionally have staring contests with Medusas.




Says you.  I for one stare down Meduas' in my sleep!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2012)

BryonD said:


> What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?
> 
> Again, I remain rather shocked that this is even a conversation.
> 
> It is obvious enough, to me, that the idea is applying the general "gaze attack" mechanics to the specific case of Medusa and using that to answer the question "did you see her?" and NOT the question "did seeing her turn you to stone this time?".




What would I do?  Presuming pre-4e?  Tell them to roll a fort save, precisely what it says in the rules.  4e?  I'd roll the attack.  Again, precisely what it says in the rules.

Mostly because I have no interest in home-brewing this particular creature.  If the player wants to endanger his character this way, more power to him.  After all, in any edition of the game, unless you avert your eyes, you are looking at the medusa every round anyway.  What difference does it make if player specifically states that he's looking?  He's already assumed to be looking in the first place.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 9, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Says you. I for one stare down Meduas' in my sleep!




Yeah, but do you sleep with your eyes open?  Better watch out for the hair!


----------



## Living Legend (Mar 9, 2012)

I have not read most of this thread, so forgive me if this was brought up, but I agree that this idea has many merits but also doesn't quite fit.  If there is going to be a hp range for these effects to work then maybe extend that idea so if a target is bloodied then lesser effect (a medusa's gaze paralyzes them), but if the target has 25 hp or left then they are turned to stone (greater effect).

Something like this might make it a little better for the PC using such effect against a monster situation, so they don't have to worry about using the spell with no effect at all, since bloodied is common knowledge, but still have the chance for a powerful effect if the monster is wicked hurt.  Of course this is a little more complicated so not sure, and there will always be the question of what happens at low levels when a target is bloodied at 25 hp or similar.

Just an idea.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 9, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Even if I wanted to run a high-lethality game, there's no way I could follow your suggestions.  Character creation is more than just rolling stats and picking powers/feats, it's an investment.



As soon as you mention powers/feats you're already into a system that does not have fast character generation at anything above very low level.

And, I suppose the investment level in part depends on how difficult a given player finds it to come up with a basic character personality.  For some it's trivially easy, others find it a challenge.  And all you need is the basics; the fine details of the personality will develop themselves during play.


> Making multiple characters because they're all going to die next week makes them meaningless.  Why put the love and effort into creating, developing, role-playing a character you're going to replace in a week?  Secondly, I'm a slow player, I take time to consider my options, and there's no way I could run multiple characters, or just jump into an NPC.



I'm not a slow player, I just take an option and go with it; which in combat at least is somewhat realistic given a reasonable fog-of-war assumption. 



> I'd like to see ways to run a high-lethality game without filling the dumpster with dead characters every week.  The THREAT of lethality is what's important, not actual death.  Expecting to die, coming very close to death, seeing a single character die and knowing you could be next, that's what creates tension.  Throwing characters into the meat grinder is more a war-crime than a tension builder.



Agreed, though in my case the threat of death often becomes actual death due to low-wisdom players and-or dice that need to meet a blowtorch. 


			
				Mattachine said:
			
		

> I have been in games such as you describe, Lanefan, and I have even run them a couple times. This is especially true for a one-shot game, or a short campaign designed to only play a specific series of adventures. In such games, players don't make the same investment in creating a story, a personality (as in my current campaign), because they know the PC may die. In fact, they fear SoD and death much less, since they aren't committed to their somewhat disposable characters. If the new PC is lower level, and with less gear (or even level 1), a couple deaths means that the adventure is over, because the party isn't tough enough to continue--well, time to start a new game. That has happened to me as a DM three times over the years, and to me once as a player. Yay.



Your point about lower-level replacements voiding the adventure speaks to an issue I have with 3e/4e - the math is too fine-tuned.  In 1e/2e you could chuck a 3rd-level character in with a party of 6ths and it'd have a chance of surviving long enough to catch up a bit.  Not so much these days...

I usually have replacements come in a level or so below the party average, but I put a floor on it to prevent too much backsliding. 

Lanefan


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 9, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Your point about lower-level replacements voiding the adventure speaks to an issue I have with 3e/4e - the math is too fine-tuned.  In 1e/2e you could chuck a 3rd-level character in with a party of 6ths and it'd have a chance of surviving long enough to catch up a bit.  Not so much these days...




