# The ethics of ... death



## Greenfield (Jul 8, 2013)

I recently started a thread on the ethics of using an enemy with a Save or Die attack as their opening shot, in that case a Banshee (DC26 Fort save or die).

In that situation, I had to question the use of the monster and that attack.

Looking on a broader scale, though, there are a lot of "Save or you're dead" effects out there, from the 1st level _Sleep_ spell right on up the line.

Then there are things like Vorpal weapons where death is a nat-20 away and you'll never know until it happens.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but let's see what develops:   Thinking about this sort of thing on a broader basis:  Is "Zap, you're dead" a problem in the game?  

If the answer is "sometimes", then at what odds does it go from "not a problem" to "something of a problem" to "That's just wrong."?

Using a Banshee as a sample point:  It's a CR 17 monster from MMII (some take that to mean a CR18).

An 18th level Fighter has a +11 Fort Save, plus CON of probably 3 or 4 more.  That's close to a 50/50 on the Save, better if they have any Resistance items at all.

An 18th level Druid is about the same, as is the Cleric.  Classes that don't have good Fort Saves are five points lower at +6, plus CON (Probably +2 to +3) and Resistance items.  Presuming +5 items by that level, they're looking at a 40% survival rate per attack.

On average, the Banshee can scream every 3 rounds.

By comparison a _Symbol of Death_ (8th level spell) will have a minimum Save DC of 22.  Similar area (60 foot burst).  That 22 Fort save presumes a minimum casing stat for the spell, at 18.  You'd need a 26 casting stat to match the Save DC of the Banshee.  Not unheard of.

The Banshee scream can be directed, and can be repeated.  The _Symbol_ can't be directed, but lasts two and a half hours, minimum.  

The _Symbol_ becomes available at 15th level, so it's not unreasonable if it's a shade weaker.  (It also won't chase you down, but that's another story.  )

_Finger of Death_ is lower level (7th instead of 8th), with a correspondingly easier Save, is single target and with a comparable range (Close : 25 + 5 per 2 levels, or 55 feet minimum v 60 feet for the others.)

As the Saves for characters that are level-appropriate for these spells and effects are correspondingly lower, they seem about as fair/unfair as the Banshee wail.

Attacks like the Vorpal blade have a 95% survival rate at every level (It decapitates on a Natural 20, otherwise does normal damage), yet can be used several times per round. 

Not sure how to it fits in on with the spell and supernatural Death effects, but I think it belongs in the discussion anyway.

What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons?  Acceptable?  Tolerable?  Problems?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 8, 2013)

They're acceptable. If they're problems for your group, you can always choose to not use them.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 9, 2013)

First off...whoa. I was just doing some reading on end-of-life care (i.e. the actual ethics of death, among other things). You totally threw me with that thread title. That said, I now can see what your question is.


Greenfield said:


> What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons?  Acceptable?  Tolerable?  Problems?



I think they have a really positive effect on the game, in general. It's one of the reasons I do vp/wp.

The realistic possibility of character death just makes combat so much more immersive and tactically engaging. Resource management gets boring real fast. High stakes rolls alleviate boredom real fast. The longer you've played your character, the more you've invested in him, the higher the stakes.

I also think that instant death puts wonderful pressure on the DM. If you play it straight as a DM (meaning no "DM cheating" to save characters), every time you throw in the possibility of instant death, you run the risk of derailing _your_ campaign. Character death is arguably worse for the DM than the player! (Though I imagine my players feel differently). This incentivizes DMs away from frequent combat or "filler battles" and makes each battle that does happen carry more weight.

I do think it's important that instant death should not be the sole province of magic or of high level characters or of monsters with special abilities (which is one of the reasons I use vp/wp, among other house rules to this effect). I also think that plot protection, either partial (such as action points) or total (no rules required) can be helpful in creating certain styles of game (such as "fated heroes"). But overall, I think that the positives of instant character death far outweigh the positives of invincible characters.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 9, 2013)

Instant death effects are poor game design.  

The biggest problem with SoD effects is any effect which has an area effect such as a bodak's gaze.  Given a 4 PC party and a 4 round combat, it's almost guaranteed to kill at least 1 PC regardless of the level of the PC.  ((Within reason of course))

Any game mechanic which guarantees death is a bad game mechanic.


----------



## Libramarian (Jul 9, 2013)

Of course it matters what death means in the game.

I think a really interesting house rule is to have 'death' cause you to lose a level rather than lose the character forever.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Instant death effects are poor game design.



In your opinion. This is not snark, but clarity for others. I've had enough conversations to know this, I think.


Hussar said:


> The biggest problem with SoD effects is any effect which has an area effect such as a bodak's gaze.  Given a 4 PC party and a 4 round combat, it's almost guaranteed to kill at least 1 PC regardless of the level of the PC.  ((Within reason of course))



I had a party of 5 run into a bodak once. Two people died. That session is remembered amazingly fondly (a long, 13 hour session, packed full of encounters, a long trial through Elysium, and ending in a fight with an incarnation of Vecna). But yes, it was kinda shocking to the players when two died suddenly. They got resurrected by the Cleric of Pelor not long after, but they were very surprised by it.


Hussar said:


> Any game mechanic which guarantees death is a bad game mechanic.



I see where you're coming from. To me, it depends on what the goal is. Is the goal, essentially, to kill someone? Then it's good design in the game (or, "good game design"). Is that a game that everyone will enjoy? Certainly not, as evidenced by the many "are save or die effects good?" debates people have had over the years.

Personally, I don't mind them, but I want them to be used sparingly, and I want them to have a less-than-average chance of working. That's not necessarily less than 50% chance, but I think a save or die effect should be 25% (or more) less likely to work than a lesser effect (like a damaging effect). But that's just my personal preference, obviously. As always, play what you like


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2013)

"Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though. That's no fun - watching an RPG being played is often an interminable experience. 

For me, then, it's about effects which remove a player from play. Those I try to avoid.

Of course, there are ways around it. Backup characters; have 'em play NPCs; and so on.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Any game mechanic which guarantees death is a bad game mechanic.




Sorry but that's a pretty wide reaching statement and I'm going to have to disagree... with spells like raise dead and resurrection in D&D (as well as the simplicity of character creation in older editions and/or with electronic tools) I don't think death is all that serious and can actually be a viable (and usually temporary unless you're ready for a new character) failure condition for certain play styles.  Now I might say any mechanic that guarantees a TPK is a bad game mechanic... maybe.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons?  Acceptable?  Tolerable?  Problems?




I think we need to separate discussion of "risk of death" and "rick of *instant* death".  Lack of save-or-die does not mean you have no chance of death.  Save-or-die is a pretty specific thing, with some rather specific effects on the game and player mentality that other death doesn't have.  At least, in my opinion.

I'm fine with death in games.  I'm not a big fan of save-or-die.  If save-or-die death really is so rare I shouldn't worry about it, then I shouldn't have it in the game at all.  And if it is not so rare, well, I would rather that my players fight for their lives, struggle, and lose in a way they can at least be proud of their attempt, than just "Bang, you're dead.  Next character."  

Yes, some folks like the dynamic "Bang, you're dead," brings to a game.  I think, rather than make life valuable, it makes it feel cheap, in the "I'm not going to invest much in this, because it may not last long," sort of way.

None of this, to me, is about "ethics".  It is about preferred playstyle and game feel.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 9, 2013)

Save or Die effects are an area in which I feel early 4th Edition had the right idea with multiple saving throws.  However, I'd change it so that something akin to the 4E disease/condition track should be used for them.  In my opinion, this makes things more dramatic by having the hero try to shrug off the effect, and it also reduces the prominence of "rocket tag" in D&D.  Low level effects would have more steps on the track; higher ones would have less; godlike and epic abilities would function pretty close to the traditional SoD.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> "Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though. That's no fun - watching an RPG being played is often an interminable experience.
> 
> For me, then, it's about effects which remove a player from play. Those I try to avoid.



I don't agree; not completely at least. In general, people play D&D to actually play, but watching once in a while can be enjoyable, and sometimes people need a little while to cool down after losing a character. As someone who frequently intercuts between PCs doing separate things, I can say that occasional player inactivity does work. I do try to minimize player down time though.



Hussar said:


> Instant death effects are poor game design.



Characters that can't die at a particular time are poor game design.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 9, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> What do you think of "zap, you're dead" powers, spells and weapons?  Acceptable?  Tolerable?  Problems?




Personally, I rather enjoy having SoD effects available to me. They help contribute to the particular feel that I like to get out of playing D&D. However, the frequency of use by many adventure designers, coupled with a 'gotcha' style of play, I think, has given the mechanic a terribly bad name.

Using the aforementioned bodak, one of the best uses I have seen revolved around a group of adventurers in the Shield Lands. One of the companions had fallen and, unfortunately, was buried in an area corrupted by Taint. He arose as a bodak and wandered the Shield Lands killing innocents. The party began to hear rumors of a faceless death roaming the countryside and, after realizing they were the root cause of this creature's existence, set out to right this wrong. Knowing the capabilities of the bodak, that it could instant kill any one of them on a failed save, in conjunction with the coupling narrative, provided the perfect amount of tension for those game sessions. In my experience, no other mechanic has helped deliver that same feeling.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jul 9, 2013)

In the games that I've run and played in, I don't find character death to be a problem.

Making players sit out of the game for a long period of time can be a problem (as mentioned by [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], above), but that isn't necessarily a result of character death.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 9, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> /snip.
> 
> Characters that can't die at a particular time are poor game design.




How does that make sense?

Then again, any PC with more HP than a creature does damage cannot die at that particular time.  Is that bad game design?

The problem with SoD is that it completely breaks the math of the game.  A monster does X damage per round.  You can calculate that and plan for it.  SoD is so swingy that it cannot be accounted for.  Like I said, a creature that causes 20 saving throws is guaranteed to kill (or close enough to guarantees) one PC. 

How do you account for that?  What xp value do you give that creature?  

Put it another way.  Would you accept a monster that does a PC's HP+11 on any given hit?  Because that's exactly what SoD is.  If it hits, you die.  If you fail that save, you die.  Yet, in 40 years of D&D, I have yet to see the HP+11 monster and there's a very good reason for that.  It's poor game design.  It doesn't fit with existing mechanics.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jul 9, 2013)

I don't like save-or-die spells because they don't fit with hit point mechanics.  If hit points are just ablative plot armor, which is the only interpretation of them that makes sense to me, then why should one type of spell bypass them while another doesn't?  I'd be happier with _Death Magic:  Target takes 50 hp damage, if resulting hitpoints are at or below zero, then he instantly dies._  Than _Death Magic:  Target saves or dies._

The best solution I've found to not having players just sitting there is that each player takes two characters.  If one dies or is incapacitated, or even if the players just split the party, the player still gets to be involved.  The main objection I've heard to this is that it's detrimental to immersion, but I'm a method-actor immersion-first type of player and it's never been an issue for me.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jul 9, 2013)

Well, technically, a big monster (ogre or troll) against a 1st level character can do death in one hit.  Especially if you go back to basic, before negative HP existed.

The possibility of instant death was always a part of D&D until recently.  The difference lies primarily in how well players accept the death of a character.  You ever played in a game where there was no point in writing up a backstory until at least 3rd level?  That's old school, that is.

But I digress.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> How does that make sense?
> 
> Then again, any PC with more HP than a creature does damage cannot die at that particular time.  Is that bad game design?
> 
> ...




Maybe because with SoD... HP+11 is kinda redundant... Just saying... 

EDIT: Seriously though, you keep throwing around the words "poor game design" but there are plenty of people playing games with SoD effects that enjoy them and are having fun, I enjoy DCC rpg myself and it has it's fair share of SoD effects, traps, etc. in the adventures... so maybe instead of trying to proclaim SoD as objectively poor game design you should just claim it's not a fun game design for you and your players.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Then again, any PC with more HP than a creature does damage cannot die at that particular time.  Is that bad game design?



To a significant extent, yes. One can argue, for example, that a cat shouldn't be able to kill a wizard in one hit. It's a cat. However, a reasonably strong person using a decent weapon most certainly should (though it shouldn't be a _likely_ outcome in most cases).

It's particularly bad when you have CdG situations where the attacking character can't kill the helpless defender; those can get ridiculous under the core rules.



> The problem with SoD is that it completely breaks the math of the game. A monster does X damage per round. You can calculate that and plan for it. SoD is so swingy that it cannot be accounted for.



That's the good part! I don't think any participants in an rpg should be able to "plan for" the damage they will deal or take. Battles that only involve ablating hit points and nonlethal minutiae quickly become rote. Unpredictability is a good thing. "The math" shouldn't be a zero sum game that can be predicted or analyzed to that extent. That's what makes the various instant death effects so nice; they throw a wrench in a dysfunctional system without us having to rewrite the game completely.



> How do you account for that?  What xp value do you give that creature?



Whatever value you give will be just as arbitrary as all XP values (or CRs or whatever).



> Would you accept a monster that does a PC's HP+11 on any given hit?



Yeah. I throw them in on occasion. Particularly with 3e crit modifiers, even under the core hp rules, a raging, power attacking barbarian with a good weapon can realistically do that at quite high levels, as can a variety of other damage-optimized characters and exceptionally strong monsters. (Though it would be more appropriate to look at dealing PC's hp + 11 in one round rather than one hit; that happens with some regularity for creatures/characters with large numbers of attacks).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> "Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though.




Some folks get kind of attached to characters.  For them, character death itself can be rather more problematic than sitting on their thumbs for a while.  As Ahnehnois suggested, these folks may well not really be in a mood to continue after a death in any event.

And yeah, at least seven people will pipe up with variations of, "they knew death was a risk, and if they can't take that, they have a problem."  These people lack sensitivity, and forget that you can, in fact, get attached to things that should normally be inconsequential, or that you know may be gone soon - like, say, a pet mouse.  You know darned well you'll outlive it by decades, but it hurts when it goes regardless.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Some folks get kind of attached to characters.  For them, character death itself can be rather more problematic than sitting on their thumbs for a while.  As Ahnehnois suggested, these folks may well not really be in a mood to continue after a death in any event.
> 
> And yeah, at least seven people will pipe up with variations of, "they knew death was a risk, and if they can't take that, they have a problem."  These people lack sensitivity, and forget that you can, in fact, get attached to things that should normally be inconsequential, or that you know may be gone soon - like, say, a pet mouse.  You know darned well you'll outlive it by decades, but it hurts when it goes regardless.




Yeah but ways to come back from the dead are pretty plentiful in D&D so unless there is a TPK... why is death such a big deal for these people?  If they are attached to the character then set up a way to be resurrected or raised before you go off to adventure, and if you're high enough level then someone in your party may even be able to raise ore resurrect you.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 9, 2013)

Was watching the movie The Darkest Hour this morning which features 5 American tourist caught in Moscow during an alien invasion. Anyway my head straight away started running it as an RPG scenario. Now the aliens did have an insta-death effect which fit the story, especially as the deaths happened after meeting  NPCs which allowed a Co-opt NPC after death 
mechanic to allow  the player to switch to a new character.

Anyway my point being that I don't thing DnD has the right mechanics for insta-death to be fun or dramatic so fo DnD it is bad. Nonetheless a game were insta-death works could easily be done...


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jul 9, 2013)

If you're running a game where character death isn't part of the story, then save-or-die is bad for your game. If you are running a game where character death is to be expected, then save-or-die is good for your game. That's all there is to it, really.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Maybe because with SoD... HP+11 is kinda redundant... Just saying...
> 
> EDIT: Seriously though, you keep throwing around the words "poor game design" but there are plenty of people playing games with SoD effects that enjoy them and are having fun, I enjoy DCC rpg myself and it has it's fair share of SoD effects, traps, etc. in the adventures... so maybe instead of trying to proclaim SoD as objectively poor game design you should just claim it's not a fun game design for you and your players.




What does fun have to do with good game design.  People enjoy the heck out of RIFTS.  RIFTS has all sorts of mechanical issues.

"I like it therefore it must be good game design"?  

Personally, I don't mind SoD effects and use them in my game for exactly the same reason you talk about.  But, that doesn't mean that I think they're a well designed mechanic.  Confusing personal taste for quality is a pretty common mistake.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 9, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> If you're running a game where character death isn't part of the story, then save-or-die is bad for your game. If you are running a game where character death is to be expected, then save-or-die is good for your game. That's all there is to it, really.




Why are these two being conflated?

There are tons of games out there which have character death but do not have SoD effects.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

SoD to me, is simply lazy game design.  We can't be bothered coming up with some interesting effect, so we'll whack on a SoD effect and call it a day.  Worked for Gygax.  Believability?  Who needs it.  After all a single snake bite from a poisonous snake is always potentially lethal isn't it?  Doesn't matter what kind of snake it is.  Spiders?  Heck, every spider bite from a big spider should be lethal, at least potentially.

Doesn't matter that my fighter can stand toe to toe with a giant for five or six rounds trading blows.  That's not important.  Bitten by a big spider?  He should potentially die.  

There are so many other, more interesting IMO, ways of doing this.  SoD just doesn't fit and never really did.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 9, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> Is "Zap, you're dead" a problem in the game?




I know I have been writing this so many times that readers are starting to get nauseated by my posts, but there is NO answer true to all gaming groups, because it is a PLAYSTYLE issue.

The two "extremes" of RPG gaming style, wrt PC death are:

(a) Old-school high lethality - Think of it like watching a horror movie, a main part of the fun is watching PCs die horrible and creative deaths. Zapped-dead from traps, save-or-die spells etc. ARE NOT a problem, they are a wanted feature. 

(b) New-school low lethality - Think of it like watching a TV series, a main part of the fun is watching PCs develop their story and/or their tactics, thus death just gets in the way because it forces a restart. Zapped-dead ARE a problem.

RPG books are often afraid to make a clear choice, and fall in-between the two, e.g. they give both save-or-die effects AND easy cheats like resurrection spells. Some RPG games make their choice and stick with it, which makes their lives easier, but D&D cannot make a choice because it has too large gamers base, and choosing one style over the other could alienate too many fans.

But OTOH, this means D&D can support your favourite style between those 2 extremes, as long as you are aware of the problem, and have some ideas or experience on how to tweak the rules (or just exclude some spells & monsters) to achieve that.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> "Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though. That's no fun - watching an RPG being played is often an interminable experience.
> 
> For me, then, it's about effects which remove a player from play. Those I try to avoid.
> 
> Of course, there are ways around it. Backup characters; have 'em play NPCs; and so on.




Which is why old-school high-lethality benefits a lot from quick, low-complexity character creation rules.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jul 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Why are these two being conflated?
> 
> There are tons of games out there which have character death but do not have SoD effects.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
> 
> ...



A high level fighter is not afraid of a giant, but is afraid of a snake with lethal poison. That sounds alright to me. Why is that "lazy" or "bad"?


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 9, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I don't like save-or-die spells because they don't fit with hit point mechanics.




There are also people who don't like hit points because they don't fit with more realistic descriptions of combat...

Just to mention a real case, _The Legend of the 5 Rings_ (Rokugan) is a RPG that was adapted to 3e. It's my favourite setting, and I have no problems playing that with HP and more or less like a typical D&D game. But the majority of their fans rejected the 3e version, because they said its HP and combat mechanics based on "wearing down the opponents" really got in the way of the setting, which is a lot more about duels and risky fights where the opponents just glance at each other until they score a killing blow. I don't know what they did in their other editions of L5R before and after 3e (they have their own system) but they might use something more similar to save-or-die attacks.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> What does fun have to do with good game design.  People enjoy the heck out of RIFTS.  RIFTS has all sorts of mechanical issues.
> 
> "I like it therefore it must be good game design"?



The problem is that "good game design" isn't a thing unless you define what you want out of the game. If it's "fun", then mechanics that are fun = "good game design". If it's encounter balance, then games that lack that = not "good game design".

But until you define what it is you want out of the game, you can't judge whether or not it's got good design in that area. If the goal is "I want at least one person to die from this effect" (be it falling distance, bodaks, or whatever), then the game giving you one or more deaths (on average) = "good game design". If you don't want that, then it's not "good game design".


Hussar said:


> Personally, I don't mind SoD effects and use them in my game for exactly the same reason you talk about.  But, that doesn't mean that I think they're a well designed mechanic.



It sounds like they're serving what you want them to, which, as far as I can tell, makes them a well designed mechanic.


Hussar said:


> Confusing personal taste for quality is a pretty common mistake.



How do we judge it? We set up a way to judge it, just like we would for any other product. Sometimes people judge things on purity, sometimes people judge things on function, etc. We need to come up with what the mechanic should be doing, and seeing how closely it matches what we want it to. And, the sticky part here is that "what we want" _is just personal taste_. As always, play what you like


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2013)

Personally, as both a player and a DM, I like having the possibility of death in a game about people  who very often are wading into combat with weapons & spells.

And yes, I have lost _plenty_ of PCs to the whims of the dice, including some who died because of a save-or-die not related to spells at all.  One fell head first into an underground chasm, another was snatched out of the air by a cave fisher when "catapulted" across another underground chasm in another canpaign (the PC was paralyzed when hit and the party had no way to reach the monster), yet another PC died in his first combat to a crit roll from an opponent with a 2Hd sword...and so forth.

So why should spells get singled out for nerfing?


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 9, 2013)

If you think save or die sucks, try losing a character to failed system shock roll


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2013)

Been there, done that.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jul 9, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> There are also people who don't like hit points because they don't fit with more realistic descriptions of combat...




That would be me.  Hit points are a terrible health mechanic and I avoid them whenever possible.  But they're such a fundamental part of D&D that I can't really do without them and have a D&D experience.  Since I feel that hit points are more fundamental than save-or-die, and the two are in conflict, I'd like to see some changes to save-or-die.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 9, 2013)

Interesting thread topic.

In D&D, I generally dislike SoD. The reason that may seem odd is that my long-time favourite RPG is HârnMaster, where practically every wound is, in a sense, "save(s) or die" because shock, infection and such are always dangerous. My problem with it in D&D, I think, is that it doesn't fit - it's inconsistent.