Really? I shouldn't think this would pose much of a problem in 4E. A third-level character would be at a definite disadvantage in a sixth-level party, but it's hardly suicidal.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 9, 2012)

For OD&D (can't recall AD&D specifically) we have basically 4 levels of defense. 
1st is active which includes any DEX adjustment, armor class, etc. 
2nd is fatigued, but still defending. This is a -1 cumulative penalty per round after 3-5 rounds of various strenuous activities. Other adjustments still apply.
3rd is resting and defenseless. Fail a fatigue check and all one can do for the round is rest and defend vital areas. DEX drops to a penalty.
4th is helpless including sleep (unconscious), held, bound, etc. Some attacks may be automatic and Coup de Grace (assassination attacks) can be rolled.

Just because a Save is made doesn't mean a character should be considered as having dropped his or her defenses, i.e. staring at a Medusa. 
Just because an attack missed doesn't mean a character should be considered resting, asleep, or defenseless either.


----------



## keterys (Mar 9, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> speaks to an issue I have with 3e/4e - the math is too fine-tuned.  In 1e/2e you could chuck a 3rd-level character in with a party of 6ths and it'd have a chance of surviving long enough to catch up a bit.  Not so much these days...



I'm not sure that's as much different as you suggest it is. Especially if you had new people come in with less gear (existing chars tended to acquire a _lot_), the difference could be very pronounced in 1e/2e.

And attack bonuses have basically scaled around the same throughout D&D, so that's about the same.

4E is slightly easier in that 3 levels makes a _LOT_ less difference in power level of spells.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2012)

I gotta agree with Lanefan on this one.  While sure, the 3rd level character is weaker than the 6th level one, because the monsters don't particularly scale - HP are very flat, AC doesn't vary a whole lot - the low level character can still contribute fairly well.  42 hp giants and all that.

Although, to be honest, my beef with high lethality is that players very quickly stop investing in the game.  Why would they?  It takes a very special sort of player to put the same amount of work into his 5th character as his 1st.  Particularly if that 5th character comes up in a fairly short amount of time.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 9, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Your point about lower-level replacements voiding the adventure speaks to an issue I have with 3e/4e - the math is too fine-tuned.  In 1e/2e you could chuck a 3rd-level character in with a party of 6ths and it'd have a chance of surviving long enough to catch up a bit.  Not so much these days...
> 
> I usually have replacements come in a level or so below the party average, but I put a floor on it to prevent too much backsliding.
> 
> Lanefan




In 4e, being 2-3 levels lower is a disadvantage, but HP will still be close, and attack bonuses will be off by 2-3 points. Powers will do a similar amount of damage, but the low level character will have fewer of them.

In older editions, being level 3 instead of 6 will mean about half the hit points, in addition to having lower attacks and saves (as above). That is a huge difference, especially because monster damage rises. The effectiveness of spells rises dramatically in older editions as well.

In any case, this comes down to preferred play style, like so many of these discussions. There isn't a best way. 

For game mechanics, I would simply like to see clear guidelines for using SoD, not using SoD, and using something in the middle (like hp threshold or SSSoD). 

As for dealing with character death, that can be dealt with in a couple of concrete, game mechanical ways, too. 

Give character creation the possibility of being fast and easy if so desired. 

Make combats shorter--I love all the things characters can do in 3e and 4e . . . but combat is so, so long. If a PC is taken out of a combat because of an early SoD (even paralysis), that player might need to wait 45 min to an hour to play again. Faster, but still interesting, combats would deal with a major SoD issue.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 9, 2012)

BryonD said:


> What would *YOU* do if a player said they look Medusa in the eye?



Is it Medusa Gorgon, the Epic Tier Solo, or is it *A* medusa, one of the myriad low-level threats?

Because looking Medusa Gorgon in the eye is very different from looking a feeble copy in the eye. If someone wanted to look *A* medusa in the eye, they'd take a penalty to their defenses/save against it. And that's all.

If they STARED it in the eye they'd be automatically hit in my 4e game.

If they looked Medusa Gorgon *(A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL THAT IS NOT IN THE D&D MONSTER MANUALS)* in the eye: they'd turn to stone unless they had some special resistance. Which at epic level, when approaching Medusa Gorgon, they almost certainly would.

(although, to be honest, I'm not sure why Medusa Gorgon's eyes are relevant, a lesser medusa may only petrify with its eyes, but with Medusa Gorgon seeing her clearly is enough to petrify someone, even if her eyes are closed)


----------



## Balesir (Mar 9, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Again, I remain rather shocked that this is even a conversation.



Fair enough; I am somewhat shocked that someone is being quite so dogmatic about a myth that:

- was passed on orally for _at least_ 600 years, with all the variation in form that that implies,

- has clear links with a mythical monster in Babylonian tales that Gilgamesh killed without so much as a mirrored shield,

- was different again in its earliest written incarnations to those taken by Hollywood as 'canon' and that were written at least 400 years later than the earliest written versions.