What I mean by that is this: consider a tough character being hit by a giant's axe. A direct hit by that axe ought, by any sane measure, to be fatal. But the "damage" it does to hit points will never, if the character's hit points exceed the giant's maximum damage, kill the character. The only reasonable way to interpret this is that the giant's blow actually missed - just. It was close enough to ruffle hair, force a desperate dodge and/or rip clothing/armour - but it didn't actually _hit_.

So, why doesn't this happen with the "death ray"? It's really no more likely (or unlikely) to kill on a direct hit - but we were never assuming "hit" = "direct hit" in any case. So it's a mechanical difference with no really good reason to be handled differently. It's purely arbitrary. And the "follow-up" issue there is that this arbitrary (but often very powerful) feature is far more frequently applied to spells than to (say) really big axes.

So, in summary, I have no real issues with "save(s) or die" in a game _per se_, but I much prefer not to have them in games that run primarily on "hit points" or equivalent mechanics (like "health levels") for the simple reason that they introduce an inconsistency. And that inconsistency - like several others - is often used to cloak or simply confuse systemic biases, imbalances or other issues with the game as a whole. Ergo, for D&D, I would rather not have them, in general, whereas for games that use non-hp injury/dying rules they're fine.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> The problem is that "good game design" isn't a thing unless you define what you want out of the game. If it's "fun", then mechanics that are fun = "good game design". If it's encounter balance, then games that lack that = not "good game design".
> 
> But until you define what it is you want out of the game, you can't judge whether or not it's got good design in that area. If the goal is "I want at least one person to die from this effect" (be it falling distance, bodaks, or whatever), then the game giving you one or more deaths (on average) = "good game design". If you don't want that, then it's not "good game design".
> 
> ...




Wish I could give you some XP, but yeah you basically summed up my thoughts as to the questions posed by Hussar.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Interesting thread topic.
> 
> In D&D, I generally dislike SoD. The reason that may seem odd is that my long-time favourite RPG is HârnMaster, where practically every wound is, in a sense, "save(s) or die" because shock, infection and such are always dangerous. My problem with it in D&D, I think, is that it doesn't fit - it's inconsistent.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure which edition(s) of D&D you are speaking to in the above post, but 3.5 has massive damage threshold rules (as well as a few variant options) that can be found in the SRD... so I don't really see an inconsistency in 3.5 as you present it in the example above.  There is the 50 hp threshold, the Con threshold, HD threshold and the size based threshold... depending on the feel and playstyle one wants.  There are also save failure variants in the SRD as well so that a DM can further customize how deadly he wants these to be...


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Personally, as both a player and a DM, I like having the possibility of death in a game about people  who very often are wading into combat with weapons & spells.
> 
> And yes, I have lost _plenty_ of PCs to the whims of the dice, including some who died because of a save-or-die not related to spells at all.  One fell head first into an underground chasm, another was snatched out of the air by a cave fisher when "catapulted" across another underground chasm in another canpaign (the PC was paralyzed when hit and the party had no way to reach the monster), yet another PC died in his first combat to a crit roll from an opponent with a 2Hd sword...and so forth.
> 
> So why should spells get singled out for nerfing?




Correct me if I am wrong, Danny, but most of those seem to be multi-step slides into death.  The guy was first paralyzed, and *then* got snatched. When you see the guy with the two-handed sword, there's a pretty good signal that he can deal out lots and lots of damage.  One difference, then, is warning the player.  Having the guy with the two handed sword walk towards you across the battle field, and you *choose* to engage, rather than have someone you didn't know about pop around the corner and cast Power Word, Death.  Do you have a chance to take reasonable actions to mitigate circumstances?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, Danny, but most of those seem to be multi-step slides into death.  The guy was first paralyzed, and *then* got snatched. When you see the guy with the two-handed sword, there's a pretty good signal that he can deal out lots and lots of damage.  One difference, then, is warning the player.  Having the guy with the two handed sword walk towards you across the battle field, and you *choose* to engage, rather than have someone you didn't know about pop around the corner and cast Power Word, Death.  Do you have a chance to take reasonable actions to mitigate circumstances?



It seems to me that various combinations of stealth and invisibility can not infrequently allow martial characters to achieve one-hit kills on surprised opponents.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> It seems to me that various combinations of stealth and invisibility can not infrequently allow martial characters to achieve one-hit kills on surprised opponents.




Yes, but think about the number of steps required to achieve that:
1) Antagonist detects party, but is not detected themselves
2) Antagonist activates invisibility (activates ring, has buddy cast spell, or what have you)
3) Antagonist uses stealth to get in melee range
4) Antagonist rolls a hit
5) Antagonist rolls sufficient damage to bring PC to -10 in one shot.

There are several points of failure - the PCs can find the antagonist before they start to stealth.  The PCs can detect the stealth.  The antagonist can miss.  The antagonist can fail to do sufficient damage.  In context, this is generally not a one-roll, "Bang, you are dead!" scenario.

If the GM has engineered an antagonist such that the party *couldn't* detect it, and failing to hit or do enough damage really isn't going to happen, then, yes, this becomes very close to a death spell, and for purposes of these discussions, maybe the GM would want to tone it down a bit.


----------



## Campbell (Jul 9, 2013)

SoD abilities don't bother me that much when I play AD&D. I really don't like them in 3e because of the broken saving throw/ DC math that makes even good saves suspect at higher levels as monster HD escalate.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 9, 2013)

I don't have issues with them being in the game. I don't think they fit all campaign styles so depending on the feel of the game I want I modify them to do damage which can kill but not as bad as unmodified. I also talk to my players before hand if they don't want them in the game then I won't use them but the also lose the ability to have them. 

I don't see them as bad game design I think there should be things in the game that can be scary and kill you easily. I think it is up to the DM to tailor things to his game and his players. I would like to see monsters and spells that are save or die have a sidebar that gives you the choice.

I don't understand the argument that Morrus brought up about taking players out of the game. That happens anytime a character dies. The only way to stop that is to take death out of the game completely. Any time you get into a combat situation your character could die.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jul 9, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> If you think save or die sucks, try losing a character to failed system shock roll




My wife's character (were we married yet?  I can't remember) activated a _haste_ power, ran up to the boss monster that had defeated half the party, and killed it with her vorpal sword.  And then dropped dead of a heart attack.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 9, 2013)

One thought that came to me during this discussion, which I posted in the "Banshee" thread, was the idea of a "kinder, gentler Death spell".

Instead of doing instant death, have such things do damage equal to the target's current hit points, plus one (or maybe five).

The character is down and dying, but can be saved if someone can get to them in time.  It adds the drama of time pressure to play.

As a variation, have it do half that damage if the make their Save, to take that sort of thing out of the "All or nothing" class of spells.

It would still be a Death effect, meaning that if you fall from it then spells like _Raise Dead_still won't work, but would eliminate the "Well, you're dead now.  Grab some dice and start over" thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, Danny, but most of those seem to be multi-step slides into death.  The guy was first paralyzed, and *then* got snatched. When you see the guy with the two-handed sword, there's a pretty good signal that he can deal out lots and lots of damage.  One difference, then, is warning the player.  Having the guy with the two handed sword walk towards you across the battle field, and you *choose* to engage, rather than have someone you didn't know about pop around the corner and cast Power Word, Death.  Do you have a chance to take reasonable actions to mitigate circumstances?




The one who took the header into the pit was trying to shoulder blast a door...he had one chance to roll high enough to prevent himself from going off the narrow ledge behind it and failed.

The victim of the hidden fisher was snatched out of midair and, since she didn't make her save, the hit instantly paralyzed her.  There was no chance the party could get to her in time...well, at all, actually.  The one PC who had a spell that would enable someone to reach that spot was being eaten.

The crit victim was part of a group that was surprised by an ambush from concealed opponents.  He never got to act- the crit was the first swing of the first combat.  Note that this was not the first *encounter*- he had used his abilities and gear to evade certain other foes.  But his death was all about one swing of sword.  The order of events was different than a SoD spell- he failed to spot the foes, got critted then died as opposed to getting hit, failing a save and dying- but the number of rolls is the same.

So to me, those are every bit as SoD as a spell.  Once event X happened- the door-busting, the hits- there was only one die roll that mattered, which is functionally no different than being struck by a SoD spell.  Only one demise depended on actual damage being done.  Heck, in 2 of those cases, PC resurrection wasn't even possible because the bodies were lost.  At least with many SoD spells, you _can _bring the fallen back.

Besides, its not as if a combat against a foe with SoD spells has only one step before said spells are cast.  Unless it is cast from concealment or surprise, there are still all the initiative rolls, the caster might have to make a concentration check if he is struck before he casts, etc.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but think about the number of steps required to achieve that:
> 1) Antagonist detects party, but is not detected themselves
> 2) Antagonist activates invisibility (activates ring, has buddy cast spell, or what have you)
> 3) Antagonist uses stealth to get in melee range
> ...



True, but I suspect one could construct a similar chain for death effects. You can see a bodak coming. You can roll a Knowledge check to know what it's about to do to you. You can identify a high level spellcaster. Spells can be interrupted. Death ward can be cast. There are a lot of permutations to these scenarios, but I suspect that to be hit with a death effect, there are usually precursor events that require resolution and which the characters may use to avoid the effect.

And regarding the martial aspect of it; I can definitely see scenarios under which assassins might be aware of the PCs by reputation, intel, or divination, and might have the opportunity to set up some dastardly plans.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2013)

> I don't understand the argument that Morrus brought up about taking players out of the game. That happens anytime a character dies. The only way to stop that is to take death out of the game completely. Any time you get into a combat situation your character could die.




Its a caution: if a DM permits death of PCs, he should be prepared to have something for the player to do or a way to get the player back in the game because sitting there watching others game is not everyone's idea of fun.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 9, 2013)

I have to say I fairly resent any effect that can kill a player with one bad roll - save or die definately falls into this.  I'd certainly prefer a system where you get two to three shots to ward off impending doom.  Medusa gazes that slowly turn you into a statue, bodak gazes that "freeze the life blood" before you drop dead, a banshee wail that drops you to your knees in pain and terror before stopping your heart are all effects I like better (spead over a couple rounds before death may actually take place) rather than "you fall over dead".  Call me a softie, but I still believe I'd see enough challenge and character death in the game that players would still feel excitement and fear of loss and defeat without instant death.

However, D&D has pretty much always tried to reconcile easy death with spells, items and abilities to bring back the dead, rather than concentrate on preventing the death in the first place.  I'm not much for that; I'd rather death be a bit more rare in the game rather than be easier to come back from the dead.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its a caution: if a DM permits death of PCs, he should be prepared to have something for the player to do or a way to get the player back in the game because sitting there watching others game is not everyone's idea of fun.




Usually what I do is ask the player if he wants to run a NPC if it is not possible to get his character raised right away. If he has decided on a new character then he can build it while the game continues. I will take a break and sit with him and get a rough idea of what he wants and what his background might be and then toss him back into the game. I find away to make it work and make sense.  Once I did it by saying he was a wizard teleporting some where else and had only one charge left on his wand and he screwed up and teleported right into the mist of the action. 

It is not always easy especially if your players like good solid role playing reasons for a new member to show up. But it is necessary if you are going to have death in the game regardless of how that death happens.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I'm not sure which edition(s) of D&D you are speaking to in the above post, but 3.5 has massive damage threshold rules (as well as a few variant options) that can be found in the SRD... so I don't really see an inconsistency in 3.5 as you present it in the example above.  There is the 50 hp threshold, the Con threshold, HD threshold and the size based threshold... depending on the feel and playstyle one wants.  There are also save failure variants in the SRD as well so that a DM can further customize how deadly he wants these to be...



I wasn't specifically addressing any edition of D&D; my answer on SoD-like effects is "if the primary method of representing character "life" is hit points or the equivalent, I don't like save-or-die - otherwise I have no specific, deep seated dislike of it". If there's a version of D&D where the general "default" character life/death mechanism is not hit points, SoD would be fine. Otherwise I'd prefer it not to be there.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 9, 2013)

I think this is very much dependent on playstyle. Personally i like having SoD in rpgs and feel they spice up play. Not everyone does and some folks will want built in mechanisms to nerf them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> "Death" isn't a problem; finding yourself spending your evening watching your friends play D&D is a problem, though. That's no fun - watching an RPG being played is often an interminable experience.
> 
> For me, then, it's about effects which remove a player from play. Those I try to avoid.
> 
> Of course, there are ways around it. Backup characters; have 'em play NPCs; and so on.




This is one reason henchmen are helpful. If a character dies in a place where the PCs can't recruit new members, you have characters on hand to play.

I used to request everyone make a back up character but noticed folks rarely did so in practice. Now I make pregens and keep them in my GM folder.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 9, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> True, but I suspect one could construct a similar chain for death effects. You can see a bodak coming. You can roll a Knowledge check to know what it's about to do to you. You can identify a high level spellcaster. Spells can be interrupted. Death ward can be cast. There are a lot of permutations to these scenarios, but I suspect that to be hit with a death effect, there are usually precursor events that require resolution and which the characters may use to avoid the effect.




This is more or less how the bodak adventure was run in my example. 



Jacob Marley said:


> Using the aforementioned bodak, one of the best uses I have seen revolved around a group of adventurers in the Shield Lands. One of the companions had fallen and, unfortunately, was buried in an area corrupted by Taint. He arose as a bodak and wandered the Shield Lands killing innocents. The party began to hear rumors of a faceless death roaming the countryside and, after realizing they were the root cause of this creature's existence, set out to right this wrong. Knowing the capabilities of the bodak, that it could instant kill any one of them on a failed save, in conjunction with the coupling narrative, provided the perfect amount of tension for those game sessions. In my experience, no other mechanic has helped deliver that same feeling.






Bedrockgames said:


> This is one reason henchmen are helpful. If a character dies in a place where the PCs can't recruit new members, you have characters on hand to play.




There is also character stable and troupe-style play which helps mitigate the loss of any one particular character. Personally, I am a big fan of the characters stable approach.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I used to request everyone make a back up character but noticed folks rarely did so in practice. Now I make pregens and keep them in my GM folder.




One of my favorite things from earlier editions was DarkSun's introduction of the Character Tree.  Ever since then, I have used it...or at least, have always made backup characters for every campaign.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 10, 2013)

I had a small stable of NPCs who would occasionally be available for hire, and who would be available for someone to run should their character die.  At a minimum, it would let them play until game continuity allowed for the graceful entrance of their new character, or until we could get the old one back.

Our game had a standard of no _Raise Dead, Resurrection_ or _True Resurrection_.  If you wanted someone back, you had to make a trip to death's door or beyond to find them and bring them back to the land of the living.

I suspect that the players got tired of that trip though, as they've argued for _Revivification_ and _Revenance_, and a combo-move that bypasses the one round time limit.

But that stable allowed the DM to fill in missing skill sets when players were absent, or when the party make up lacked a needed slot.

One fun NPC was Ignominious T. Padfoot*, a Whisper Gnome Rogue.  One level of Wizard and everything else Rogue, he was ostensibly a circus performer who did a high wire and gymnastics act.  (By the rules, you can use Tumble skill in place of Perform for purposes of making a living).  The "traveling show" nature of his work also helped explain how he got so far from Londinium so as to be out where PCs might find and employ him.

Maybe I need to refresh that list a bit.

*(The name is a joke of course, but Whisper Gnomes seldom use their real names outside of their own community, by the book.  They may have several different names they use, and consider them as more or less "permanent aliases".  He has no idea what the first name means, but he likes the sound of it. )


----------



## Aenghus (Jul 10, 2013)

I do know of at least one game with frequent character deaths, and resurrection very difficult, where eventually there was no PC left who know anything about the long-running plots. Continuity can be a severe issue with high death rates in longer campaigns, and I find SoD definitely intends to increase random death rates (where the party have no chance to retreat when overmatched, or they meet a cheesy SoD monster like a bodak).

I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.

Myself, I like years-long (real time campaigns) and long running plots. I dislike casual resurrection, so oppose SoD effects on a maintenance of continuity basis. When PCs die it should be a big deal, not a speed bump, IMO. And I dislike the "stack of PCs" approach in long campaign, though I'm planning to use high mortaility and a stack of PCS  in a Gamma World scenario soon.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 10, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.




Well, in my case we do run long-term campaigns; each averaging approximately three years plus or minus a couple of months, and all set within the same broader campaign milieu. We also use a character stable of 4-5 characters per player. Many characters have also taken the Leadership feat, and hirelings are often used as well. And, yes, there are quite a number of long-term campaign threads.

For example, our current group of adventures is attempting to reclaim a keep overrun by demons that was originally lost back when Ronald Reagan was President! One of the current adventurers is a child of one of the previous adventurers that had originally lost the keep. One of the PCs from our last campaign is a magic item in this campaign (long story, interestingly enough involving an SoD effect)! Numerous other previous characters are serving the current set of adventurers as patrons and advisers.

In our case we tend to use SoD effects less frequently than other people do, I think. They are used in specific circumstances to create a specific feel, and, in nearly every circumstance that I can think of, have resulted in the players walking away from the table saying: "Wow! That was awesome!" Even when we were on the 'D' side of the SoD.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Stormonu said:


> I have to say I fairly resent any effect that can kill a player with one bad roll - save or die definitely falls into this.  I'd certainly prefer a system where you get two to three shots to ward off impending doom.  Medusa gazes that slowly turn you into a statue, bodak gazes that "freeze the life blood" before you drop dead, a banshee wail that drops you to your knees in pain and terror before stopping your heart are all effects I like better (spead over a couple rounds before death may actually take place) rather than "you fall over dead".  Call me a softie, but I still believe I'd see enough challenge and character death in the game that players would still feel excitement and fear of loss and defeat without instant death.



Which is fine so long as the combat lasts three full rounds and the monster is able to act in all three of those rounds. 
But once it becomes obvious that the monsters is a "save-three-times-or-die" monster, they'll likely be targeted by the big guns, or interrupted negating their death effect.

Personally, I've always prefered "save or dying". You fail and you're not dead-dead by effectively below 0 and in negative hitpoints, following the dying rules normally. So there's a couple seconds for other PCs to heal you.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Which is fine so long as the combat lasts three full rounds and the monster is able to act in all three of those rounds.
> But once it becomes obvious that the monsters is a "save-three-times-or-die" monster, they'll likely be targeted by the big guns, or interrupted negating their death effect.




Not necessarily.  Even if the medusa is one-shotted, the effects of the initial attack could persist, forcing the PC to make, say 3 saves.  For example, the first failed save might slow the target.  If the character fails the second, they might be immobilized.  Failing the third would mean the character turns to stone and dies.  The effects for failed save might last for some meaningful time (10-15 minutes, an hour, a day - whatever "significant" is to create an obstacle that is better remedied than left to simply wear off) until the group has some way to counteract it - via magic, items (perhaps a brew concocted from the medusa's own blood) or other means.  A slowed character might be able to continue; the immobilized character would probably force the group to retire or rest until either the effect improves to the character merely being slowed or wears off entirely.  Death of course, and the player's rolling up a new character (or waiting until the group can get the old one to a priest, if resurrection is still in the game ...).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 10, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.



The campaign where I used the bodak (where two PCs died) was in a campaign that lasted over two years, with over 2,000 hours of play time. We still hit those characters probably twice a year. (They love the characters, and while I love them, too, it's 3.5 at epic levels now, and I tend to avoid running 3.5 at all in favor of my RPG. Thus the infrequent nature of us playing with those same characters.)

In general, my campaigns tend to last six months to a year before we transition to newer characters within the same setting. In a sense, it's the same campaign, except that players will have a character leave to deal with an issue and bring a new one in, and eventually we're looking at all new characters with all new goals. The evolving setting remains the same, the history remains the same, etc. But, it probably takes 6-12 months for a whole new set of characters to show up.

It's an interesting question, though. Like you, I dislike casual resurrection (which is why it's harder in my RPG), so I see where you're coming from with SoD effects. I don't think they'd disrupt continuity any more than any other death or character transition, and we're pretty good at working with what happens in-game. I had a PC die in my game a few months back while he was avenging his squire (he killed the guy who killed his squire, then his younger brother, who was leading an enemy army, but he died from his wounds after the fight). It felt like a natural part of the story to us, and we kept going with that campaign, which we wrapped up this last Saturday.

Anyways, I hope you get more answers; I'm curious what others will say. As always, play what you like


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Stormonu said:


> Not necessarily.  Even if the medusa is one-shotted, the effects of the initial attack could persist, forcing the PC to make, say 3 saves.  For example, the first failed save might slow the target.  If the character fails the second, they might be immobilized.  Failing the third would mean the character turns to stone and dies.  The effects for failed save might last for some meaningful time (10-15 minutes, an hour, a day - whatever "significant" is to create an obstacle that is better remedied than left to simply wear off) until the group has some way to counteract it - via magic, items (perhaps a brew concocted from the medusa's own blood) or other means.  A slowed character might be able to continue; the immobilized character would probably force the group to retire or rest until either the effect improves to the character merely being slowed or wears off entirely.  Death of course, and the player's rolling up a new character (or waiting until the group can get the old one to a priest, if resurrection is still in the game ...).



Which does quite effectively remove the scary from those monsters, as the odds of failing three saves are quite low. Especially when the party can marshal its resources granting bonuses (or Advantage). 

Some monsters should just be scary and avoided. If all monsters are non-threatening beyond normalized damage, there's far less impetus to attempt alternate strategies, creative solutions, or non-combat options. This "scary" might come from an ass-ton of damage or from a debilitating or deadly power. 
Removing a debilitating power is a little like making dragons no more damaging than other monsters. When fighting a dragon is as threatening as fighting an orc (of the same level) then dragons become samey and no longer special.

The medusa is a great example as even non-gamers are likely to know of its effects and deadliness, it has a very distinct silhouette & appearance that can be spotted before in range of its attacks, and its presence is frequently telegraphed by statues by its lair. 
In a good medusa encounter, one that isn't a cheap Gotcha! fight, the party shouldn't need three extra saves to avoid death because they've been warned numerous times and are choosing "risk". If there is no commensurate risk then the creature falls flat. It wasn't worth the hype. Plus the players have a choice: fight normally or close their eyes. 