Only the Romans seem to have been prescriptive concerning Medusa's looks (which is odd in the extreme if looking at her automatically turned the viewer to stone!) and powers, let alone the mode and identity of her killer. But, then, the Romans seem to have been prescriptive about a lot; I think they had issues with ambiguity, poor dears.

In short, I have absolutely no problem envisioning Medusa's gaze or visage (be it *The* Medusa or *A* Medusa) petrifying by degrees. If anything, I have more problems visualising it petrifying instantaneously, but that is merely an aesthetic thing...

The Greeks, in fact, used images of the head of Medusa near doors and arches to ward off evil and enemies from their homes and sanctuaries. Maybe that means the effect affects 'enemies only'? How's that for an interpretation?


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 10, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> In 4e, being 2-3 levels lower is a disadvantage, but HP will still be close, and attack bonuses will be off by 2-3 points. Powers will do a similar amount of damage, but the low level character will have fewer of them.
> 
> In older editions, being level 3 instead of 6 will mean about half the hit points, in addition to having lower attacks and saves (as above). That is a huge difference, especially because monster damage rises. The effectiveness of spells rises dramatically in older editions as well.




I agree with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] that the difference is smaller pre-3e. In earlier editions your AC and damage don't increase significantly, only your hp and to hit. When both sides of the equation increase, growth is much quicker and your ability to damage enemies diminishes more quickly. 3e is somewhat worse than 4e, because its progression is faster at least during low-mid levels.


----------



## keterys (Mar 11, 2012)

I actually think the reason it mattered less in older editions was almost always that combats were generally easier - attrition was more of a concern (less the battle, more the war), so you'd run into a bunch of low level monsters (ex: orcs) or a single monster that didn't last long (golem, whatever) even at high levels. You'd deal with it quickly and move on to the next thing, then the next. Very often encounters were also solved by thinking instead of statistics.

In an environment in which you frequently run into creatures lower than your level, or your party wasn't likely to die anyways, it's easy to foster a lowbie along. You could also do things like slap a stoneskin on someone and they'd be largely safe til it ran out


----------



## Hussar (Mar 11, 2012)

And, let's not forget, with the AD&D xp tables, you generally would level up to 6th long before the 6th level character would hit 7th because xp, by and large, doubled every level.


----------



## treex (Mar 11, 2012)

(I'm not sure if anyone already had similar ideas but here goes...)

In conjunction with 5e's customizable complexity flavour, the save against effect could also proc when

a)PC is reduced to below X hitpoints.
b)PC has taken a total of more than Y damage to hitpoints
c)PC is bloodied
d)PC is reduced to a surges worth of hitpoints (25% HP)
e)the attack deals more than Z damage
f)the attack deals damage more than the PC's surge value (reduce more than 25% of PC HP)
g)two or more of the above

Mix and match to taste.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 12, 2012)

I'm not a fan of his idea.  If you see a medusa, you turn to stone.  I particularly don't like the idea of it being a gradual thing.  That would leave the possibility that you lost your save, start suffering detrimental effects, still manage to kill the medusa, then you're stone.

It definitely makes it less scary.

Further.....this is D&D.  In most games, bringing the dead back, or bringing characters back from being petrified is a lvl 5 or 6 spell away.  A single action.

The idea that a character should only face a lethal "save or die" effect once or twice in a career is silly....given that it's really quite easy to bring them back anyways.

If you want to make save or dies that rare, then make spells that return the dead so rare that they're almost impossible to gain before the end of a campaign.  Or better yet, completely get rid of the spells, and leave "bringing the dead back" as something accomplished through a quest.

Thinking of that, in my Planescape campaign, I think the very best instance of resurrection we had was the time (before the characters were high enough level to cast a raise dead spell) when one of the characters died.  Instead of just saying "you pay a church to bring you back", I made them go on a quest to travel into the land of the dead (at least, the land that particular character's soul went to) and negotiate with the avatar of the god of the dead for that character's faith, for them to be able to bring him back to the lands of the living.

Sure, it was ripped from Orpheus, but it made both his death, and his resurrection *matter*, and the players remembered it for years.  I just got an e-mail the other day from a player from that campaign......I haven't talked with him in *6 years*, and he commented about how memorable that incident and others were from that campaign.

Essentially, if resurrection is easy to come by, then Save or Die is meaningless, and shouldn't be removed or limited.