That said, there should be some consideration for when players lack a choice (such as eye closing) or monsters that lack forewarning. Or spells. An attack roll works, where the spell or monster needs to successfully hit first before a saving throw is made. This does remove it from being a single roll to avoid death without turning every negative effect into a series of increasingly bad checks.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent *risk : reward* ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation. 

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent *risk : reward* ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.
> 
> Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.




Well... as long as the DM is indeed always throwing encounters of "appropriate" CR...


----------



## Balesir (Jul 10, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Anyways, I hope you get more answers; I'm curious what others will say. As always, play what you like



Well, I can only really answer from the point of view of playing HarnMaster, the one game I play these days that has "save-or-die" in a major way. HM is a system made for long, continuous campaigns, though the main 'long game' I was in ended due to the GM's death (the person, not a character).

HM is quite different from traditional D&D in its approach to SoD, though. It's quite rare to have "instant" death in combat; generally it's more protracted, with several failures needed for death, albeit those failures might be quite likely for a very bad wound. This seems to suit extended campaigns quite well, since it maintains a real sense of constant, uncontrollable risk (an important facet of the "realistic" style of play) but still allows players some leverage to keep characters alive (even if maimed).



Jester Canuck said:


> I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent *risk : reward* ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.
> 
> Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.



The risk is certainly no worse for 'alternative approaches'; I think it has much more to do with the lack of crunchy, interesting mechanics for other approaches, personally. 4E really could benefit from social and exploration systems as clear, sophisticated and exciting as its combat system. That would be a dream come true, IMO.

Oh, and things like "turned to stone" and "polymorphed" are save-or-get-transformed effects I really don't mind, even with hit points. They are generally quite distinct effects - usually even needing different spells to undo them (like 'stone to flesh'). I do still like the multi-stage save, though - it adds even more suspense, IME. FWIW, in our 4e game the party have actually fought medusas only once. The main defender-fighter got turned to stone in that fight, and they have elected to try 'alternative approaches' (like stealth) when encountering medusae ever since!


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 10, 2013)

Like I said in my earlier post, I think early 4E had the right idea with SoD effects.  Having multiple stages along the way is (I feel) both more dramatic and a more satisfying way to handle a lethal effect.  However, what I would have done is use the disease/condition track.  For a mental effect such as mind control, you'd have to make some sort of mental check to shake it off; success gets you closer to shaking it off, but failure makes the condition worse.  I think having those steps and making the experience more dynamic is more fun than the binary way that saves work.  It also fits into the fiction and the narrative very well; there are many stories in which the hero is trying to struggle against a power being used by an evil wizard, and the two struggle back and forth for dominance.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 10, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.



When playing D&D, I am usually doing long-running plots (other rpgs we tend to do short runs with).

I find it's a lot easier to have long-running plots when you don't spend so much time on battles. I only have a battle or two per session and maybe three battles or so per level, so almost all of them are meaningful, and when they're done I have time to advance the story. I do also have action points to protect characters from bad fortune, and I make resurrection hard but not impossible.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.



I can't say that I ever used the CR system, and my idea of a "balanced" encounter is two parties of roughly equal power. While I agree with your notion that encounter design guidelines are antithetical to tactical and creative play, I would like to point out that they are only guidelines, and are not even in the SRD.

I would hope most people who play 3e (or derivatives) would understand that CR/EL and "rules" of that ilk shouldn't exist, and would not object to DMs who ignore them.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent *risk : reward* ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.
> 
> Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.




Er, how is that "ditto 3E"? Third Edition not only had instant kill effects, but also, as others have pointed out (emphasis mine), didn't recommend that all encounters be monsters of a CR equal to the PCs' level:



> So what happened in 3rd Edition?
> 
> As far as I can tell, everybody misread the rulebook. Here’s what the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide had to say about “Encounters and Challenge Ratings” (pg. 100):
> 
> ...


----------



## N'raac (Jul 10, 2013)

Stormonu said:


> Not necessarily.  Even if the medusa is one-shotted, the effects of the initial attack could persist, forcing the PC to make, say 3 saves.  For example, the first failed save might slow the target.  If the character fails the second, they might be immobilized.  Failing the third would mean the character turns to stone and dies.  The effects for failed save might last for some meaningful time (10-15 minutes, an hour, a day - whatever "significant" is to create an obstacle that is better remedied than left to simply wear off) until the group has some way to counteract it - via magic, items (perhaps a brew concocted from the medusa's own blood) or other means.  A slowed character might be able to continue; the immobilized character would probably force the group to retire or rest until either the effect improves to the character merely being slowed or wears off entirely.  Death of course, and the player's rolling up a new character (or waiting until the group can get the old one to a priest, if resurrection is still in the game ...).




Requiring 3 saves to avoid death means we have the same SoD effect, with a lesser chance of "D" and some ability of the character to act in the interim.  Let's assume we change Petrification from "one save or turned to stone" to "3 saves, one every second round - fail the first and you are slowed, the second and you are immobilized, and the third leaves you petrified/dead.  What does this mean in-game?

To the PC, it means three chances to save instead of one.  It's less likely three saves will be failed, and in the meantime the character can still act while slowed.  So this is a lesser threat, but sooner or later all three saves fail and the character dies.  Over time, PC's make a lot of die rolls, so one roll (however unlikely) that will have a huge impact will get rolled eventually.  

What about to the wizard picking spells?  Well, if he picks Stone to Flesh, the monster gets three chances to save, if he succeeds on the first he's slowed but still acting, and I have to wait until round three to see whether he will be immobilized, removing his threat.  If combat is generally over in three rounds anyway, what good was that?  Pick a spell more likely to work.  This was the problem SoD/SoS/"save and nothing happens" spells in 1e/2e - they were too chancy, especially as saves improved at higher levels, to be worth it.  Just hit him with another Magic Missile/Lightning Bolt/Cone of Cold - a least that does something every time.

I'm not a  big fan of "Save or lose the character" effects.  If character life is cheap, I think it does lead to players not investing in the characters.  No sense spending more time on his personality, backstory, etc. just to have him killed his first time out - I'd like to spend more time playing the character than creating it.  Higher death rate games, as noted above, need rapid character generation systems as well.  Of course, that's back in the days of random character generation.  Now, we get a lot more choice (point buy stats, feats, spell selection, etc.)  If my tricked out fire wizard dies at 4th level, I guess I can always bring in an identical tricked out fire wizard to replace him.  Now how impactful was that death?  Plekor the Pyromaniac is dead - long live Felgar, Bringer of Flaming Death!


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Er, how is that "ditto 3E"? Third Edition not only had instant kill effects, but also, as others have pointed out (emphasis mine), didn't recommend that all encounters be monsters of a CR equal to the PCs' level:



No, just -as that article points out- that 75% should be easily succeeded by the party, and 95% should likely lead to victory and only 5% of encounters, one every level and a half, should be outright deadly. 
The spread isn't that different from what 4e recommended.

When something happens 95% of the time, it's a pretty safe bet.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> No, just -as that article points out- that 75% should be easily succeeded by the party, and 95% should likely lead to victory and only 5% of encounters, one every level and a half, should be outright deadly.
> The spread isn't that different from what 4e recommended.
> 
> When something happens 95% of the time, it's a pretty safe bet.




Well, what I took away from that is that the PCs are going to use up their resources over the course of successive encounters, and since they don't know how many encounters they're going to have in a day, or what strength each encounter will be, that means that each fight will get successively more difficult (e.g. potentially deadlier) simply because the PCs have less to draw on. So I didn't see it as being quite that cut-and-dried.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers.




That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me.  It seems to imply that the only real risk to combat is the instant-kill effects.  While pre-4e had such effects, they weren't so common as they were the only risk of death.  Folks died from non-instant-kill stuff all the time.  So, I submit that your posit does not adequately explain the stated observed behavior.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers.





Umbran said:


> That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me.  It seems to imply that the only real risk to combat is the instant-kill effects.  While pre-4e had such effects, they weren't so common as they were the only risk of death.  Folks died from non-instant-kill stuff all the time.  So, I submit that your posit does not adequately explain the stated observed behavior.



I'll expand a little. 
Pre-4e, instant kill powers existed, as did other nasty monster powers with penalizing effects that lasted beyond a single combat: poison, disease, ruined weapons. While rare they were always a possibility, so entering combat with an unknown foe was always a tactical risk. Even if you won there might be consequences that impact the next fight above and beyond spent healing and powers. 
Add into this the idea of "balanced" encounters, which meant the majority of the time fights should be fair or slanted towards the PC's favour. Which has been around for two editions and really permeated the gamer unconscious. 

So you know (as long as you survive) there'll be no long term consequences, and as long as the DM is playing by the rules you have a reasonable chance of winning. What reason is there to avoid combat? 

I think this was really seen in watching people initially play Next and Caves of Chaos, where they might just charge into a room filled with orcs with a "I'm sure they're all minions." mindset.

Now, this doesn't mean people will start playing stupid and charge in like a pack of feral barbarians. If stealth is faster and might mean half as many fights, then stealth is the better option. It just means, all things being equal, there's no reason not to charge.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Death is really a lovely example of a gaming Catch-22. Well, Mexican Standoff really as there's more than one factor.

If death is motivated by the story and you can only die when it makes narrative sense, why are you playing a game? You're really just engaging in shared storytelling. If you're just going to regularly ignore the rules when they get in the way of the story, why have them at all?

But if death happens regardless of the story then you might very quickly have a party of characters unconnected to the start of the story with far less narrative tie to the events. Death makes it inefficient to have characters with real personalities, backgrounds, and goals as they're just going to die. 

Without the risk of death, combat is less thrilling; the game loses the opportunity for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat or sudden last minute reversals. But if every combat is a grim struggle to survive the game becomes exhausting and the thrill is lost.

Save or die effects make the game cheap and swingy, adding an artificial difficulty to encounters and monsters. But without monsters that are variably challenging and more deadly, monsters can become samey.


----------



## Aenghus (Jul 10, 2013)

I've seen some players use "feral barbarian" tactics in all versions of D&D (every RPG, come to think of it). Typically their game allows the tactic to work most of the time, and they don't mind making up new PCs (who are just like the old character) when it doesn't.

The constant spectre of sudden random unpredictable PC death just makes me as a player stressed and nervous, I don't enjoy it at all, so it's really no surprise that I avoid such events in my games. Death happens but the concatenation of "sudden" , "random" and "unpredictable" , like death by falling safe from a passing plane, is something I actively avoid. "Sudden" as in no chance to avoid it tactically, "random" in that player skill has little or no effect and "unpredictable" as there is little foreshadowing of the possibility in a strategic sense. .

It was interesting reading the replies to my question in this thread. I get the impression that the particular subset of rules emphasised and the tastes of the group involved gravitate to a particular style of play, and many many styles of play are possible. Adaptations include -  pawn play, with reduced attachment to expendable PCs; multiple PCs per player; a stable of PC candidates; less combat than the average game; an emphasis on avoiding combat and making any fights as unfair as possible in the PC favour;


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 10, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Requiring 3 saves to avoid death means we have the same SoD effect, with a lesser chance of "D" and some ability of the character to act in the interim.  Let's assume we change Petrification from "one save or turned to stone" to "3 saves, one every second round - fail the first and you are slowed, the second and you are immobilized, and the third leaves you petrified/dead.  What does this mean in-game?
> 
> To the PC, it means three chances to save instead of one.  It's less likely three saves will be failed, and in the meantime the character can still act while slowed.  So this is a lesser threat, but sooner or later all three saves fail and the character dies.  Over time, PC's make a lot of die rolls, so one roll (however unlikely) that will have a huge impact will get rolled eventually.
> 
> ...




A lot of what you say here is exactly why I would prefer to use something like the disease track for SoD effects.  I dont like how binary saves are.  With a sliding scale, there is struggle between the attacker and the target.  Narratively, I feel this is better.  Mechanically, it opens up more options.   a mage might be able to take an action to attempt to make an upcoming check for the target worse; an ally of the target (warlord anyone?) might likewise try to help resist...  that doesnt even touch on the idea of feats, backgrounds, or school specialties which might make some of your effects harder to resist (less steps on the condition track.)  There would never be a time when nothing happens; the situation would evolve with each step and give both attacker and defender a chance to be involved.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Add into this the idea of "balanced" encounters, which meant the majority of the time fights should be fair or slanted towards the PC's favour. Which has been around for two editions and really permeated the gamer unconscious.



While I don't think that you have to play the game this way, I do think that the idea of "balanced" encounters is toxic to good gaming. I also am finding that you're right in that the influence of this principle is insidious, and as I learn more about my own DMing I realize I'm not immune to it myself.



> Save or die effects make the game cheap and swingy, adding an artificial difficulty to encounters and monsters.



I think any of those descriptors only apply relative to a very specific set of expectations. For instance, someone who watched Firefly and signs up to play the new Firefly rpg might see instantaneous and unexpected deaths of main characters as anything but "cheap". It's a Joss Whedon trope!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 10, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> The constant spectre of sudden random unpredictable PC death just makes me as a player stressed and nervous, I don't enjoy it at all, so it's really no surprise that I avoid such events in my games. Death happens but the concatenation of "sudden" , "random" and "unpredictable" , like death by falling safe from a passing plane, is something I actively avoid. "Sudden" as in no chance to avoid it tactically, "random" in that player skill has little or no effect and "unpredictable" as there is little foreshadowing of the possibility in a strategic sense.



I think one of the best moments from The Wire was when one of the main characters, who has been built up for years as a canny but ballsy antihero, gets shot in the back of the head by a twelve year old for no real reason while shopping at a convenience store. There are a variety of interesting dramas out there that challenge our assumptions about classic Hollywood tropes, including "plot immunity" for stars (which in D&D is essentially the PCs). I can see why people might be reluctant to go there, but I always suggest that you try with an open mind things that you're uncomfortable with. That said...



> It was interesting reading the replies to my question in this thread. I get the impression that the particular subset of rules emphasised and the tastes of the group involved gravitate to a particular style of play, and many many styles of play are possible.



...if you are not running The Wire as a game, then you may want to change the rules that affect the frequency and the conditions of lethality. Some styles do demand a softer touch.



> I've seen some players use "feral barbarian" tactics in all versions of D&D (every RPG, come to think of it). Typically their game allows the tactic to work most of the time, and they don't mind making up new PCs (who are just like the old character) when it doesn't.



Can't say I'm a big fan of the "feral barbarian" school of PC strategy.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> If death is motivated by the story and you can only die when it makes narrative sense, why are you playing a game? You're really just engaging in shared storytelling. If you're just going to regularly ignore the rules when they get in the way of the story, why have them at all?




I agree with all the rest of your post, but I focus on this which is the part I don't agree with. 

The reason why I disagree is that "no death" does not equal "invincible", as there are other outcomes possible to combat and other dangers. I could totally run/play a game of D&D where a PC cannot die (unless the player agrees) but that doesn't mean that dropping to 0 hp or failing a SoD roll will be ignored or irrelevant. Instead of dying, a single PC will be presumably out of order at least for the rest of the encounter, and possibly longer, perhaps with a long-term penalty that they have to find a "cure" for. A TPK would definitely equal to losing the battle, but could be replaced with being captured, or just left behind maimed and robbed of all possessions. By all means, "dying" or losing the battle would be affecting the story, and as such it's still worth playing it!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 10, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Add into this the idea of "balanced" encounters, which meant the majority of the time fights should be fair or slanted towards the PC's favour. Which has been around for two editions and really permeated the gamer unconscious.




To be honest, that's just a codification of something that's required for a long-running campaign.  If the majority of fights are *not* slanted in the favor, then statistically speaking you'll quickly have no PCs. 



> So you know (as long as you survive) there'll be no long term consequences, and as long as the DM is playing by the rules you have a reasonable chance of winning. What reason is there to avoid combat?




You're playing a game of imagination.  You can't imagine consequences other than death and losing equipment?  Well, perhaps we are in a circular argument, here.  If, for you as a player, the only things that matter are life and equipment, then yes, threat of loss of those will be the only things that motivate you.  If, as a player, other things matter to you, the GM can motivate you by threatening them.



> I think this was really seen in watching people initially play Next and Caves of Chaos, where they might just charge into a room filled with orcs with a "I'm sure they're all minions." mindset.




How people play in a playtest or one-shot convention game should not be compared to campaign play.  In a Next playtest, the players have little to lose anyway, because the PCs are not generally expected to have continuity outside of the one adventure.  There's nothing lost if you don't survive, as you won't be building on the current adventure anyway.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Umbran said:


> To be honest, that's just a codification of something that's required for a long-running campaign.  If the majority of fights are *not* slanted in the favor, then statistically speaking you'll quickly have no PCs.



For combat encounters yes. But this assumes combat encounters as a baseline and not just "encounters". If you throw a kill-your-ass powerful threat against the play it quickly becomes a non-combat encounter. They might sneak past. They might negotiate. They might try trickery. They might try non-standard combat such as an ambush or using the terrain. They might try to use the monster, luring it into combat with other monsters. 
Suddenly, the encounter becomes something else. 

But if it's just killable, it's less working to just walk up and punch it directly in the throat. 



Umbran said:


> You're playing a game of imagination.  You can't imagine consequences other than death and losing equipment?  Well, perhaps we are in a circular argument, here.  If, for you as a player, the only things that matter are life and equipment, then yes, threat of loss of those will be the only things that motivate you.  If, as a player, other things matter to you, the GM can motivate you by threatening them.



I was speaking in broad generalities. Yes, there are many ways to motivate players. But players quickly latch onto those. The idea of the amnesiac orphan wander PC has become a trope for a reason: because players know lazy GMs will often use friends and family against them. 

And the thing is, those options still exist with death. They don't go away. You can have a high mortality game while still motivating PCs with other options. Regardless, when you take death off the table you lose an option, you lose a choice. 



Umbran said:


> How people play in a playtest or one-shot convention game should not be compared to campaign play.  In a Next playtest, the players have little to lose anyway, because the PCs are not generally expected to have continuity outside of the one adventure.  There's nothing lost if you don't survive, as you won't be building on the current adventure anyway.



Your game is still over and you still have to sit out the rest of the game. That's reason enough to _try_​ and stay alive.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 10, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> I agree with all the rest of your post, but I focus on this which is the part I don't agree with.
> 
> The reason why I disagree is that "no death" does not equal "invincible", as there are other outcomes possible to combat and other dangers. I could totally run/play a game of D&D where a PC cannot die (unless the player agrees) but that doesn't mean that dropping to 0 hp or failing a SoD roll will be ignored or irrelevant. Instead of dying, a single PC will be presumably out of order at least for the rest of the encounter, and possibly longer, perhaps with a long-term penalty that they have to find a "cure" for. A TPK would definitely equal to losing the battle, but could be replaced with being captured, or just left behind maimed and robbed of all possessions. By all means, "dying" or losing the battle would be affecting the story, and as such it's still worth playing it!



I was describing the extremes, establishing the limits of the arguments. 
Yeah, of course you can punish in other ways. You can run a game without death, or even a middle ground game with rare death when appropriate or motivated by player/character stupidity. But you can also run a game with SoD effects and deadly monsters and, due to luck or skill never have a player drop and avoid a PC treadmill.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 11, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> If you throw a kill-your-ass powerful threat against the play it quickly becomes a non-combat encounter.




Problem: you don't generally know how powerful it is unless 1) the GM tells you or 2) you engage and get your butt kicked.  



> I was speaking in broad generalities. Yes, there are many ways to motivate players. But players quickly latch onto those. The idea of the amnesiac orphan wander PC has become a trope for a reason: because players know lazy GMs will often use friends and family against them.




Hold that thought....



Jester Canuck said:


> Yeah, of course you can punish in other ways.




Okay.  That's your problem, right there.  "Punish".  

I am not the player's Daddy.  Nor am I their ruler, their drill sergeant, or their adversary.  I do not punish them.  I am there to work with them, to present them with something _interesting_.  Constantly winning easily is dull.  So, there has to be risk of failure.  But the risk, too, should be interesting.  Sometimes, starting a new story is more interesting than continuing the old one.  But frequently, falling over dead is only slightly more interesting than constant easy wins - because if you die that story is over, and who finds the blank pages at the end of the book to be entertaining? 

I am playing with mostly sane adults.  If they need to be punished to motivate them, well, there are people they can pay to have that done in the red light district, but please don't come to my table expecting to be punished.  It isn't going to happen.  I'm not from a school that supports much negative reinforcement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2013)

> I am playing with mostly sane adults.




_*grumblegrumble* _Lucky bastard... _*grumblegrumble* _


----------



## Jester David (Jul 11, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Problem: you don't generally know how powerful it is unless 1) the GM tells you or 2) you engage and get your butt kicked.



Sometimes you just know. There's a difference between tough and overwhelming. 
Giant red dragon... back away slowly and avoid sudden movements. 



Umbran said:


> Okay.  That's your problem, right there.  "Punish".
> 
> I am not the player's Daddy.  Nor am I their ruler, their drill sergeant, or their adversary.  I do not punish them.  I am there to work with them, to present them with something _interesting_.  Constantly winning easily is dull.  So, there has to be risk of failure.  But the risk, too, should be interesting.  Sometimes, starting a new story is more interesting than continuing the old one.  But frequently, falling over dead is only slightly more interesting than constant easy wins - because if you die that story is over, and who finds the blank pages at the end of the book to be entertaining?
> 
> I am playing with mostly sane adults.  If they need to be punished to motivate them, well, there are people they can pay to have that done in the red light district, but please don't come to my table expecting to be punished.  It isn't going to happen.  I'm not from a school that supports much negative reinforcement.



Let's not overanalyze my word choice.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 11, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Let's not overanalyze my word choice.




What analysis? Words mean things.  You said "punish," I figure you *mean* punish.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 11, 2013)

"Punish" implies the GM must "teach" the players the proper way to play, and discipline them when they fail to do so.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 11, 2013)

N'raac said:


> "Punish" implies the GM must "teach" the players the proper way to play, and discipline them when they fail to do so.




Punish might also just imply that you're putting them through the wringer - no correction intended.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 11, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> I was describing the extremes, establishing the limits of the arguments.




Yep, that's a good way of setting the discussion, although you made it sound like this one extreme would be unplayable, since you rethorically asked what would be the reason to play in that way


----------



## Balesir (Jul 11, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I am playing with mostly sane adults.



I have mostly _in_sane adults, so my views are pretty similar but not quite identickle.


----------



## Aenghus (Jul 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think one of the best moments from The Wire was when one of the main characters, who has been built up for years as a canny but ballsy antihero, gets shot in the back of the head by a twelve year old for no real reason while shopping at a convenience store. There are a variety of interesting dramas out there that challenge our assumptions about classic Hollywood tropes, including "plot immunity" for stars (which in D&D is essentially the PCs). I can see why people might be reluctant to go there, but I always suggest that you try with an open mind things that you're uncomfortable with. That said...




As it happens I tend to dislike The Wire and other serious dramas as well, (and I have tried to expand my horizons but just confirmed my ability to appreciate such fare is constrained). Possibly one reason is that I have Asperger's Syndrome and have difficulty appreciating the nuances of human behaviour. I prefer more straightforward stories, they are less confusing to me.

Similarly, I have been playing and running D&D and other RPGS for over thirty years(sigh) and have have loads of my PCs die, often suddenly, sometimes by SoD effects. In the games I run lots of PCs have died, though less frequently in recent years as I developed my own style, I've even had some TPKs. 




> ...if you are not running The Wire as a game, then you may want to change the rules that affect the frequency and the conditions of lethality. Some styles do demand a softer touch.




Yes. Please accept that I just prefer lower lethality in my games, and balanced encounters, that it's an informed choice, and that that style of D&D was, is and will continue to be a valid option for many groups now and in the future.



> Can't say I'm a big fan of the "feral barbarian" school of PC strategy.




It's a style of play enjoyed by a lot of people. Occasionally (rarely) even I like turning off my brain and just have my PC charge in and damn the torpedoes! But I don't do it in the wrong genre, or when it would interfere with the enjoyment of other 
members of the group, seeing as I am in the latter category the vast majority of the time. 

We are all entitled to our our own tastes, but some of us just don't belong in the same group.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 11, 2013)

I realize that a more apt example for D&D might have been George RR Martin. He certainly doesn't think his main characters deserve a fair warning before they die!


Aenghus said:


> Yes. Please accept that I just prefer lower lethality in my games, and balanced encounters, that it's an informed choice, and that that style of D&D was, is and will continue to be a valid option for many groups now and in the future.



Of course. I've run games where I simply did not want the PCs to die (though, oddly enough, I threw a bodak at them once; don't know what I would have done if they had failed a save). To me "PC's can't die" and "PC's can't die without having a fair chance at survival" are both valid styles. I just don't think they should be mandatory; a good set of rules allows for wide variation on basic tenents of the game like this.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would hope most people who play 3e (or derivatives) would understand that CR/EL and "rules" of that ilk shouldn't exist, and would not object to DMs who ignore them.



I like to point out when people say this the simple fact that in Living Greyhawk, it was passed down as a mandate from WOTC that ALL encounters MUST fit the EL guidelines for appropriate encounters.  NO encounters above APL+4 were allowed to be used.  The average of the encounters in an adventure had to add up to APL+2(which meant that if there were 3 encounters, one had to be APL=EL, one was APL+2 and one was APL+4).

It was pointed out to us that WOTC(and the Circle, who were in charge of the campaign) saw the point of D&D as heroic characters fighting enemies who were reasonably defeatable.  That's the reason the EL guidelines were put in the book.

I understand that some people feel the game should be more deadly and therefore don't like the EL rules.  Some even go as far as to somehow they were a mistake and no one meant to put them in the book in the first place.  This simply isn't the case.

But the key thing to remember is that, above all, those rules are meant to help the DM estimate the difficulty of an encounter because so many DMs complained that in 2e they'd use a monster and when they ran it without cheating, it would kill off all the characters...when they didn't want that to happen.  There was no real way of knowing which monsters would kill all the PCs or not.  So, they added one.  Realistically, there is no RULE that says you need to use appropriate encounters.  Instead there is simply a game designed to have a 100% chance of killing everyone if you don't follow them.  DMs who don't follow them are simply saying to their players that they want them all to die.

At least, in theory.  I'm the first to admit that WOTC did a very poor job creating CRs for monsters.  They also kept giving more and more powerful options to the players.  This meant that at various points in 3.5e's lifespan, you could easily take a CR 15 creature and throw it up against 10th level characters and watch the PCs win without much of a problem.

And if the estimates aren't correct, it pretty much removes the entire point of the EL/CR system and makes it useless.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> To me "PC's can't die" and "PC's can't die without having a fair chance at survival" are both valid styles. I just don't think they should be mandatory; a good set of rules allows for wide variation on basic tenents of the game like this.



I had an idea in another thread that might just work for this.  I thought it might be nice if SoD effects instead had 3 levels of success:
1. Failure
2. Partial Effect
3. Full Effect

The idea being something like Flesh to Stone doing damage to someone if they failed a save, but turned them completely to stone if they rolled a 1 on their save.  Or maybe making SoD effects have "to hit" rolls where if you roll a 20, you crit and successfully kill the target.

Then, there could be optional rules to allow each DM to set a level of lethality in there games.  Maybe in "more lethal" games, a 16 through 20 on the attack roll causes the target to die and an extremely lethal game makes every attack roll that hits immediately lethal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Of course. I've run games where I simply did not want the PCs to die (though, oddly enough, I threw a bodak at them once; don't know what I would have done if they had failed a save). To me "PC's can't die" and "PC's can't die without having a fair chance at survival" are both valid styles. I just don't think they should be mandatory; a good set of rules allows for wide variation on basic tenents of the game like this.




I agree with this. There are different approaches to lethality and character death, and every group I have been in seems to have a slightly different take. i think one thing they should do in Next is acknowledge this as a key playstyle decision and provide tools to scale. personally I favor having more PC death on the table, and more random carnage (to me a night that ends in a spectacular TPK or where the leader of the party gets killed and the party has to retreat and acknowledge the threat is too great for them to handle, can be more exciting than victory). But that isn't for everyone. People have different taste, trying to make your taste on this front objectively the best way to do it, has never worked. I have never once seen a one size fits all when it comes to this particular issue.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But the key thing to remember is that, above all, those rules are meant to help the DM estimate the difficulty of an encounter



I think it does more to confuse and mislead DMs than help them, regardless of intent. You seem to agree...


> At least, in theory.  I'm the first to admit that WOTC did a very poor job creating CRs for monsters.  They also kept giving more and more powerful options to the players.  This meant that at various points in 3.5e's lifespan, you could easily take a CR 15 creature and throw it up against 10th level characters and watch the PCs win without much of a problem.
> 
> And if the estimates aren't correct, it pretty much removes the entire point of the EL/CR system and makes it useless.



However, I think that the estimates aren't correct because the game experience is not standardized enough to make those kinds of estimates. Different party makeups and player choices, different in-game situations, different houserules and assumptions, there are so many things that can affect how a party of four Level X characters will interact with a CR Y monster than in my opinion the CR is useless.



> That may because so many DMs complained that in 2e they'd use a monster and when they ran it without cheating, it would kill off all the characters...when they didn't want that to happen.  There was no real way of knowing which monsters would kill all the PCs or not.



It's a lot easier to tell how dangerous monsters are now that attack bonuses and AC and saves and such work the same way. If you're using an SoD, it's very easy to know what the chance of failure is. If you're using conventional attacks, it's easier to calculate the likelihood of hits.

That said, if anyone did make that complaint, I still think it's BS. It's not the game designers job to control the PC mortality rate. Rules don't kill PCs, DMs do.



> Realistically, there is no RULE that says you need to use appropriate encounters.



Okay so far...


> Instead there is simply a game designed to have a 100% chance of killing everyone if you don't follow them.  DMs who don't follow them are simply saying to their players that they want them all to die.



Wait, what? That's just absurd. The base encounter is four against one, so easy that it's barely worth rolling dice. A CR 5 creature that meets a party of level 5 characters _should run for its life_.

Deviating from that ludicrous baseline doesn't say anything other than that the DM is doing his job and deciding for himself what creatures are out there and how they behave. It certainly doesn't suggest that all the PCs are about to die.

I don't use CRs/ELs, but if I did calculate them, I'm quite sure that most of my encounters are above what the XP charts even consider...and I haven't killed a PC in at least fifteen sessions (probably more like twenty). I routinely place a party of three PCs against three NPCs of equal or higher level than them, or one NPC five or six levels higher, or a monster with a CR five or ten higher than their level; and that's before I trick these encounters out with customized statistics, equipment, allies, and situational factors. Then again, I also run an occasional one below level as a gag or to break up tension. What I don't do is follow or even refer to the guidelines.



> I like to point out when people say this the simple fact that in Living Greyhawk, it was passed down as a mandate from WOTC that ALL encounters MUST fit the EL guidelines for appropriate encounters.



Organized play is kind of its own animal, and the considerations are different. I think it's safe to say that anything that I or anyone else says about DMing does not apply to that situation. I personally don't much care what the rules of Living Greyhawk are/were (or what it is at all).



> It was pointed out to us that WOTC(and the Circle, who were in charge of the campaign) saw the point of D&D as heroic characters fighting enemies who were reasonably defeatable.  That's the reason the EL guidelines were put in the book.



Can't say I ever saw that as being the point of D&D. In fact, I find that statement contradictory. To me, the definition of "heroic" does not include slaughtering helpless opponents or accomplishing tasks that do not involve meaningful risks.



> I understand that some people feel the game should be more deadly and therefore don't like the EL rules.



Those are separate considerations. I don't use CRs/ELs/XP, but my campaigns range from bloodbaths to PC victory parades. The point is that the CR/EL system is designed to replace a part of the DM's job (deciding what challenges the characters should face), but I don't think that aspect of DMing can be adequately replaced, and I don't see any reason to try.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I had an idea in another thread that might just work for this.  I thought it might be nice if SoD effects instead had 3 levels of success:
> 1. Failure
> 2. Partial Effect
> 3. Full Effect
> ...



I support that kind of approach; more granularity than simple pass/fail is definitely feasible.

I also think that the magic chapter should have a section under spells with the "Death" descriptor (or equivalent) that says that such spells may kill a character, reduce his hp to a certain value (say, -1), or simply knock him out of the battle (as some D&D-based computer games do when characters "die").


----------



## Jester David (Jul 11, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> Yep, that's a good way of setting the discussion, although you made it sound like this one extreme would be unplayable, since you rhetorically asked what would be the reason to play in that way



All the extremes are less playable. 

Right now I'm playing in a game where I cannot die. The GM will not let me die. "Heroic self-sacrifice? Not on my watch!"
This doesn't sit well with me as I like to "play boldly" doing risky things that might be cool if they succeed or dangerous if the fail. But as I _cannot die_ the risk is not there, and thus the rewards for success are lessened. 
At the same time, if you die regularly and cannot get attached to your character, death has no meaning and your successes seem short term and transitory. 

Like most arguments, the solution is the middle ground: a compromise. The default should be moderate survivability with the real risk of death if unlucky, foolish, or sloppy. Monsters with the chance to be more lethal if they're lucky but on average just bringing a risk of injury. But the option to use more deadly monsters 'n' spells to change the dynamic when necessary for tension, a reminder or morality, or a just increasing the risk. 
After all, no one is going to force you to include SoD or SoS monsters in your game. Even if using a published module unless they're the main villain on the cover you can swap it out for a different monster. 

Now, if you're a player and you keep running into SoD monsters, traps, and spells with an extremely high mortality rate, your problem isn't with the game, it's with the GM. Which means it doesn't matter what the game says, because the GM can _always_ add SoD effects to the game. 

(Admittedly, the big exception is Organized Play. OP modules cannot be changed, so SoD effects remain. But I'm hesitant to make changes to an entire game based on the non-representational play style that is OP. It's easier to just regulate the use of SoD in OP modules.)


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 11, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> All the extremes are less playable.




Well, I disagree with that  The extremes are perhaps less likely to be accepted by players, on average, but they are not really inherently less playable IMHO. Your example of your DM works with you, but I can only deduct that you don't like playing that way so it's less playable _for you_.

A compromise is of course a safe choice for _publishing_, it's the best for a large-base brand such as D&D, but even that is not the only choice (a more extreme game _can_ be published successfully, it's just very unlikely to attract a fan base larger than small).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think it does more to confuse and mislead DMs than help them, regardless of intent. You seem to agree...



Only because it doesn't work.  If it performed its stated goal well enough it would be excellent.


Ahnehnois said:


> However, I think that the estimates aren't correct because the game experience is not standardized enough to make those kinds of estimates. Different party makeups and player choices, different in-game situations, different houserules and assumptions, there are so many things that can affect how a party of four Level X characters will interact with a CR Y monster than in my opinion the CR is useless.



This is correct.  Which is precisely why I don't like 3.5e anymore.  I don't like so much unpredictability.


Ahnehnois said:


> It's a lot easier to tell how dangerous monsters are now that attack bonuses and AC and saves and such work the same way. If you're using an SoD, it's very easy to know what the chance of failure is. If you're using conventional attacks, it's easier to calculate the likelihood of hits.



Here's where I have to disagree immensely.  In 2e, when ACs when from 10 to -10 and went down to no lower than -2 or -3 the vast majority of the time, it was extremely easy to predict how often enemies with one or two attacks could hit your PCs and vice versa.  You knew that with a THAC0 of 16, someone with Full Plate and Shield would get hit 25% of the time and someone with AC 10 would get hit 75% of the time and that was your range.

In 3.5e, characters could have nearly any number as their AC.  Their ACs could also change dramatically based on the current buffs up on the party and the actions they took in combat.  Same thing with Hitpoints and Saving Throws.  Also, the same thing applies to monster stats.

You could have a 30 hitdice creature whose AC was -2 in 3.5e.  Who wins that battle?  No idea.  The PCs have a good chance of killing it outright if they go first because they'll all hit.  Then again, the monster likely has a lot of hitpoints and bonuses to hit.  Which might not matter if that same creature had a 3 strength.  And it might completely murder them if it has a 40 strength.  That's assuming the PCs attack its AC and don't try to use spells that target its Reflex.  In which case, it might have bonuses so high they can't possibly hit.

There's so much unpredictability in the numbers that there's no way to make an accurate estimate of anything.  Which is precisely why CR failed as a mechanic.


Ahnehnois said:


> That said, if anyone did make that complaint, I still think it's BS. It's not the game designers job to control the PC mortality rate. Rules don't kill PCs, DMs do.



That's true.  But say I only give you the names of monsters that I've made up and you've never seen before.  Monster A and Monster B.  Which one will kill the PCs and which one will be a cake walk for them?  That's why we need a mechanic that says "Monster A is 100% likely to kill a group of 5 level 4 PCs, 80% likely to kill level 5 PCs, 50% likely to kill level 6 PCs, 30% likely to kill level 7 PCs, etc".  Then, as a DM you can look at a monster and easily say "Alright, my PCs are level 6 and I want this battle to be fairly hard.  This monster seems appropriate.  It's a toss up as to whether someone will die.



Ahnehnois said:


> Wait, what? That's just absurd. The base encounter is four against one, so easy that it's barely worth rolling dice. A CR 5 creature that meets a party of level 5 characters _should run for its life_.



I didn't write the system.  I'm just repeating what the system says.  A CR 5 creature is designed to take 20% of the resources from a group of four level 5 PCs.  That means 20% of their spells, hitpoints, magic items, etc.  So, they might just use 2 or 3 spells to defeat the monster without taking damage or they might use no spells and each take 20% of their hp in damage.

They are supposed to be easily defeatable.  In fact, the idea is that you can fight 5 such monsters a day before you need to rest for the night.

Although, often a CR5 creature failed to use ANY resources from four level 5 PCs...which is precisely why I say the system failed.


Ahnehnois said:


> Deviating from that ludicrous baseline doesn't say anything other than that the DM is doing his job and deciding for himself what creatures are out there and how they behave. It certainly doesn't suggest that all the PCs are about to die.



Once again, if the designers did their job properly, it WOULD mean that.  If it was a valid estimate(and even if it's an invalid estimate...it is often better than no estimate at all), then a monster of CR15 should basically have a 95% chance of wiping out four adventurers of level 10.

As it is, you can often use monsters of CR15 or 16 against 10th level adventurers without worrying so much.  Against PCs built using only the PHB, it might be closer to the correct estimate.

The system especially falls apart when you use multiples of the same monsters.  It's estimates become worse and worse the more enemies there are.


Ahnehnois said:


> I don't use CRs/ELs, but if I did calculate them, I'm quite sure that most of my encounters are above what the XP charts even consider...and I haven't killed a PC in at least fifteen sessions (probably more like twenty). I routinely place a party of three PCs against three NPCs of equal or higher level than them, or one NPC five or six levels higher, or a monster with a CR five or ten higher than their level; and that's before I trick these encounters out with customized statistics, equipment, allies, and situational factors.



Yeah, NPCs were the worst estimates out of anything in the system.  A NPC Wizard of level 15 was supposed to be a CR15 encounter.  That was NEVER the case.  A CR 15 monster often had double this NPCs hit points and damage per round.


Ahnehnois said:


> Organized play is kind of its own animal, and the considerations are different. I think it's safe to say that anything that I or anyone else says about DMing does not apply to that situation. I personally don't much care what the rules of Living Greyhawk are/were (or what it is at all).



I'm just stating that there were definitely people at WOTC who believed that the EL/CR system was in fact a rule.  They made us use the rule explicitly because they wanted Living Greyhawk to be a campaign that felt like "baseline" D&D.  Which means the rules as designed.

My point wasn't that you should care what Living Greyhawk did.  My point was that the rules were definitely printed to be used and followed.  The XP chart didn't even let you give out XP if you used encounters that much higher than the recommended guidelines since they assumed no one would be insane enough to try it.

As always, you can play whatever you want.  The rules don't need to be followed.  But they WERE rules.


Ahnehnois said:


> Can't say I ever saw that as being the point of D&D. In fact, I find that statement contradictory. To me, the definition of "heroic" does not include slaughtering helpless opponents or accomplishing tasks that do not involve meaningful risks.



There were meaningful risks.  I played a LOT of Living Greyhawk over 3 years.  I've seen probably at least 30 or 40 PC deaths during that time.  That was following the EL/CR guidelines.  Most of the time APL+4 encounters are extremely tough.  That's in addition to things like Bodak encounters that killed 3 people in one battle.

Authors of adventures quickly realized which monsters were overpowered for their CR and used those monsters.  They realized tricks for making monsters tougher by doing things like adding templates that added too much for their CR increase.  Plus tricks like adding one level of Warrior(which doesn't add anything to the CR of the monster, but does give them a feat and some hitpoints).


Ahnehnois said:


> Those are separate considerations. I don't use CRs/ELs/XP, but my campaigns range from bloodbaths to PC victory parades. The point is that the CR/EL system is designed to replace a part of the DM's job (deciding what challenges the characters should face), but I don't think that aspect of DMing can be adequately replaced, and I don't see any reason to try.



It's not trying to replace it.  It's trying to enhance it.  At least, I consider it an enhancement.

If it's part of my job to pour over monster statistics with copies of the PCs in my hands comparing their Reflex saves to the DCs of the monsters while simultaneously figuring our the number of rounds a monster can survive on average based on probability and likely tactics the PCs will use in order to find appropriate monsters to use....well, I'm happy to have someone else do that work for me.

I'd prefer my job be much easier.  I'd like to look in a book 2 minutes before the game starts, find a monster of the correct level/CR/whatever and say alright, this should be a fun fight with some danger, and say "Let's do this".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I didn't write the system.  I'm just repeating what the system says.  A CR 5 creature is designed to take 20% of the resources from a group of four level 5 PCs.  That means 20% of their spells, hitpoints, magic items, etc.  So, they might just use 2 or 3 spells to defeat the monster without taking damage or they might use no spells and each take 20% of their hp in damage.
> 
> They are supposed to be easily defeatable.  In fact, the idea is that you can fight 5 such monsters a day before you need to rest for the night.
> 
> Although, often a CR5 creature failed to use ANY resources from four level 5 PCs...which is precisely why I say the system failed.



One issue with 3e's CR system is that PC builds and tactics are far superior in 2013 to those in 2000. The CR system is most likely correct for a PHB-only game where the cleric uses most of his spells for healing, the druid doesn't have natural spell, the wizard is a blaster, and the fighter takes weapon focus and specialization.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 11, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Only because it doesn't work.  If it performed its stated goal well enough it would be excellent.



I'm skeptical that its stated goal is realistically achievable.



> This is correct.  Which is precisely why I don't like 3.5e anymore.  I don't like so much unpredictability.



Your preferences are your own, but I don't think I want to see the converse, i.e. a "predictable" game.



> That's true.  But say I only give you the names of monsters that I've made up and you've never seen before.  Monster A and Monster B.  Which one will kill the PCs and which one will be a cake walk for them?



I really don't need to be told that.



> I'm just stating that there were definitely people at WOTC who believed that the EL/CR system was in fact a rule.  They made us use the rule explicitly because they wanted Living Greyhawk to be a campaign that felt like "baseline" D&D.  Which means the rules as designed.



In your example, you indicated that their average EL was significantly higher than what the DMG recommends, if I understood it correctly. Which would suggest that even they realized that a "challenging" encounter as described in the DMG was often too easy to provide any meaningful enjoyment. It also seems to me that those organized play situations impose a variety of rules that are more restrictive than the game itself; I don't think that anyone believes that the rules themselves require that the party faces a particular mix of challenges.



> The rules don't need to be followed.  But they WERE rules.



In Living Greyhawk, they were rules. In the game of D&D itself, they're guidelines or suggestions. The section in the DMG is pretty clear about that, and even there quite a few limitations are acknowledged.

I don't suggest following those guidelines, but regardless of whether one does or not, they are not rules.



> I'd prefer my job be much easier.  I'd like to *1.* look in a book 2 minutes before the game starts, *2.* find a monster of the correct level/CR/whatever and say alright, this should be a fun fight with some danger, and say *3.* "Let's do this".