Banshee


----------



## Scribble (Mar 12, 2012)

Banshee16 said:


> I'm not a fan of his idea.  If you see a medusa, you turn to stone.  I particularly don't like the idea of it being a gradual thing.  That would leave the possibility that you lost your save, start suffering detrimental effects, still manage to kill the medusa, then you're stone.




That too me has all the highlights of an epic story.


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 14, 2012)

Mike Mearls adds a second round to this topic with his blog;

Save or Die II:  Die and Die Again!

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible!

It is more of a discussion on the thinking of hit points and their inclusion in Save or Die mechanics.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 14, 2012)

It's odd. He apparently sees players using Save Or Die as "I win" buttons, which doesn't match up with my experience. Sure, they can take the teeth out of an encounter that is meant to be a one-on-one with a big villain (and so such villains should be able to prevent save-or-die effects), but in a 4e-style multi-on-multi combat, the most it does is take out one enemy quickly. Assuming they can't spam such abilities (e.g.: it uses up their daily or encounter slot somehow), such things are not dramatically powerful in the player's hands. 

Mearls also has a bias towards a slow ramp-up, which is generally a good instinct, but his focus in this is too narrow. He's looking at the individual monster, rather than at the context it is embedded in. The adventure as a whole can have a ramp-up that consists of encounters of many types, some fast-and-dirty, others strung out like a 4e skirmish. That variation in pacing helps maintain the flow of the game, and if EVERYTHING is going to need a ramp-up in order to overcome, we're just going back to 4e's slogfests. 

In fact, that's part of the reason I'm not a fan of his hp threshold as he presented it. I WANT some encounters to be over with quickly, some monsters to fall like wheat before the chaff, some powers to be very, suddenly, binary. Bypassing the HP system is a feature, here, not a bug.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 14, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I WANT some encounters to be over with quickly, some monsters to fall like wheat before the chaff, some powers to be very, suddenly, binary. Bypassing the HP system is a feature, here, not a bug.



Well, this is what 4e minions are for.

To put it another way, save-or-die effects that bypass hit points are, in effect, a "minionisation" mechanic. The extent to which they are desirable, and the way in which they should be regulated, should be worked out in light of this. So putting it yet another way - if you think it would be bad for the game to give the players the power to minionise certain creatures at their discretion, then you have a reason no to introduce save-or-die mechanics. And vice versa.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 14, 2012)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Well, this is what 4e minions are for.




I've never seen minions used to deliver fast encounters. Functionally, I've seen them used to pad out normal encounters, rather than to be brief encounters in and of themselves. The encounter has an XP budget that must be hit after all, since that determines what is "appropriate," minions just end up being more critters on the field (and thus more actions to resolve, and more DM time used), rather than faster combats.

But minions - and low-level mooks like goblins in previous e's -- certainly help illustrate the point that one-hit-kills are not tremendously problematic for the game mechanically speaking. Mearls might not like them (since he likes build-up), but certainly the game can accomodate them.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> So putting it yet another way - if you think it would be bad for the game to give the players the power to minionise certain creatures at their discretion, then you have a reason no to introduce save-or-die mechanics. And vice versa.




I don't think it's a problem to give certain characters a limited-use ability to turn an enemy into a one-hit kill. I wouldn't even mind reducing the XP award for such a kill, in 4e-speak, though I'm not sure that's strictly necessary (we don't reduce the XP value from a group of goblins killed in a fireball, either).


----------



## eamon (Mar 20, 2012)

One thing I thought particularly jarring in the article: the notion that, from a designers perspective, having hitpoints as the sole measure of a characters "status" is a good thing.  It's not!

It's almost invariably a _bad thing_ when the game reduces to a (literally) one-dimensional grind.  It's a good thing when there are several options, particularly if the interaction between is complex enough to make the notion of the "best" choice too complex to precisely determine.

So while having a simple "I win" button might not be ideal, I think tying it to hitpoints can be even worse in some cases.

---

One way of mitigating this might be fiddling with the resurrection rules: In 3e, death magic/disintegrate sometimes made resurrection harder.  What if we turn that around: should resurrection of those killed before their time be _easier_ (as they're not ready to move on yet)?  Constant resurrection isn't for everyone, but I think most people could live with occasional resurrection merely to revert death spells, particularly when this means normal resurrection can be left at a campaign-appropriate level of difficulty.

I guess in the end a combination of approaches is probably best; some save-or-dies might be gradual, others HP-dependent or surge-dependent, and resurrection could be tweaked to make these kind of abilities less effective.


----------