Numbers added. Personally, I'd rather skip steps 1 and 2 and get straight to 3.

That's the problem with CRs. They are self-justifying. You can't really know how unnecessary they are until you try playing a game where they're ignored and see that it works.



Doug McCrae said:


> One issue with 3e's CR system is that PC builds and tactics are far superior in 2013 to those in 2000. The CR system is most likely correct for a PHB-only game where the cleric uses most of his spells for healing, the druid doesn't have natural spell, the wizard is a blaster, and the fighter takes weapon focus and specialization.



Even using those very strict limitations I don't think it is. There are just way too many variables. A four fighter party is enormously different from a four cleric party (or any other mix). A party built for monster hunting is different than a party built for urban intrigue. Equipment varies enormously. Situational factors and tactics vary enormously. Monsters and NPCs vary enormously.

And how many people ever played the game that way?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 11, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm skeptical that its stated goal is realistically achievable.



I think D&D Next is very close to achieving it.



Ahnehnois said:


> Your preferences are your own, but I don't think I want to see the converse, i.e. a "predictable" game.



See above, I think D&D Next has basically done it by making magic items optional, making the rules for monsters and PCs different, carefully creating combat stats for monsters, and constraining attack bonuses for PCs while limiting spellcasting.

So far, every encounter I've run has had its difficulty predicted by the different between the monster's level and the PCs.



Ahnehnois said:


> In your example, you indicated that their average EL was significantly higher than what the DMG recommends, if I understood it correctly. Which would suggest that even they realized that a "challenging" encounter as described in the DMG was often too easy to provide any meaningful enjoyment. It also seems to me that those organized play situations impose a variety of rules that are more restrictive than the game itself; I don't think that anyone believes that the rules themselves require that the party faces a particular mix of challenges.



I do.  I ran my game like this before I ever even knew what LG was.  It required basically no adjustments to write LG adventures.

As for the EL thing, the issue was that PCs started off at one power level where the CR/EL system worked fairly well.  Then, as players became more accustomed to the rules and learned to powergame, they became more and more powerful.  In addition, each book that came out caused power creep for the players.

Authors just learned that it was possible to increase the difficulty of an encounter without increasing it's CR(which means it's EL stayed the same).  This shouldn't be possible, since CR is supposed to be a measure of difficulty.  But it was, so authors learned to use the holes in the EL/CR rules to increase the challenge without breaking the rules.

Though, this was always a large debate.  Since a player would show up with a character created entirely from the PHB and would die the first adventure they played in because of how weak they were compared to the rest of the players.  The CR guidelines DID work for their character.  And since the adventure writer "bent" the CR guidelines in order to make the monsters more powerful, it was a guaranteed death for this type of character.


Ahnehnois said:


> In Living Greyhawk, they were rules. In the game of D&D itself, they're guidelines or suggestions. The section in the DMG is pretty clear about that, and even there quite a few limitations are acknowledged.



It explains not to use monsters too high or too low because it'll be too hard or too easy for the PCs.  It says the XP you give PCs is based on the difficulty of the monster compared to the power of the group, which is it's CR.  You can't give out XP(or you make a mockery of the idea of the XP system) if you don't acknowledge that CR is a measure of difficulty.

I mean, it's difficult to say that any rule that says "Here's how difficult monsters are, be warned if you use enemies more difficult than X, you will likely kill off the PCs...be warned.  Because of this, we won't give you XP for anything above this level, since it's impossible for the PCs to win if you run that encounter.  We recommend not killing off the PCs playing in your game since it can be no fun, therefore here is the percentage of each difficulty encounter we suggest using in your game to provide a good mix of easy and hard encounters" is a RULE.  It's a statement of fact with some advice attached to it.

You are correct that nothing in the game requires you to run a game with 60%(or whatever it was) encounters with EL=APL.  Though, the book gives very good reasons why you SHOULD(which were once again ruined by the fact that CR didn't work, but that's another story).

Then again, nothing in the rules says you HAVE to have a 1d6 per level damage on fireball.  It just suggests that damage is the most balanced for the game.


Ahnehnois said:


> They are guidelines the same way every word written in the book is a guideline.



Agreed, 100% if that's what we're calling everything else in the book.



Ahnehnois said:


> Numbers added. Personally, I'd rather skip steps 1 and 2 and get straight to 3.
> 
> That's the problem with CRs. They are self-justifying. You can't really know how unnecessary they are until you try playing a game where they're ignored and see that it works.



Here's the problem.  I've done that.  My 2nd edition games were FILLED with incidents of me doing a Total Party Kill with monsters I had NO idea were going to be that hard.  A couple of times I had to write contrived ways to save the PCs when I wanted the campaign to continue.

I also broke the guidelines and ran a couple of APL+5 and APL+6 encounters in my home game with equally bad effects.  I killed everyone without really meaning to.  It wasn't very fun for anyone and I decided to stick to the guidelines in the future.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 12, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> See above, I think D&D Next has basically done it by making magic items optional, making the rules for monsters and PCs different, carefully creating combat stats for monsters, and constraining attack bonuses for PCs while limiting spellcasting.



Haven't looked at their monsters very hard, but that definitely lowers my opinion of 5e.



> I mean, it's difficult to say that any rule that says "Here's how difficult monsters are, be warned if you use enemies more difficult than X, you will likely kill off the PCs...be warned.  Because of this, we won't give you XP for anything above this level, since it's impossible for the PCs to win if you run that encounter.  We recommend not killing off the PCs playing in your game since it can be no fun, therefore here is the percentage of each difficulty encounter we suggest using in your game to provide a good mix of easy and hard encounters" is a RULE.  It's a statement of fact with some advice attached to it.



You've really changed the intent of that section. It's not worded nearly that strongly. Nothing says that your characters will die (because, as you know, they often won't). I mean, as far as I'm concerned, those pages of the DMG are total garbage and I never learned that part of the book very well, but even looking at now it's pretty clear that the writers at the time weren't very confident in it, and didn't want it to be taken too literally.

And none of that stuff is on the SRD or part of open content either; I'd argue that anything that's not there isn't really part of the core of the game, especially given how many people (and companies) use the SRD as a primary resource.



> Agreed, 100% if that's what we're calling everything else in the book.



I do.

I mean, my D&D characters rarely look anything like what one would make from the original PHB. The game is about creating your own experience. The rules are suggestions; they're not inherent to the game like the rules of, say, basketball or chess. If you double dribble, or move a piece where it isn't allowed, that's breaking the rules. If I choose to play a game where Fireball does 2d6/level, I'm still playing D&D.

I do, however, think that the DMG contains suggestions that are much more vague, much more open to interpretation, and much less likely to be used as written than the stuff in the PHB.



> Here's the problem.  I've done that.  My 2nd edition games were FILLED with incidents of me doing a Total Party Kill with monsters I had NO idea were going to be that hard.  A couple of times I had to write contrived ways to save the PCs when I wanted the campaign to continue.



I see nothing terribly wrong with contrived survival on occasion. It happens all the time in every venue of adventure fiction.

That said, if you really killed too many PCs, somehow I doubt it was the rules' fault; and you yourself posted above that you had an easier time understanding monster difficulty with 2e than with 3e. An unintentional TPK is likely the result of the DM or the players doing something they shouldn't have. I've done it (only once, I think), and it was pretty clear after the fact that I just created a situation that was unwinnable. That's a mistake on me. Other times, players have gotten a character killed when they clearly shouldn't have attacked in the first place, or when they should have used more defensive tactics or more effective tactics or tried to retreat or negotiate rather than fighting blindly to the death. In any case, none of those scenarios would be ameliorated by anything like a CR/EL system, and the responsibility for the outcome was always with the people at the table.

And to top it off, failure is part of the game; just because a character dies and no one meant it to happen doesn't mean the game is broken. What kind of a game has no losers?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2013)

Ok, waded through that.  Gonna take one more stab at the cat, just because.  I do believe that good game design is not "well someone likes this, therefore it's good game design."   That's just lazy justification.  There are objective points you can look at to decide whether something is good game design or not.  Otherwise, RIFTS becomes the epitome of good game design since it has remained largely unchanged for far longer than any other system.  I've heard a lot of things about RIFTS, but, very few people laud its game design.

Why Hussar Believes that SOD is Poor Game Design in a Game with HP Mechanics.


SOD completely bypasses the mechanics for measuring character survivability.  Everything else goes into your hit points.  Hit by a sword?  Swimming in lava?  Falling off a cliff?  Everything.  But, for some reason, we make this differentiation between one kind of damage and another and it's entirely arbitrary.  Why is it SOD when you get bitten by a snake, but, not SOD when you get enveloped in a ball of fire?

SOD makes the game very unpredictable.  Actually, that's not true.  It makes the game very predictable in some cases.  Area of effect SOD effects are almost guaranteed to kill at least one PC.  Even single attack SOD effects are going to kill your PC.  Exposed to four or five SOD effects, it's virtually guaranteed that your PC will die.  With HP ablation, you can withstand dozens, if not hundreds of attacks over the course of the character's career, and not die.  But, about five SOD effects is almost certainly going to kill your PC.  It breaks game math.  It's too powerful.

SOD effects are impossible to judge from a rewards standpoint.  How much xp should a creature be worth that has about a 95% chance of killing one PC?  Any area of effect SOD has about that chance.  Creatures that do HP ablation certainly don't have those kinds of odds.  Not against reasonable leveled PC's.  A troll does not have a 95% chance of whacking a PC.  But a Medusa does.  

Related to the above.  SoD monsters become one trick ponies.  Not always, but, frequently.  Above was mentioned a Bodak.  Ok.  But, a single 3rd level cleric spell and the bodak is now doing a d8+1 damage per round.  You can send in the wizard with a club to beat it to death if you want.  It's binary.  Either it kills a PC or it's a waste of table time.

Even the game designers have realized that SoD was a bad idea.  Look at how poison changed from AD&D to 3e.  In AD&D, with a few exceptions, if you failed a poison save you died.  Every snake, spider and whatnot was a SoD creature.  In 3e, it went to stat damage.  Why did they change this if SoD was such a great idea?

SoD ignores existing mechanics.  We have always had different damage types.  From AD&D onward, we've had fire damage and lightning damage, at the very least.  Various effects were typed and then shunted into the HP mechanics.  But, for some reason, we give special treatment to poisons and other effects.  Why?  Why not simply go with typed damage?  A snake does XdY points of poison damage.  If the PC dies, then he was poisoned to death.

SoD is genre breaking.  Our heroes bravely square off with dragons, demons and giants.  But throw a couple of spiders at them and they turn and run away.  The risk/reward is nowhere near high enough to engage the spiders.  And it's not like spiders are going to become a non-combat encounter all that often.  Sneaking past is a joke when you have a skill system that pretty much tells any armored character that he is not sneaking anywhere.  So, our brave heroes hear about a giant ransacking the countryside and gear up, but a single medusa means that they are seriously considering a new line of work.

SoD forces arms races.  Typically, but not always, the casters have the counter for the SoD effect - protection from poison/silence spells/whatever.  So, whenever SoD critters come up, it's over to the casters to save the day and then the encounter goes from being interesting to being a speed bump.


So, no.  I do not believe that good game design is reliant on whether or not someone happens to like it.  If you cannot justify why something is good game design with anything other than, "Well, it's fun for me", that doesn't make it well designed.  Good game design actually means something beyond, "I like it".  It means that given mechanics are robust and streamlined.  That given mechanics fit with overall mechanics.  That given mechanics are not completely arbitrary after thoughts tacked on to Spackle over other systems.  SoD is a mechanic that adds lethality to a system (AD&D) where the PC's very quickly outstrip the HP damage mechanics of monsters.  Since monsters in AD&D largely cannot actually kill PC's with straight up damage, they added in SoD to make the game more lethal.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> SOD completely bypasses the mechanics for measuring character survivability. Everything else goes into your hit points.




Not really. There are a variety of sconditions and (in 3e, at least) ability damage.


> [*]SOD makes the game very unpredictable.



Good. Predictability is not a design goal that I'm aware of. That's why we use dice.


> [*]SOD effects are impossible to judge from a rewards standpoint.



Irrelevant. It's just as impossible to judge as everything else.


> [*] SoD monsters become one trick ponies.



Okay. Many monsters have only one effective attack form. Horses just have hoof attacks, so they are literally one trick ponies. No big deal.


> [*]Even the game designers have realized that SoD was a bad idea.  Look at how poison changed from AD&D to 3e.



And changed to something other than hp damage, that could render a character helpless or dead regardless of hp. Also note how PC access to SoD was increased, particularly with supplements. They seemed to think alternative ways of harming enemies was a good idea.


> [*]SoD ignores existing mechanics.



Saves are an existing mechanic. Death is an existing mechanic. Are you suggesting that saves are somehow subservient to hit points, and can't function independently?


> [*]SoD is genre breaking.



Not really. Depends which genre I suppose, but plot immunity is somewhere between a Hollywood-ism and a D&D-ism.


> [*]SoD forces arms races.



An arms race, in a combat oriented game? Okay.



> So, no.  I do not believe that good game design is reliant on whether or not someone happens to like it.  If you cannot justify why something is good game design with anything other than, "Well, it's fun for me", that doesn't make it well designed.  Good game design actually means something beyond, "I like it".



Okay.



> It means that given mechanics are robust and streamlined.  That given mechanics fit with overall mechanics.  That given mechanics are not completely arbitrary after thoughts tacked on to Spackle over other systems.



Check, check, check.

It's a good mechanic because it utilizes assets that were always in the game but have been underused (saving throws), because it creates more dynamic tactical situations, and because it increases the overall level of challenge in a game that is by default far too easy.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I do believe that good game design is not "well someone likes this, therefore it's good game design."   That's just lazy justification.



You didn't actually counter my post that talks about this, you just disagreed. Not much I can say on this bit.


Hussar said:


> There are objective points you can look at to decide whether something is good game design or not.



As long as you have certain goals in mind for what you want out of the game, yes. Which is what I said. Those goals are probably based on your personal preference, though (and if not, they're based on something else you decide, like what might appeal to most people's preferences, etc.). You can try to objectively see if they fit your goals, but your initial goals are just personal preference.


Hussar said:


> Why is it SOD when you get bitten by a snake, but, not SOD when you get enveloped in a ball of fire?



I think the idea is that snakes need to be potentially more dangerous, even at high levels. Not 100%, though, as I didn't play any pre-3.X game. But, bypassing HP mechanics aren't necessarily arbitrary. If you want an effect to be more dangerous, to potentially happen regardless of the game's take on HP, etc., then you have strong reasons to bypass HP and institute Save or Die effects.


Hussar said:


> But, about five SOD effects is almost certainly going to kill your PC.  It breaks game math.  It's too powerful.



How is this not personal preference? What if the goal is to create an effect / monster / attack / whatever that is that powerful? What if the goal is to kill at least one PC / NPC / Monster / whatever? I can't see how this isn't personal preference.


Hussar said:


> SOD effects are impossible to judge from a rewards standpoint.



I think rewards based on fights are pretty much based on pacing anyways. Do you want pacing to increase faster than normal when that type of monster / spell / effect is used? If so, then increase XP by the amount you'd like to see. XP for challenges aren't arbitrary, they're a pacing mechanic. If you feel that the SOD effect warrants faster pacing, then do that. If not, then don't. You just use the same reasoning that you do for all other XP rewards based on individual challenges.


Hussar said:


> Related to the above.  SoD monsters become one trick ponies.  Not always, but, frequently.  Above was mentioned a Bodak.  Ok.  But, a single 3rd level cleric spell and the bodak is now doing a d8+1 damage per round.  You can send in the wizard with a club to beat it to death if you want.  It's binary.  Either it kills a PC or it's a waste of table time.



This is your preference for non-one trick ponies. That's all it is. Sometimes, a monster / NPC / PC / etc. is only a one trick pony, and that's all you need or want, even from a story perspective. You can dislike that, and that's fine. You can design things so this isn't the case. But this is completely based on preference.


Hussar said:


> Even the game designers have realized that SoD was a bad idea. Look at how poison changed from AD&D to 3e. In AD&D, with a few exceptions, if you failed a poison save you died. Every snake, spider and whatnot was a SoD creature. In 3e, it went to stat damage. Why did they change this if SoD was such a great idea?



Personal preference (they thought spiders should no longer be as big a threat as they used to be). I should also note that 3.X is full of SOD, still.

Also, "some designers did it in some cases, so it's objective"? I don't get it.


Hussar said:


> SoD ignores existing mechanics.  We have always had different damage types.  From AD&D onward, we've had fire damage and lightning damage, at the very least.  Various effects were typed and then shunted into the HP mechanics.  But, for some reason, we give special treatment to poisons and other effects.  Why?  Why not simply go with typed damage?  A snake does XdY points of poison damage.  If the PC dies, then he was poisoned to death.



Addressed this earlier. If the goal is to make the effect / attack / monster / spell / etc. more dangerous, more random, more lethal, etc., then you'd want to bypass potential mountains of HP. It also depends on what HP means in the game, or potentially even at the table. I don't understand the "it's bypassing another mechanic" argument as somehow bad, if it helps accomplish the goal that the designer has in mind.


Hussar said:


> SoD is genre breaking.



We play entirely different genres. I've never run a game that was "heroic fantasy where the heroes are awesome and will live to the end", nor have I played the Die Hard style people talk about on this site and others, nor the Big Damn Heroes style either.

D&D can be played in different genres. You can advocate for yours, and that's cool, but how is this not personal preference again?


Hussar said:


> SoD forces arms races.  Typically, but not always, the casters have the counter for the SoD effect - protection from poison/silence spells/whatever.  So, whenever SoD critters come up, it's over to the casters to save the day and then the encounter goes from being interesting to being a speed bump.



This is a design issue with spellcasters having something that you want shared, not a problem with SOD. Which is personal preference. You can definitely solve these issues, too, while keeping SOD, or even granting it to non-spellcasters (high level martial characters in my RPG can make a SOD attack each round).


Hussar said:


> So, no.  I do not believe that good game design is reliant on whether or not someone happens to like it.



Whereas I think that's pretty obviously the case, since people have to set goals based on personal preferences before trying to objectively judge the system.


Hussar said:


> If you cannot justify why something is good game design with anything other than, "Well, it's fun for me", that doesn't make it well designed.



Unless the goal was "fun for me", in which case, the mechanics are a success. Which, to me, seems like it's well designed.


Hussar said:


> Good game design actually means something beyond, "I like it".



True. It means that the mechanics help achieve the result you aimed for. Your aim is just based on personal preference.


Hussar said:


> It means that given mechanics are robust and streamlined. That given mechanics fit with overall mechanics. That given mechanics are not completely arbitrary after thoughts tacked on to Spackle over other systems.



Your personal preferences. If you created mechanics that fit these criteria, they would be well designed. I mean, really, yes, you can attempt to judge game mechanics objectively. (I say "attempt" because people often let bias seep in.) You just need to set goals for the mechanics to achieve first, and those goals are founded on personal preference. Right? As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2013)

JC said:
			
		

> How is this not personal preference? What if the goal is to create an effect / monster / attack / whatever that is that powerful? What if the goal is to kill at least one PC / NPC / Monster / whatever? I can't see how this isn't personal preference.




Does the word broken mean anything to you?  An effect which completely bypasses the survival mechanics is broken.  End of story.  It's too powerful, in any hands, whether DM or player.  

When is the goal of monster design EVER to kill at least one PC?  

It's not a personal preference because it's pretty easy to prove that it's broken.  What's the level adjustment on a medusa?  Oh, that's right.  Doesn't have one because it's not allowed (by the rules anyway) to be a PC.  Why not?  Because a medusa's gaze attack is way too powerful for any PC to have.

After all, it's just a monstrous humanoid.  Virtually every other Monstrous Humanoid has a Level Adjustment, allowing it to be a PC race.  Why are Medusa special?  



> We play entirely different genres. I've never run a game that was "heroic fantasy where the heroes are awesome and will live to the end", nor have I played the Die Hard style people talk about on this site and others, nor the Big Damn Heroes style either.




Umm, since when does removing SOD mean that PC'S will live to the end?  Is the only way you kill PC's through SoD effects?  Is that the only possible way to kill PC's in your game?  If not, then please stop making this presumption about other people's games.  

Removing SOD does not mean anything about the lethality of a given campaign.  It just removes the blindingly arbitrary and pointless death that it causes.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Does the word broken mean anything to you?



Yes. That something is not functioning how it's intended, in RPG-speak.


Hussar said:


> An effect which completely bypasses the survival mechanics is broken.  End of story.



Consider me unconvinced.


Hussar said:


> It's too powerful, in any hands, whether DM or player.



In your opinion, obviously. If that's the goal of the mechanic, then it's functioning properly.


Hussar said:


> When is the goal of monster design EVER to kill at least one PC?



Depends on the monster. If I was creating a monster for my RPG that I wanted to be greatly feared because it would normally kill most people it interacted with, including combat-focused NPCs of the world, I'd certainly give it mechanics to reflect this.


Hussar said:


> It's not a personal preference because it's pretty easy to prove that it's broken.



Again, if it's serving its intended function (which could be "be more lethal than HP normally allows things to be"), then it's not broken.

It sounds like "broken" means "can kill things instantly" to you (as far as I can tell). As I've said, that's not what it means to me. The "can kill things instantly" is just a SOD effect, and that's not necessarily "broken", as I see it, in RPG-speak.


Hussar said:


> What's the level adjustment on a medusa?  Oh, that's right.  Doesn't have one because it's not allowed (by the rules anyway) to be a PC.  Why not?  Because a medusa's gaze attack is way too powerful for any PC to have.
> 
> After all, it's just a monstrous humanoid.  Virtually every other Monstrous Humanoid has a Level Adjustment, allowing it to be a PC race.  Why are Medusa special?



Not a lot of demand? Not a high priority? LA wasn't well implemented? It was viewed as too powerful for PCs? I don't know. It could be a lot of reasons. I know that, in my level-based fantasy RPG, I could LA it.

Again, is your point "some designers did this thing in this game, so it's objective"? Because I don't follow.


Hussar said:


> Umm, since when does removing SOD mean that PC'S will live to the end?



Never?


Hussar said:


> Is the only way you kill PC's through SoD effects?



No.


Hussar said:


> Is that the only possible way to kill PC's in your game?



Nope, there's also HP, poison, starvation, etc.


Hussar said:


> If not, then please stop making this presumption about other people's games.



I didn't make that presumption. You assumed I meant something I didn't. I was stating several different styles that are talked about on these boards. You talked about genre; I was expressing that there are many "genres" that you can handle with D&D, and I never touched on these other popular to semi-popular "genres" that other posters on this board talk about. It had nothing to do with "if there's no SOD, then you can't die." It was entirely about your "genre" comment.


Hussar said:


> Removing SOD does not mean anything about the lethality of a given campaign.  It just removes the blindingly arbitrary and pointless death that it causes.



The idea that all SOD is arbitrary or pointless is funny to me. I think I'm starting to see why you're railing against them.

Also, you've not shown how it's a poorly designed mechanic, though. You've just shown that it's not your preference, and that the randomness it brings fails your standards. You can say that it objectively fails your standards, but when your (in the general sense) preference is to add that randomness, then SOD becomes a well implemented mechanic. As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 12, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Good. Predictability is not a design goal that I'm aware of. That's why we use dice.




The choices the players make must be at least partially predictable, otherwise they're not choices; they'd be random meaningless noise.  

I don't think save-or-die reduces possible choices into noise.  It seems to me that save-or-die works on a strategic level.  They create a cost (facing a save-or-die situation) to going into a tactical situation unprepared.  Thus you will want to gather information as to how to prepare for those upcoming tactical situations.  One of the best ways to do this is to use spells; spells are _generally_ a limited resource, and how you use those resources is a choice.  (Should I cast _Divination_ or prepare another _Death Ward_?)

That being said, it can be difficult, at times, to make spells a limited resource.  The best way I can think of to do this is to make _time_ the main resource that PCs have, but I don't think D&D generally does a good job about enforcing this.  I think time, and how to use it, deserves its own major chapter in the DMG, listing different ways of using time as a resource for different styles of campaigns.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Does the word broken mean anything to you?



It means that you don't like it.



> An effect which completely bypasses the survival mechanics is broken.



Saving throws are clearly a survival mechanic.



> When is the goal of monster design EVER to kill at least one PC?



Ever since the game was largely focused on combat and had rules for how characters die, I imagine.



> It's not a personal preference because it's pretty easy to prove that it's broken. What's the level adjustment on a medusa? Oh, that's right. Doesn't have one because it's not allowed (by the rules anyway) to be a PC. Why not? Because a medusa's gaze attack is way too powerful for any PC to have.
> 
> After all, it's just a monstrous humanoid. Virtually every other Monstrous Humanoid has a Level Adjustment, allowing it to be a PC race.



Many monsters don't. Lots of monstrous humanoids don't. For example, hags don't. Can we arbitrarily conclude that one of the hags' abilities is "broken"? Of course not. Nothing proven there. LA is an arbitrary judgement someone made after the fact to facilitate a nonstandard use of the monster. Monsters often have abilities PCs shouldn't have, but that doesn't make them "broken". And one could quite reasonably invent an LA for a Medusa. LA doesn't mean all that much one way or the other.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 12, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> That being said, it can be difficult, at times, to make spells a limited resource.  The best way I can think of to do this is to make _time_ the main resource that PCs have, but I don't think D&D generally does a good job about enforcing this.  I think time, and how to use it, deserves its own major chapter in the DMG, listing different ways of using time as a resource for different styles of campaigns.



That's not a bad point.

However, I don't think limiting spell use on a daily basis was ever a particularly good idea to begin with. With monster abilities you often see better means of balancing. For example some of them (not the SoD's, usually), when you save against them, you're immune for a day. Deal with it, then move on, no spamming. I've tried to adopt this to some PC abilities. And even at-will is better; it's powerful but at least it's clear what the implications are.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 12, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Again, if it's serving its intended function (which could be "be more lethal than HP normally allows things to be"), then it's not broken.




To me, SoD monsters give meaning to all the activities you do to *avoid* said effect, especially for non-combat roles. Simply, making preparedness pay off.

For example:
A) The group's social character does Gather Information in the villages on the road to the dungeon. Gets tips that there is a medusa around.
B) Said social character looks up a peddler who can sell mirrors to them.
C) The group's sneaky character scouts ahead to spot the medusa before it spots them.
D) Once spotted, the group's damage dealer(s) use the mirror to safely defeat the medusa.

Loads of activities where the non-damage-dealer characters could strut their stuff, so that the SoD can be happily avoided. 

Compare this to simply teleporting to the dungeon, kicking in the door, and be completely unprepared for whatever awaits inside...

Of course, if you do se D&D as just a series of chess-game set-up fights, with not much gathering of information, collecting defensive counter-measure resources, etc, well... Then I can see how SoD is a bane.

In our 4E trial campaign, as a "leader" I hated to not have any contingency powers - not being able to *save* anyone from bad conditions, just because there were no really bad conditions to be had. Nothing to prepare for, just top up people's hitpoints as soon as they got quarter-damaged...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Does the word broken mean anything to you?  An effect which completely bypasses the survival mechanics is broken.  End of story.  It's too powerful, in any hands, whether DM or player.
> 
> When is the goal of monster design EVER to kill at least one PC?




A medusa will not kill at least one pc in every encounter, but they have the potential to kill one or more pcs. They and their SOD power are designed to make encounters terrifying. For me they succeed. The moment you realize all those statues in the courtyard came from a medusa, you get a feeling if dread in your belly. If the medusa couldnt turn you to stone so easily and on a single roll, I would not get this feeling. And moments like this are exactly why I game. So i think this is a perfectly acceptible design goal for a monster. What needs to be acknowledged is it doesn't work for everyone or for every playstyle. 



> It's not a personal preference because it's pretty easy to prove that it's broken.  What's the level adjustment on a medusa?  Oh, that's right.  Doesn't have one because it's not allowed (by the rules anyway) to be a PC.  Why not?  Because a medusa's gaze attack is way too powerful for any PC to have.




Really this says more about LA than the medusa or SOD. It doesn't mean save or die is broken. Some monsters are too powerrful to be player characters and that is fine. I really think all the things you have listed so far amount to preference. They are perfectly valid preferences to have, but they are still preferences and not everyone shares them. 



> After all, it's just a monstrous humanoid.  Virtually every other Monstrous Humanoid has a Level Adjustment, allowing it to be a PC race.  Why are Medusa special?




I see nothing wrong with a powerful monstrous humanoid too powerrful to be a PC race. Medusa are supposed to be scary because they turn you to stone. They are one of the most dangerous creatures taken from mythology. Having their gaze as a SOD effect, is a great way to emphasize that. 




> Removing SOD does not mean anything about the lethality of a given campaign.  It just removes the blindingly arbitrary and pointless death that it causes.




But this is ultimately an issue of lethality. You appear to dislike that sod makes pc death posible on a single die roll. People have been raising these criticisms of SoD or a long time. It is a somewhat divisive mechanic. The problem is some peope really like it, and some really hate it. And that has everything to do with preference. Instead of denying the people who like it the mechanic on the grounds that it is "bad design" I think a much better solution is for WOTC to acknowledge ths division, state it is simply a matter of preference and offer up some mechanism to scale SOD to the desired level of lethality (perhaps even giving the option to simpy replace it with a flat damage roll).


----------



## Tuft (Jul 12, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> I don't think save-or-die reduces possible choices into noise. It seems to me that save-or-die works on a strategic level. They create a cost (facing a save-or-die situation) to going into a tactical situation unprepared. Thus you will want to gather information as to how to prepare for those upcoming tactical situations.




Exactly. I would not say that i was the original purpose, but the presence of SoD monsters is a good tool to make awareness and preparedness *matter*.

As for NPC casters, as opposed to monsters - well, if they are notable, I imagine you could be able to research their favourite spells in advance...


----------



## Umbran (Jul 12, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> Thus you will want to gather information as to how to prepare for those upcoming tactical situations.




Gathering as much intelligence on each tactical situation in the real world is an important thing.  And, while it can be cool to put a lot of resources to it occasionally in game, encouraging the PCs to always go through the exercise, just in case there's a creature with a SoD effect, will not have a salutary effect on game play.  And, in fact, it is apt to be difficult to do.  If SoD is rare, they will generally not go through the exercise, be caught unaware, and die when the SoD does come up.  If SoD is common, the players become paranoid, and won't go *anywhere* until they've done their checks.  And this is D&D not, "cast lots of divinations to see what'll kill us today if we don't have the right buffs handy".

Quite frankly, I expect most won't find a regular exercise interesting, as it answers only one simple question - do we have protection from today's Save or Die effect?  If yes, then we pretty much ignore the SoD.  If no, then we avoid the encounter.  What it fails to do is otherwise change the *action* of the encounter.  It doesn't change the round-by-round decisions made, which are the meat-and-potatoes of the encounter.

Which, come to think of it, makes it look like preparations for SoD may be more strategic than tactical.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 12, 2013)

Tuft said:


> gathering of information, collecting defensive counter-measure resources



I'd like that part of D&D more if it didn't favour the Vancian casters so strongly. D&D has many specific defensive spells such as _protection from evil, remove curse, remove disease, protection from energy, dispel magic, death ward, neutralize poison, freedom of movement, restoration_, and _stone to flesh_.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 12, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> I'd like that part of D&D more if it didn't favour the Vancian casters so strongly.




I don't think it does; rather, I think that people just think that it does, since changing what spells you prepare is obvious.

Non-casters should ask themselves "WWBD" - What Would Batman Do?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 12, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Non-casters should ask themselves "WWBD" - What Would Batman Do?



Batman's a wizard.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 12, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> Batman's a wizard.



Superman's a wizard. Batman's a rogue.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2013)

Ahn said:
			
		

> Ever since the game was largely focused on combat and had rules for how characters die, I imagine.




Really?

If an 8th level party squares off with a hill giant (any edition, it doesn't really matter), it's a pretty foregone conclusion that the party is going to win this fight without any deaths.  Now, there are outliers here.  I realize that.  The dice gods can decree that the giant hits every attack and the PC's miss all the time.  Fair enough.  But, for the most part, that giant is going to die without killing a PC.  

It's predictable.  Why?  Because the giant uses the HP mechanics.  It has an attack value and will do roughly X amount of damage per round.  This is calculable and we can make all sorts of assumptions.  For example, the hill giant is worth more XP than an orc.  Why?  Because the giant is harder to kill and is more dangerous.  Arguments about "pacing" don't enter into it.  The giant is worth more XP because it's a bigger monster.

Now, same 8th level party faces a medusa.  There is a pretty good chance that a PC will fail a saving throw and die.  Much greater chance of death than facing that giant.  So, shouldn't the medusa be worth a lot more xp?  That's how xp values are calculated.  

Monsters are never designed on the idea that "This monster should kill at least one PC in every encounter it's used".  That's just very poor game design.  Any monster based on this would automatically be rejected.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 12, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Superman's a wizard. Batman's a rogue.



It was partly a reference to the title of the 3e guide to wizard optimisation, Being Batman: the Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards; and partly a way of saying that in D&D the Vancian casters come closer to the 'beat anyone or anything, given time to prepare' ability that Batman is quite often portrayed as possessing in modern comics.

I think it comes from Grant Morrison's run in JLA, and was an attempt to present a version of Batman that would be competitive with the likes of Superman and Green Lantern.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 12, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> It was partly a reference to the title of the 3e guide to wizard optimisation, Being Batman: the Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards; and partly a way of saying that in D&D the Vancian casters come closer to the 'beat anyone or anything, given time to prepare' ability that Batman is quite often portrayed as possessing in modern comics.



I know all that. However, every time I hear people talk about this dynamic, I think of the climax of The Dark Knight Returns (graphic novel), where Superman and Batman fight to the death, and despite Superman's godly powers (see "god wizard"), Batman comes up with a way to survive.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Now, same 8th level party faces a medusa.  There is a pretty good chance that a PC will fail a saving throw and die.  Much greater chance of death than facing that giant.  So, shouldn't the medusa be worth a lot more xp?  That's how xp values are calculated.
> 
> Monsters are never designed on the idea that "This monster should kill at least one PC in every encounter it's used".  That's just very poor game design.  Any monster based on this would automatically be rejected.




Yes, they should factor sod in xp. the potential damage output ina single round (including max damage via sod) is an important consideration and sometimes these things get overlooked. Of course they have to balance this against other considerations as well. 

But that doesnt make sod a bad mechanic. A monster with a chance of killing a pc on a single roll is frightening and exciting. That is why the mechanic is there. It spooks players the way things like level drain do. Some folks do not like this, but that doesnt make it bad design. If your design goal is to have some monsters that are scary and can kill pcs on a single roll, I would say there is nothing objectively bad about it. I completely undertsand the view that some find it too lethal and too unpredictable. That is a valid concern. People will disagree based on their preference. But I am really not getting this whole "its objectively bad design". It is a tool. Just like HP are a tool and AC is a tool. The question is whether it belongs int he next edition of D&D. It may or may not. I just do not think SoD should be written off as bad design for all cases. It is a perfectly valid tool for designers to draw on when needed.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 12, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> But that doesnt make sod a bad mechanic. A monster with a chance of killing a pc on a single roll is frightening and exciting. That is why the mechanic is there. It spooks players the way things like level drain do. Some folks do not like this, but that doesnt make it bad design. If your design goal is to have some monsters that are scary and can kill pcs on a single roll, I would say there is nothing objectively bad about it. I completely undertsand the view that some find it too lethal and too unpredictable. That is a valid concern. People will disagree based on their preference. But I am really not getting this whole "its objectively bad design". It is a tool. Just like HP are a tool and AC is a tool. The question is whether it belongs int he next edition of D&D. It may or may not. I just do not think SoD should be written off as bad design for all cases. It is a perfectly valid tool for designers to draw on when needed.




Moreover, if the local group doesn't like save or die effects, they don't need to use them or monsters with them. Medusas and banshees don't spontaneously appear in campaigns - GMs put them there. GMs are also free to tailor spell lists so that save or die spells aren't on them. Using any of them is always a matter of choice.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 12, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Haven't looked at their monsters very hard, but that definitely lowers my opinion of 5e.



5e monster design reminds me the most of 2e monster design with more predictable numbers and a level to help you judge what the power level of the monster is.


Ahnehnois said:


> You've really changed the intent of that section. It's not worded nearly that strongly. Nothing says that your characters will die (because, as you know, they often won't). I mean, as far as I'm concerned, those pages of the DMG are total garbage and I never learned that part of the book very well, but even looking at now it's pretty clear that the writers at the time weren't very confident in it, and didn't want it to be taken too literally.



I do think that you are forcing your opinion on the text.  I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't confirm exactly what you said, but there is a footnote at the bottom of the XP chart that talks about why the XP chart doesn't go below or above a certain level.  I can't remember it's exact text, but the basic gist of it is "Encounters below a certain level don't use any resources from the PC and therefore aren't worth XP and encounters above a certain level are undefeatable and therefore no XP value was included.  But that if they somehow managed to defeat an undefeatable monster, you should figure out the XP yourself."

It also includes the following recommendation on what monsters you should use in your game:
10% easy (EL lower than party level)
20% "easy if handled properly" (whatever that means...)
50% challenging (EL equals Average Party Level)
15% very difficult (EL 1-4 higher)
5% overwhelming (EL 5+ higher) 

It explicitly calls anything EL 5 or higher than the average party level overwhelming(which is even harder than "very difficult").


Ahnehnois said:


> And none of that stuff is on the SRD or part of open content either; I'd argue that anything that's not there isn't really part of the core of the game, especially given how many people (and companies) use the SRD as a primary resource.



Neither are Mind Flayers or Beholders.

The reason they AREN'T part of the SRD is the exact opposite reason.  The XP chart for calculating XP was considered so intrinsic to playing and running D&D that WOTC felt if they left it out of the SRD, people would still buy the book and wouldn't be able to copy it precisely.



Ahnehnois said:


> I mean, my D&D characters rarely look anything like what one would make from the original PHB. The game is about creating your own experience. The rules are suggestions; they're not inherent to the game like the rules of, say, basketball or chess. If you double dribble, or move a piece where it isn't allowed, that's breaking the rules. If I choose to play a game where Fireball does 2d6/level, I'm still playing D&D.



There's definitely some debate about this.  It's commonly accepted that house ruling is fine in D&D, I agree.  But it's also common to house rule some of the rules of Football when it's played out on the playground outside of schools as well.  It's not real Football, but it's close enough and the rules are often changed to allow for things like the wrong number of players, a smaller field size, and difficulty to handle with no dedicated referee.

It's simply the culture that has risen around D&D that is perfectly accepting of changes to the rules.  I'd argue, however, that by pure definition any game that changes the rules isn't "D&D" in it's purest form.  In the same way that houseruled football isn't technically football.  We allow these changes because they often make the game more fun for us.  That's fine, people should make the game more fun for themselves.

However, I'm not going to say "No one really expected you to play with 11 players on the field at one time in football.  That rule wasn't seriously meant to be followed.  Look how well the game works when we play with only 5 per side.  I think the creators of the football rules were just writing down things that weren't meant to be followed."

You may not understand the reason for the rule and your particular group might be able to run without it just fine.  However, I don't doubt for a second that a LOT of thought was put into everything written in the book.  Nothing would have been written and put in the book unless something thought it was important to be there and had a good reason for it.


Ahnehnois said:


> I see nothing terribly wrong with contrived survival on occasion. It happens all the time in every venue of adventure fiction.



I hate using them.  The difference between the two is that in a story you are reading it can often feel like "Oh, those guys were lucky and something odd happened to save them".  In an RPG, where all the players know the rules, contrivances often come across as "Oh, good, the DM had to step in and save us because we were all going to die."

As a player it feels....unfulfilling.  I'm this cool hero with all these cool powers and I should be able to defeat my enemies and triumph...or I should die if I fight monsters too powerful for me.  If Elminster shows up and kills the monsters for me, I feel quite a bit less heroic.  I also feel less needed.  After all, if Elminster showed up to save us, why isn't he just finishing the rest of the adventure for us as well?  He can do it better than we can.

Even if it's just "random rocks that fall from the roof" in order to kill the monsters for us, it still feels like we SHOULD have lost, but instead got away simply because the DM took pity on us.  It doesn't feel very good to be pitied. 


Ahnehnois said:


> That said, if you really killed too many PCs, somehow I doubt it was the rules' fault; and you yourself posted above that you had an easier time understanding monster difficulty with 2e than with 3e. An unintentional TPK is likely the result of the DM or the players doing something they shouldn't have.



It was.  I used a monster that was too powerful for the PCs.  Though, I didn't know that until about the second or 3rd round of combat when it had easily finished off 2 of the PCs and was barely hurt.  It was at that point that I thought "Oh, crap, I guess it's too hard for the PCs to hit this monster and it does too much damage.  They are all going to die.  If I knew that in advance, I never would have used this monster."



Ahnehnois said:


> Other times, players have gotten a character killed when they clearly shouldn't have attacked in the first place



What make this "clear"?  I understand that after playing D&D for a while, you start to get an innate sense of the power level of monsters.  I learned over time and I stopped using overpowered encounters when I got better at judging the power level of monsters.

The same thing works as a player.  If I've never played D&D before or I've played only a little bit, how am I to know how difficult a Beholder is(or even WHAT a beholder is)?  If I run into battle with it at 3rd level because I figure I must be able to beat it because I've defeated every other monster up until this point, does that mean that I'm an idiot?

Maybe the DM should provide input at this point...but what tells the DM who has never used a beholder before that it can't be taken out by 3rd level characters?



Ahnehnois said:


> In any case, none of those scenarios would be ameliorated by anything like a CR/EL system, and the responsibility for the outcome was always with the people at the table.



I'm not sure about that.  Was it the DMs intention to put the players in a situation where they had to run away or use defensive tactics?  Did he sit down and say "This battle is going to go poorly for them.  They won't be able to win and will have to run away"?  Or did the DM plan that the monsters would be defeated easily and then the PCs would proceed down the corridor to fight the next encounter?  If the DM planned on the monsters being defeated easily and wrote up a bunch more encounters that take place later in the dungeon then the DM has failed.

It's the DMs responsibility, yes.  Is it his fault?  Not if the game didn't give him the proper tools to predict this in advance.

Tactics are fine and dandy, but if you have +3 to hit and 20 hitpoints and come across a monster who has an AC of 30 and an AOE attack that does 30 damage, I can tell you that no tactics you come up with are going to stop every member of your party from dying.  This is obviously an extreme example and a basic understanding of the rules SHOULD stop this, assuming the DM took the time and effort to read through the stat block in advance before rolling for initiative(which isn't a guarantee if you're low on time).  However, a more reasonable example where a monster does only 10 damage and has an AC of 19 can seem like a good idea at the time.  Until you run the monster and realize that 2 rounds later, the PCs are all dead because 2 10 damage AOEs kills them all.



Ahnehnois said:


> And to top it off, failure is part of the game; just because a character dies and no one meant it to happen doesn't mean the game is broken. What kind of a game has no losers?



Well, most Epic fantasy books and movies have...either no or VERY few losers.  Only Boromir dies amongst the entirety of the Fellowship(unless we count Gandalf, which I don't).

The hobbits weren't attacked by all 9 nazgul in a cave that made it impossible to retreat at the beginning of the story.  Because that would have ended the story in failure and wouldn't have been interesting to read/watch.

The DMs job is very similar to that of an author.  Make the story interesting and don't kill off all the PCs.  However, it's made even harder because you don't have absolute authority like an author.  You have to rely on the dice, stats, and rules to decide part of the game.  When those dice, stats, and rules say "Everyone dies", it can ruin a game.

I like when the rules give me tools to help me decide WHEN I'm about to kill everyone so I can make that decision for myself instead of doing it accidentally.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 12, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I know all that. However, every time I hear people talk about this dynamic, I think of the climax of The Dark Knight Returns (graphic novel), where Superman and Batman fight to the death, and despite Superman's godly powers (see "god wizard"), Batman comes up with a way to survive.



Of course, Batman's ability to plan his way out of situations is pretty much magical.  He comes up with leaps of logic that no one should ever be able to make.  He predicts things with a level of accuracy that is completely impossible.  He essentially has the ability to see the future and plan accordingly.

It's something that no one who doesn't already know where the plot is going could do(luckily, batman has writers who already know how it's going to end).  Either that or it could be simulated with retconed planning(which batman likely often does as well).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 12, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, they should factor sod in xp. the potential damage output ina single round (including max damage via sod) is an important consideration and sometimes these things get overlooked. Of course they have to balance this against other considerations as well.



The real problem is this makes it kind of impossible to balance these monsters and estimate their difficulty.

Let's assume all level 5 monsters have about a 20% chance of defeating anyone in a party of level 5 PCs.  A level 5 monster who has a SOD effect that works 50% of the time and can be used each round now has a much better chance to kill a level 5 PC.  Does that make it no longer a level 5 monster?  Does that make it a level 8 monster?

Now, let's assume we use that monster against level 8 characters.  Let's assume that level 8 monsters should also defeat a level 8 PC about 20% of the time.  If the SOD still works 50% of the time, it's not a level 8 monster either.  Let's assume that as the PCs gain levels the SOD works less often.  How much less often?  If it works only 20% of the time, it's still more likely to cause a PC death if it survives longer than a round.

This also destroys the pacing of encounters.  If you run up against a much higher level encounter, most of the time there is at least a round or two to realize how much more powerful they are than you and give you a chance to enact an escape plan of some sort.  Most enemies with SODs don't give you that chance.  You see them and suddenly you're making Saving Throws.  It's possible 2 or 3 people die long before you realize the monster is too dangerous for you.

The same thing happens in reverse.  Say you are 20th level and you fight a level 1 monster.  It's so weak that you should be able to beat it with a 0% chance of dying.  However, it has a SOD and you can always fail if you roll a 1.  So this monster is now WAY more powerful than every other monster of its level.  20 of these level 1 monsters now guarantee your death. While it's possible that 20 level 10 monsters couldn't even cause a dent.

Essentially, it makes these monsters impossible to figure out an approximate power level for.


Ahnehnois said:


> But that doesnt make sod a bad mechanic.



I don't think it's a BAD mechanic.  However, I do believe that it is an inconsistent mechanic with the rest of the rules.  Hitpoints are there in order to be able to have a system where we can see death approaching and allow it to creep up on us over time.  It allows tactical considerations when a monster hits you for 10 and someone else for 15, and someone else for 12, you now know it's average damage and can look at your 50 hitpoints and say "Alright, he can hit me about 4 times before I go down.  If I don't think I can beat it in 4 rounds then I have to get it to split up it's attacks somehow or put up a shield that deflects some of the damage or I'll need a heal before the 4th round.  If I can't do that then know it's too powerful for us and I should run".

SODs don't allow the same considerations and therefore remove the entire purpose of HP.  It lacks consistency and therefore can often feel like a different game.  One that feels more like gambling where you can't affect the odds.  It's just a matter of picking up the dice and hoping it rolls well.

Though, I don't think "playing a different game" from time to time is necessarily that bad.  But you certainly have to have some sort of special difficulty rating for SOD creatures that is completely different than all other creatures.  Something that says "This monster is unpredictable and will randomly kill PCs.  They don't have the combat effectiveness of a level 5 monster, however, they have the hitpoints and AC of a one."

Now, I understand you don't like predictability in your game, so I know this isn't even an issue for you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 12, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The real problem is this makes it kind of impossible to balance these monsters and estimate their difficulty.
> 
> Let's assume all level 5 monsters have about a 20% chance of defeating anyone in a party of level 5 PCs.  A level 5 monster who has a SOD effect that works 50% of the time and can be used each round now has a much better chance to kill a level 5 PC.  Does that make it no longer a level 5 monster?  Does that make it a level 8 monster?
> 
> ...




for some folks this may be a problem. For me it isnt. Monsters come in all kinds of varieties and I do not expect them all to fit neatly or evenlyinto CR. CR is a tool, not a straight jacket. If they design all monsters in each category to be virtually identical in terms of hp, damage output, etc, that gets pretty dull. The biggest considertion for me as a GM when evaluating the chalenge level is the creatures most dangerous attacks. These give me an indication of how lethal they are.A medusa ends up high on the list for me due to its petrification. These kinds of monsters are gray areas. With any monster though, you need to look at the specific entry and not rely on cr alone if you are concerned about level or party appropriate challenges.

Pacing is something that can come up with any number of monsters. For me, I am not terribly concerned about it. It just isnt a factor in my gming style. But when it has been a considertion, particularly when i was running 3E, it usually boiled down to throwing in additional monsters that were relatively easy to kill. A solitary anything can have unpredictable pacing (especially if the players swarm it----i have seen many powerful spell casting villains die in a round or two because they had no minions to defend them). 



> I don't think it's a BAD mechanic.  However, I do believe that it is an inconsistent mechanic with the rest of the rules.  Hitpoints are there in order to be able to have a system where we can see death approaching and allow it to creep up on us over time.  It allows tactical considerations when a monster hits you for 10 and someone else for 15, and someone else for 12, you now know it's average damage and can look at your 50 hitpoints and say "Alright, he can hit me about 4 times before I go down.  If I don't think I can beat it in 4 rounds then I have to get it to split up it's attacks somehow or put up a shield that deflects some of the damage or I'll need a heal before the 4th round.  If I can't do that then know it's too powerful for us and I should run".




i think you ay have attributed my quote to someone else (unless he said the same thing elsewhere).

sure. This is a preference issue. A valid reason for not liking SoD. But this doesnt apply to everyone. I think one problem with HP is they are too predictable. Having SoD in the game works for me largely because it gets around this issue and becomes a hndy spice the GM can pull from the rack. I like a bit of unpredictability. That i cannot see SoD a mile away is what makes it so exciting to me as a player. It really amps things up.



> SODs don't allow the same considerations and therefore remove the entire purpose of HP.  It lacks consistency and therefore can often feel like a different game.  One that feels more like gambling where you can't affect the odds.  It's just a matter of picking up the dice and hoping it rolls well.




they are just another tool in the game. They get around hp or a reason, they dramatically raise the stakes. To me that is exciting and an important part of the totality of the game. I do not find it inconsistent. Just another mechanism in the system. 



> Though, I don't think "playing a different game" from time to time is necessarily that bad.  But you certainly have to have some sort of special difficulty rating for SOD creatures that is completely different than all other creatures.  Something that says "This monster is unpredictable and will randomly kill PCs.  They don't have the combat effectiveness of a level 5 monster, however, they have the hitpoints and AC of a one."
> 
> Now, I understand you don't like predictability in your game, so I know this isn't even an issue for you.




exactly, for me this is a non issue. The fix of removing it takes something vital from the game. But i see not everyone feels that way. Which is why I say instead this being a design quality issue, it is a preference issue. The best solution is options that allow different levels of SoD unpredictability in the game, because people are all over the map on it.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Gathering as much intelligence on each tactical situation in the real world is an important thing.  And, while it can be cool to put a lot of resources to it occasionally in game, encouraging the PCs to always go through the exercise, just in case there's a creature with a SoD effect, will not have a salutary effect on game play.  And, in fact, it is apt to be difficult to do.  If SoD is rare, they will generally not go through the exercise, be caught unaware, and die when the SoD does come up.  If SoD is common, the players become paranoid, and won't go *anywhere* until they've done their checks.  And this is D&D not, "cast lots of divinations to see what'll kill us today if we don't have the right buffs handy".




I am not very good at dungeon design, but I am trying.  This is my basic method:

You know the "random dungeon generation" tables in the back of the 1st edition AD&D DMG?  The one that looks like this:

1-12 Empty
13-14 Monster Only
15-17 Monster and Treasure
18 Special
19 Trick/Trap
20 Treasure​
I use that as my framework.  Every 20 rooms will look like this (actually I go with 21, with a trick and a trap).  I expand the "empty" rooms into four different categories, though: three actually empty, three rooms that give information, three rooms that provide a tactical or strategic advantage (for monsters or the PCs), and three rooms that provide both information and a tactical or strategic advantage.

Those "information" rooms provide information about what's in the dungeon.  I try to have the trap and trick be solved through deduction; signs of whatever monsters lie up ahead; and perhaps how to open secret doors.  Sometimes these rooms need magic to unlock the information, depending on the level of the party: you can imagine an NPC trapped behind a magic ward that needs to be _Dispelled_, or (in the last dungeon I ran) an ossuary that allows the skulls to respond to _Speak With Dead_ no matter how long they've been there.  Other times it's a book or journal or a bunch of corpses.

By making sure to have six rooms with information about the dungeon I can place save-or-die monsters, tricks, and traps within.  I haven't figured out how to give these rooms a "cost" except through time and wandering monsters, but I'm still trying it out.  (I guess I could require skill checks, certain feats, spells/magic item charges, and/or HP loss...)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Monsters are never designed on the idea that "This monster should kill at least one PC in every encounter it's used".  That's just very poor game design.



Is this objectively poor game design in every case, or just your preference (perhaps commonly shared with others or even the majority)? And, if the former, can you please explain to me why you think it's objective, when design goals are chosen based on preference? I think that'd help me in this conversation. As always, play what you like


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 12, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Is this objectively poor game design in every case, or just your preference (perhaps commonly shared with others or even the majority)? And, if the former, can you please explain to me why you think it's objective, when design goals are chosen based on preference? I think that'd help me in this conversation. As always, play what you like




I think it is objectively poor game design. I would argue that failure in games should always come from the player's choices, and not be imposed by the game writer/designer/DM. Every problem should contain a solution (even if the solution is to avoid the fight), and players fail by choosing actions that lead away from the solution.

To put it another way, Kobayashi Maru situations are bad and unfair game designs, which is why we all applaud Kirk for cheating.

Designing a monster to kill at least one PC in each encounter smacks of taking away the choice from the player. The game designer is imposing failure upon the player, and that is unfair and objectively poor game design.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 12, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> I think it is objectively poor game design. I would argue that failure in games should always come from the player's choices, and not be imposed by the game writer/designer/DM. Every problem should contain a solution (even if the solution is to avoid the fight), and players fail by choosing actions that lead away from the solution.
> 
> To put it another way, Kobayashi Maru situations are bad and unfair game designs, which is why we all applaud Kirk for cheating.
> 
> Designing a monster to kill at least one PC in each encounter smacks of taking away the choice from the player. The game designer is imposing failure upon the player, and that is unfair and objectively poor game design.




Doesn't that depend on at what level you're looking for a solution? If the end goal is having explored and looted an old tomb complex, then getting killed by an encounter *is* failure imposed by player choice. They engaged in a dangerous encounter. They paid the price for their choice. It's really only if you focus on getting through each encounter that I think your argument even makes sense, but I think that's a trend in D&D gaming - focusing on the encounter - that could really stand to be reversed in favor of broader contexts.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 13, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> I think it is objectively poor game design. I would argue that failure in games should always come from the player's choices, and not be imposed by the game writer/designer/DM. Every problem should contain a solution (even if the solution is to avoid the fight), and players fail by choosing actions that lead away from the solution.
> 
> To put it another way, Kobayashi Maru situations are bad and unfair game designs, which is why we all applaud Kirk for cheating.
> 
> Designing a monster to kill at least one PC in each encounter smacks of taking away the choice from the player. The game designer is imposing failure upon the player, and that is unfair and objectively poor game design.




But why is this bad design and not simply preference?

but by this logic randomness is bad game design. Rolling dice in combat is bad game design because it PCs might die from a bad series of rolls instead of their decisions.

Failure in the case of SoD is not imposed by the designer, it is determined randomly. Just as critical hits are a product of randomness. Yet crits are exciting, even if they are not a product of player choice. In the same way, some find SoD exciting. 

There are differing preferences on how lethal games should be and how much choice versus randomness should be a factor. But there are lots of people who like the thrill of random elements in combat and are entirely fine with deaths resulting from a single roll. To me this all looks very much like preference, and people are, in a way, saying our preferences are invalid because they fall under the blanket of bad design.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 13, 2013)

Let's be fair.

Sometimes failure in games come from just plain bad luck. 

As a DM, you can't lay out all the information on every scene in advance.  On the strategic level, you should lay clues, and have information available for the players who know how to look (Gather Information, Knowledge checks, interrogating prisoners, Divination spells, etc.)  You should also hold out a few surprises.

On the tactical level, though, bad dice can kill you, literally.  I've seen players dice run cold, to the extreme of not being able to roll over an 8 on a D20 check for 32 rolls in a row.

As a DM, or as a player, we have to plan for this.  We don't count on good luck, and we try to allow for bad, but in the end extreme runs of the dice can do in any character.

The question on SOD type situations is, are they appropriate at all?  If so, how extreme (or non-extreme) does the luck have to go to tip it from acceptable to non-acceptable?

A 50/50 chance might be okay, if you only have to make it one time and the situation allows for good play to tip the odds in your favor.  That same chance, every six rounds might not be acceptable.

Then again, it might.  Adding time pressure to deal with an enemy before the SOD goes off again can add dramatic pressure, and a real sense of accomplishment when they make it.  And the old, "Oh, I was soooo close..." line isn't exactly a problem.

If the threat isn't real, neither is the victory.

So, on one extreme you have games like Chess, where all factors are known by both players, the only surprises come from an opponent's plans, and chance has no real part.

Then there are games like Stratego (or maybe I'm thinking Risk?), where each side starts out equal, but neither knows all the factors of the game (where the Mines are placed, where the Spy is hiding, or which tile conceals the flag.)  Chance enters this game only through planned strategy and choices.

D&D and other RPGs depend on chance as a necessary mechanic in play.  Dice rolls are a major part of play, and in the earliest versions there was no premise that everyone started out equal.  

To remove character death due to chance isn't a flaw in the design, it's inherent in it.  The only question is, how strong a factor should chance have in deciding that death?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Doesn't that depend on at what level you're looking for a solution? If the end goal is having explored and looted an old tomb complex, then getting killed by an encounter *is* failure imposed by player choice. They engaged in a dangerous encounter. They paid the price for their choice.




Right.  So by that measure, they'd be better served by going for "success" by choosing to sit back at the inn, where nothing riskier than a bad pot of stew awaits them?  Does that give a good game experience?  As a GM or a game designer, how much do you want the players to avoid risk?  You want to put the old tomb and stories of its loot on stage in Act 1, and *not* have them go for it?

I don't think that makes sense.  As a GM or a designer of an RPG, you want the players to have a good time, probably with something adventurous.  The players should avoid being stupid, but only insofar as it is consistent with the conceit that they are characters who make bloody combat part of their life's work.  We are all accepting a basic level of stupidity (or life-threatening need) as part of the game assumptions.  It is our jobs as GMs to offer reasonable risk, consistent with the players having a good time.  Now, what counts as "reasonable" is subjective, but be very careful how much you shift the blame for deaths down to the player, when it is already agreed between you that this is supposed to be a fun, escapist, adventure game.

A GM should own their part in it.  We either designed or accepted the design of the adventure and the encounters within.  We put it there for them to choose.  We don't get to wash our hands of that and lay it all on them.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So by that measure, they'd be better served by going for "success" by choosing to sit back at the inn, where nothing riskier than a bad pot of stew awaits them?




You know, that is pretty much exactly how I decided _Call of Cthulhu_ wasn't the game for me.  I rolled up a character I thought I'd _really_ like to play... and said "Gee, I don't want to destroy him... He retires now."


----------



## Aenghus (Jul 13, 2013)

Another issue is that the more swingy the game is, the harder it is to learn before a new group gives up D&D and moves to another game where their PCs don't have the life expectancy of a mayfiy. 

I learned to play D&D from the books themselves as informed by magazines, and pretty much accepted that D&D was supposed to be heroic asskicking fantasy, not robbery by any means necessary, which is something I didn't encounter until I heard of the OD&D rule. So did practically everyone I played with in Ireland, which never got the personal knowledge transfer that US games got.

So "Screw the player" monsters never fit into the D&D game as illustrated on the covers and as I saw it played most of the time. The dirty secret was that DMs around here secretly fudged all the time to avoid killing PCs, (expecially the poor player of his third M-U in a row who couldn't roll hit points to save his life - 1 hp characters don't live long, and the idea of minimum hp values as a house rule hadn't developed.)


And before you ask, hordes of PCs were killed in these games, particularly at low level which was a meatgrinder.

IMO making encounters wildly unpredictable significantly increases the difficulty of new DMs learning how to run the game, and new players learning how to survive in the game. A steep learning curve and harsh penalties do not make it easy on players new to D&D. Secondly, it encourages a paranoid style of play of never having a fair fight if you can avoid it, exhaustive planning and in my experience can overly punish the straighforward tactics of new players. 

I'm not saying that a swingy game isn't a valid playstyle, just that there are severe downsides to making it a default.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 13, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> I think it is objectively poor game design. I would argue that failure in games should always come from the player's choices, and not be imposed by the game writer/designer/DM. Every problem should contain a solution (even if the solution is to avoid the fight), and players fail by choosing actions that lead away from the solution.



So SOD fails what you want out of mechanics, making them poor design. But, isn't this just your preference? What if people want all the implications of SOD?


GSHamster said:


> Designing a monster to kill at least one PC in each encounter smacks of taking away the choice from the player. The game designer is imposing failure upon the player, and that is unfair and objectively poor game design.



Based on your preference, right? How is this objective? As always, play what you like


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 13, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I do think that you are forcing your opinion on the text.  I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't confirm exactly what you said



I'm going to stop you right there. Let's look at the book:

"If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this. Some of the encounters you place in your setting will be an appropriate challenge for the PCs, but others might not be" (p. 48)
"In general...[stuff about ELs]" (p. 48)
"In general...[another paragraph about ELs" (p. 49)
"Remember that when the EL is higher than the party level, the chance for PC fatality rises dramatically" (p. 49)

You'll note that this last one does not say all the PCs will die, it makes a much more qualified statement. If you do actually read the section, it's clear that it is general advice, not rules.



> The reason they AREN'T part of the SRD is the exact opposite reason.  The XP chart for calculating XP was considered so intrinsic to playing and running D&D that WOTC felt if they left it out of the SRD, people would still buy the book and wouldn't be able to copy it precisely.



I doubt that WotC thought this, but if they did, they were wildly misguided. As has been covered several times, only a minority of players on ENW use that system. It certainly is not intrinsic. You can throw out the whole thing quite easily.

For example, CoC d20 uses the same basic mechanics, and even gives its monsters CRs. However, the CR is basically described once as "this is a rough guess of how powerful a monster is" and there is no information about standard encounter difficulty, encounter building using CRs, modifying CRs, or XP. Because that is the point of a CR; it's someone's guess of how powerful a monster is, not a mechanical representation of anything.



> There's definitely some debate about this.  It's commonly accepted that house ruling is fine in D&D, I agree.  But it's also common to house rule some of the rules of Football when it's played out on the playground outside of schools as well.  It's not real Football, but it's close enough and the rules are often changed to allow for things like the wrong number of players, a smaller field size, and difficulty to handle with no dedicated referee.



Okay, sure, there are different contexts. An "official" game has strict rules, those rules may be modified for certain situations (but remain rules) and people may play loose with the rules in an "unofficial" game. 



> It's simply the culture that has risen around D&D that is perfectly accepting of changes to the rules.  I'd argue, however, that by pure definition any game that changes the rules isn't "D&D" in it's purest form.



Have you read Unearthed Arcana? Besides the variant rules, there's also a boatload of sidebars that say, in effect "this is how I do things in my game, signed [D&D writer]". Their games often run very differently than the published rules. And they _wrote the rules_. So no, there is no "pure D&D" in the rulebooks that we then alter; if anything, the "purest" form of D&D comes straight from the DM of your home game.



> You may not understand the reason for the rule and your particular group might be able to run without it just fine.  However, I don't doubt for a second that a LOT of thought was put into everything written in the book.  Nothing would have been written and put in the book unless something thought it was important to be there and had a good reason for it.



There may have been thought put into it (and I do think that a lot more thought was put into the 3.0 core rulebooks than anything that came before or after them), but just because they thought about it doesn't mean they were right.



> I hate using them.  The difference between the two is that in a story you are reading it can often feel like "Oh, those guys were lucky and something odd happened to save them".  In an RPG, where all the players know the rules, contrivances often come across as "Oh, good, the DM had to step in and save us because we were all going to die."



Unless they are well executed. Which is, to be fair, really a matter of taste.



> As a player it feels....unfulfilling.  I'm this cool hero with all these cool powers and I should be able to defeat my enemies and triumph...or I should die if I fight monsters too powerful for me.  If Elminster shows up and kills the monsters for me, I feel quite a bit less heroic.  I also feel less needed.  After all, if Elminster showed up to save us, why isn't he just finishing the rest of the adventure for us as well?  He can do it better than we can.



True, that's a dramatic conceit. A better way might be to have the opponent call of the fight if there is no reason to continue, or to introduce a third legitimate combatant that heard the first two fighting.



> The same thing works as a player.  If I've never played D&D before or I've played only a little bit, how am I to know how difficult a Beholder is(or even WHAT a beholder is)?



Skills. In 3e, there is a use for Sense Motive to do this, and it is largely the point of Knowledge skills as well. If your characters are clueless about the monsters you're fighting (never mind the players' metagame knowledge), then they should be in trouble. If they, conversely, are smart, they should be able to make better decisions and be more likely to survive.



> Maybe the DM should provide input at this point...but what tells the DM who has never used a beholder before that it can't be taken out by 3rd level characters?



Its HD and special abilities. Assuming you have even a basic understanding of what all the numbers on its stat block mean, it should be pretty clear.



> I'm not sure about that.  Was it the DMs intention to put the players in a situation where they had to run away or use defensive tactics?



In some cases yes, in others not. The point is that the players have a lot of knowledge; they hear the attack rolls of the monter/NPC, they know what their save results are and whether they succeeded, they know how many hp they have left. If they ask, they likely have some ides of how many hp their opponents have. And that's on top of whatever foreknowledge they acquired in the game, and whatever knowledge their skills give them. It is largely the players' responsibility to decide what level of challenge they can handle and what tactics are most likely to ensure their survival.



> Well, most Epic fantasy books and movies have...either no or VERY few losers.  Only Boromir dies amongst the entirety of the Fellowship(unless we count Gandalf, which I don't).



They didn't fight 13.3 encounters per level either. If you're trying to model an epic fantasy book, the assumptions of the CR/EL system will fail you pretty badly.



> The hobbits weren't attacked by all 9 nazgul in a cave that made it impossible to retreat at the beginning of the story.  Because that would have ended the story in failure and wouldn't have been interesting to read/watch.



D&D characters are not usually commoners! And those hobbits were repeatedly faced with challenges that the CR/EL system would frown on, and survived anyway.



> The DMs job is very similar to that of an author.  Make the story interesting and don't kill off all the PCs.  However, it's made even harder because you don't have absolute authority like an author.  You have to rely on the dice, stats, and rules to decide part of the game.  When those dice, stats, and rules say "Everyone dies", it can ruin a game.



Except, the stats never say that. You can always call of the fight. You can always overrule the results of the dice. Or you can play with them and see what happens. In any case, it is the DM's choice.

And yes, the DM does have authorial responsibility. To say that CRs are pointless is not to say that the DM shouldn't pick a level of challenge that is appropriate for his style of play. I'm merely saying that CRs are not helpful in doing that.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 13, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> I think it is objectively poor game design. I would argue that failure in games should always come from the player's choices, and not be imposed by the game writer/designer/DM. Every problem should contain a solution (even if the solution is to avoid the fight), and players fail by choosing actions that lead away from the solution.



That might be one way to run a game, but that is not the definition of good game design. There are many games where it is entirely possible to play optimally well and lose anyway (many card games, such as poker, blackjack, and solitaire are this way; casinos are founded on games that are easy to lose) (not to mention large segments of the video game world, including D&D-based CRPGs, where it is assumed that the player will lose repeatedly and reload saved games and try again). Likewise, there are many stories where major characters fail for reasons outside of their control. It's quite a large contrivance to say that the players are completely in control of their own fate. Where is it written that failure should only come from player choice? I don't understand the origin of this idea.

Personally, I think that giving the players the sense that nothing bad can happen to them if they don't let it is a recipe for disaster. It tends to make them overconfident and insulated, and then when something bad does happen, that means that they are effectively being blamed and they tend to take that personally. Again, I think the whole reason for making random chance a core element of rpgs (by using dice) is not poor game design.

Player choice is part of the equation, but not the only part.



> To put it another way, Kobayashi Maru situations are bad and unfair game designs, which is why we all applaud Kirk for cheating.



We do? Personally, I applaud whoever came up with the test in the first place (which by the way, was really a plot device to save money by reusing Klingon footage from the first movie). Yes, it is a defining part of Kirk's character, but do we think that every other cadet who went through it and lost like they were supposed to is a chump?

The D&D relevance, in my mind, is that situations in which characters must die are often the climax of a great campaign, IME.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 13, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> Another issue is that the more swingy the game is, the harder it is to learn before a new group gives up D&D and moves to another game where their PCs don't have the life expectancy of a mayfiy.



I'd be concerned that if every encounter lasts five rounds and uses up 20% of the PCs' resources, they will get bored quickly and find a more interesting hobby.



> The dirty secret was that DMs around here secretly fudged all the time to avoid killing PCs, (expecially the poor player of his third M-U in a row who couldn't roll hit points to save his life - 1 hp characters don't live long, and the idea of minimum hp values as a house rule hadn't developed.)



I don't see that as being a "dirty secret". The DM is in charge. If he wants to alter the outcomes dictated by the rules to serve his goals, that is not only his right, that's his job to begin with.



> I'm not saying that a swingy game isn't a valid playstyle, just that there are severe downsides to making it a default.



True, and D&D characters get enormous protections for that reason. Even with SoD's, you'll notice the "S". I think effects that simply kill without a save (such as the mythical Medusa) are entirely fair game. But D&D doesn't generally go that far, because it wants to protect the PCs. Yes, there are downsides.

But there are also downsides to the antithesis of swingy: predictable. When battles become rote, you get people complaining they feel "video game-y". You get draggy combats that last too long because everyone has to have their fair chance before they die. You get players that don't feel like their characters are in real danger, and you lose some of the immersive aspect of the game.

So there are two sides to this thing.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Is this objectively poor game design in every case, or just your preference (perhaps commonly shared with others or even the majority)? And, if the former, can you please explain to me why you think it's objective, when design goals are chosen based on preference? I think that'd help me in this conversation. As always, play what you like




I do believe this is objectively poor game design.

Let's be crystal clear here.  You are claiming that a monster for D&D, designed in such a way that it will almost certainly kill at least one PC in any given encounter is a perfectly acceptable design.

No monster is ever designed that way.  Well, that's not true.  SoD monsters kinda are, but, that's because they are poorly designed, not because that's intentional.

Show me a single monsters, outside of monsters with SOD, which you would consider to fit the design:  "Will probably kill at least one PC in any encounter, regardless of PC level."


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2013)

Ahn said:
			
		

> The D&D relevance, in my mind, is that situations in which characters must die are often the climax of a great campaign, IME.




Wow.  Have you actually done this to players?  Put them in a situation where they must die?  And you still have players?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 14, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  Have you actually done this to players?  Put them in a situation where they must die?  And you still have players?



It's almost a regular thing for me at this point to end a campaign with a character or characters dying for a cause. And some of the other DMs in our group have done it as well.

And yes, I have players clamoring for me to DM even when I'd rather take a break or be a player myself for a week. Even though I kill a PC every now and then. Even though there were times in my early days where PCs were being lined up for the slaughter. Even though I've occasionally forced PCs into "Kobayashi Maru" scenarios or killed them without giving them a fair chance to survive.

Or, perhaps, _because_ of those things.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 14, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  Have you actually done this to players?  Put them in a situation where they must die?  And you still have players?




Everybody has different preferences on this sort of thing. As a player I find it way more exciting when things can crop up (say from a random encounter roll or if we make an unfortunate choice to explore a cave that happens to have a medusa) when these sorts of possibilities are in play (and it makes for a truly exciting night even if it results in a party getting wiped). What is important here though I do not just want the GM to decide at the beginning of the game that a possibly quite lethal creature is going to be sprung on the party. It is more fun when it is in the mix of possibilities and happens to come up. I don't know that I would say an encounter with such a creature must result in at least one party member dying, but it does raise that risk tremendously (sometimes the party might just run away, get lucky, or find away around the challenge). 

I think this is why it is important to keep in mind in these discussions, people have genuinely different preferences for play. I recognize that mine isnt the most popular these days, and I often have to comrpomise with my group (which I am happy to do). But I have the most fun playing when these kinds of threats are around and when encounters are not just tailored to the abilities or level of the party. I like not knowing what is going to happen by the end of a session, and I enjoy combats that are not very predictable.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 14, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I do believe this is objectively poor game design.
> 
> Let's be crystal clear here.  You are claiming that a monster for D&D, designed in such a way that it will almost certainly kill at least one PC in any given encounter is a perfectly acceptable design.
> 
> ...




But all you are doing here is setting an objective standard based on your subjective preference that monsters shouldn't have a strong chance of killing a party member (I think many might quible over your characterization of the threat here, depending on the monster, but even if we take your "one party member will die" conclusion, that is still clearly a subjective preference).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 14, 2013)

I played in a campaign in which the PCs all died at the end, and I felt it worked quite well. It was a superhero game. After we'd confronted the Dr Doom-style megavillain in his secret island headquarters, the US military dropped a nuclear bomb on us, as they feared we were too powerful. The GM actually rolled damage for the nuke. We were all teenagers at the time, which helps explain the nihilistic cynicism!

On the whole I think that, as a player, I prefer for all the PCs to die at the end of campaign. It's certainly a definitive ending.

Clearly such an approach would not work for many playstyles, for example any form of gamism (including Gygaxian D&D) in which PC death is seen as a failure. Many players balk at the idea of success or failure being pre-ordained.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 14, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> I played in a campaign in which the PCs all died at the end, and I felt it worked quite well. It was a superhero game. After we'd confronted the Dr Doom-style megavillain in his secret island headquarters, the US military dropped a nuclear bomb on us, as they feared we were too powerful. The GM actually rolled damage for the nuke. We were all teenagers at the time, which helps explain the nihilistic cynicism!
> 
> On the whole I think that, as a player, I prefer for all the PCs to die at the end of campaign. It's certainly a definitive ending.
> 
> Clearly such an approach would not work for many playstyles, for example any form of gamism (including Gygaxian D&D) in which PC death is seen as a failure. Many players balk at the idea of success or failure being pre-ordained.




i find uncertainty of survival is my ideal. It is the not knowing how the end will turn out, taking a risk, rolling the dice and feeling the rush of excitement that comes with hoping your character makes it through, but being far from certain about it. I do not root for my character to die, but the genuine possibility of the death is a key part of maintaining my enjoyment.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 14, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Show me a single monsters, outside of monsters with SOD, which you would consider to fit the design:  "Will probably kill at least one PC in any encounter, regardless of PC level."



Dragons.

I'm willing to bet that the PC fatality rate when facing a red dragon is higher than when facing a cockatrice.

Not that the premise holds water in the first place. Most encounters involving an SoD don't kill any PCs.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 14, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> Clearly such an approach would not work for many playstyles, for example any form of gamism (including Gygaxian D&D) in which PC death is seen as a failure. Many players balk at the idea of success or failure being pre-ordained.



That's true. However, if they really did not like success or failure being predetermined, they would be against any kind of system that predetermined their success as well (say, one which posits encounters that they are expected to win). An SoD is a great way of avoiding predetermined outcomes.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 14, 2013)

Hussar said:


> I do believe this is objectively poor game design.



Why? Why isn't it preference, if design choices are based on preference or play style?


Hussar said:


> Let's be crystal clear here.  You are claiming that a monster for D&D, designed in such a way that it will almost certainly kill at least one PC in any given encounter is a perfectly acceptable design.



If the goal is to create a monster that is that dangerous, then yes. I'd say that's good design.


Hussar said:


> No monster is ever designed that way.  Well, that's not true.  SoD monsters kinda are, but, that's because they are poorly designed, not because that's intentional.



If it's not intentional, that's probably poor design, yes.


Hussar said:


> Show me a single monsters, outside of monsters with SOD, which you would consider to fit the design:  "Will probably kill at least one PC in any encounter, regardless of PC level."



I've made monsters like that for my game, when it fits the myth of the monster. I also don't 100% know the motivations of the designers of any other RPG, so I can't comment on it very adequately.

But, this goes for any mechanic that isn't a monster, too. Walking into a Sphere of Annihilation, falling onto lava, falling from enough distance, etc. are all things that I think a lot of people are okay with being "you die, no roll." Monsters might fall into that category in some rare circumstances, too, if you're going for that feel with the monster. I'm not sure how you can say any of the non-monster effects are objectively poor design when some people would actively like to see them, and thus I can't see how you can say it's objectively poor design for monsters.

Isn't this all based on preference? That's not a bad way to judge the game, obviously, but to say it's objective? That just doesn't make sense. As always, play what you like


----------



## Balesir (Jul 14, 2013)

Sorry,  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], but this just has to be a matter of preference. Some folks like games of chance, some like games of skill - it has always been that way and I'd lay money that it always will be 

For myself, games of chance make me highly uncomfortable. I think it's because, through upbringing or whatever, I equate losing with being unskilled and thus with being a dunce. Placing myself in a situation in which I might be labelled (if only by myself) clueless and a dunce at random is not something I like to do. That's not to say I can't take a modicum of randomness; as long as it's only part of the picture and ideally I can affect the odds substantially by my actions, it's fine. But pure chance I find at once uncomfortable and boring. The 'boring' I think is pretty acceptable, but the 'uncomfortable' I can't help but find irrational and rather a weakness (in that it removes some activities I might otherwise find fun).

As far as D&D is concerned, I think there is an element of "bad design" in mixing pure chance instances (SoD) with competitive incentives largely based on skill. The problem with this is that it manages to put people like me off (because of the pure luck instances) while also putting off those who dislike the concentration and "work" required for a game involving mental skill.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Balesir said:


> As far as D&D is concerned, I think there is an element of "bad design" in mixing pure chance instances (SoD) with competitive incentives largely based on skill.



I don't buy this dichotomy you're setting up. There are ample elements of skill involved in SoD situations; designing characters with good save bonuses and other defenses, avoiding surprise and anticipating encounters, recognizing the threat, countering it in various ways. The roll itself is chance, but the application of the ability is hardly "pure chance".

Conversely, essentially any D&D battle involves numerous dice rolls. Typically their results will be "average", but it is entirely possible for a battle involving only attack rolls and hp to be decided by luck, and many such battles do not involve a whole lot of skill.

Also, if you're not into games of luck (which is fine; I'm not big into emphasizing that element either), you must really hate rolling for ability scores. Is that "bad design" as far as D&D is concerned?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's true. However, if they really did not like success or failure being predetermined, they would be against any kind of system that predetermined their success as well (say, one which posits encounters that they are expected to win). An SoD is a great way of avoiding predetermined outcomes.




How is it a great way of avoiding predetermined outcomes?  An Area of Effect SOD effect against 4 or more PC's is almost 100% likely (about 95% actually) to kill at least one PC.  That's about as predetermined as you can get.

Note, a red dragon vs an appropriate level party likely won't result in PC fatality.  Granted, bombing 1st level parties will, but, that's not quite what I said.  I said against ANY level party.  Red Dragon vs appropriate level won't result in fatalities most of the time.  That's because dragons are well designed.



> Also, if you're not into games of luck (which is fine; I'm not big into emphasizing that element either), you must really hate rolling for ability scores. Is that "bad design" as far as D&D is concerned?




Rolling for ability scores would be fine except for the human element.  For one, baked right into the mechanics is the "hopeless character" clause, meaning that it's not truly random.  But, for another, most people cheat when die rolling characters.  I've seen far too many die rolled characters to believe that it's straight die rolls.  There's a reason that point buy is standard in 3e organized play and standard in all 4e play.  

It removes the random element which plays all sorts of silly buggers with the game math.  But, if you don't believe me that people cheat, take the character sheets that you have in your current campaign of all your players and add up their point buy value.  The majority will be 30 point buy or more.  Meaning those die rolled characters are about one level ahead of a point buy character.

Which is fine, once you factor that into campaign design, but, it also means more work for the DM.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

Hussar said:


> How is it a great way of avoiding predetermined outcomes?  An Area of Effect SOD effect against 4 or more PC's is almost 100% likely (about 95% actually) to kill at least one PC.  That's about as predetermined as you can get.




i haven't crunched the numbers so perhaps you are right but could you show your math and edition here. There are differences in saves between editions. Part levels are also going to be a factor as saves improve over time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't buy this dichotomy you're setting up. There are ample elements of skill involved in SoD situations; designing characters with good save bonuses and other defenses, avoiding surprise and anticipating encounters, recognizing the threat, countering it in various ways. The roll itself is chance, but the application of the ability is hardly "pure chance".
> 
> Conversely, essentially any D&D battle involves numerous dice rolls. Typically their results will be "average", but it is entirely possible for a battle involving only attack rolls and hp to be decided by luck, and many such battles do not involve a whole lot of skill.
> 
> Also, if you're not into games of luck (which is fine; I'm not big into emphasizing that element either), you must really hate rolling for ability scores. Is that "bad design" as far as D&D is concerned?




yeah, d&d has always been a pretty good mix of luck and skill. I can see not liking SoD, but this particular claim to bad design is just another case of preference (in this case stating it fails to meet two types of preference). And going the opposite way would have a similar affect (if you remove SoD it fails to meet the preferences of folks like me and ahnenhois, both people who enjoy chance and work/mental skill).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Hussar said:


> How is it a great way of avoiding predetermined outcomes?  An Area of Effect SOD effect against 4 or more PC's is almost 100% likely (about 95% actually) to kill at least one PC.  That's about as predetermined as you can get.



The "predetermined outcome" I was referring to is routine victory by the PCs that uses 20% of their use-limited resources.

That said, how is an area SoD going to kill that many PCs? Given the PCs' ability to spot the creature before it is in range, the party's likely behavior of splitting up (casters and ranged fighters really shouldn't be anywhere near), and the reasonable likelihood of PCs being able to identify the creature and respond to its ability, it is not exactly a given that anyone will die. Even if you just take the save math, many of these DCs are quite low for their intended level. If you were to throw an SoD monster against a character of _any level_, there are a number of examples where characters would be under virtually no danger. You'd have to do a lot to support that statement.



> Note, a red dragon vs an appropriate level party likely won't result in PC fatality.  Granted, bombing 1st level parties will, but, that's not quite what I said.  I said against ANY level party.  Red Dragon vs appropriate level won't result in fatalities most of the time.  That's because dragons are well designed.



This is wrong on a few levels. First off, a red dragon against an "appropriate level" party is quite likely to kill a PC (or TPK them) _if played to its intelligence_. The same is true of many highly intelligent monsters, like liches or some of the better outsiders. Often, they are not played that way.

Second, like several monsters in the Monster Manual, there are dragons well past CR 20, which means that the core game posits monsters that a party of the maximum level allowed by the core rules could not reasonably be expected to defeat. A great wyrm red dragon should kill an entire party of any characters you build without using the epic rules. So yes, there are monsters that are built to kill PCs.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2013)

BRG - take the following example.

AD&D PC with 10 HP is successfully hit by a snake which has a SOD poison attack (pretty standard in AD&D) three times.  The PC has a 50/50 chance of making his save.  This character now dies 7/8 times or 87.5% of the time.  And the chances actually don't significantly change even if you double his chance of saving.  If he saves 75% of the time, he still dies 60% of the time in this scenario.

Now, the same PC his hit three times by a monster that does d8 points of damage.  The chances of this PC outright dying are 12.5% (three hits doing either 7 or 8 points/hit to drive the PC into -10), gets dropped into negatives about 60% of the time and walks away about 20% of the time.

So, yes, save or die significantly reduces the randomness of an encounter.  To the tune that the same encounter is now EIGHT TIMES more likely to kill the PC.

Now, multiply this by a save or die area attack, like a medusa or a bodak, and the chances of a PC dying in any given round are about 80% (give or take).  It actually makes more sense for the party to retreat and face the medusa one at a time.  



> This is wrong on a few levels. First off, a red dragon against an "appropriate level" party is quite likely to kill a PC (or TPK them) if played to its intelligence. The same is true of many highly intelligent monsters, like liches or some of the better outsiders. Often, they are not played that way.




Actually this is only really true of "caster" monsters and it's because high level casters are far, far more broken than anything else in the game.  Any high level monster which doesn't have high level casting abilities is not all that likely to kill PC's.



> Second, like several monsters in the Monster Manual, there are dragons well past CR 20, which means that the core game posits monsters that a party of the maximum level allowed by the core rules could not reasonably be expected to defeat. A great wyrm red dragon should kill an entire party of any characters you build without using the epic rules. So yes, there are monsters that are built to kill PCs.




Note, Epic rules are part of the SRD now and are core.  But, beside that, I'd point out that an Elder Wyrm Red (the largest creature in the MM) is CR 26.  Not impossible for a 20th level party of 4 PC's, although extremely difficult.  The solution here would be to have outside assistance - henchmen or NPC's, to bring the party up to power to take on the dragon.  

And let's be honest here, no DM worth his salt is going to bomb an elder wyrm red dragon on the party before they are ready to take it on.  Might as well declare "rocks fall everyone dies."


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> if it's just killable, it's less working to just walk up and punch it directly in the throat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there are many ways to motivate players. But players quickly latch onto those. The idea of the amnesiac orphan wander PC has become a trope for a reason: because players know lazy GMs will often use friends and family against them.



To me the first of these issues reflects more on action resolution mechanics than any default bloodthirstiness among players. If the game has effective non-combat action resolution whereby players can achieve outcomes for their PCs with a degree of finality, then in my experience players will choose those options where they make sense within the fiction.

The second issue reflects something different that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] mentioned upthread - why are the players playing the game, and how is the GM responding to that? Presumably the players want to experience a fiction in which their PCs face (and typically overcome) dramatic challenges. Defending friends and family is part of that. Part of good GMing is incorporating those sorts of stakes into the game in a way that makes the players pleased that they came up with such dramatically interesting backstories for their PCs. (For instance, don't kill off friends and family offscreen.)



LostSoul said:


> I don't think save-or-die reduces possible choices into noise.  It seems to me that save-or-die works on a strategic level.  They create a cost (facing a save-or-die situation) to going into a tactical situation unprepared.  Thus you will want to gather information as to how to prepare for those upcoming tactical situations.





Umbran said:


> Gathering as much intelligence on each tactical situation in the real world is an important thing.  And, while it can be cool to put a lot of resources to it occasionally in game, encouraging the PCs to always go through the exercise, just in case there's a creature with a SoD effect, will not have a salutary effect on game play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If SoD is common, the players become paranoid, and won't go *anywhere* until they've done their checks.  And this is D&D not, "cast lots of divinations to see what'll kill us today if we don't have the right buffs handy".



My own experience here fits with what Umbran says. A system that makes information, and similar strategic considerations, the key to success in action resolution, can very easily lead to a playstyle in which play bogs down into divination, and then using the right suite of buffs to make the actual encounter a cakewalk. I have encountered this particularly in high level (ie level 10+) Rolemaster.

A feature of 4e that I very much enjoy is that it shifts much of the locus of choice out of the "exploration" phase of play and into the "action resolution" phase of play. Toning down SoD is part of that, I think.



Ahnehnois said:


> To me "PC's can't die" and "PC's can't die without having a fair chance at survival" are both valid styles. I just don't think they should be mandatory; a good set of rules allows for wide variation on basic tenents of the game like this.



I think that's a very big ask for a given set of RPG rules, unless you are going to deal with the issue via supplementing a basically gritty ruleset with GM fudging, or player "fudging" using Fate Points etc.



Ahnehnois said:


> I would hope most people who play 3e (or derivatives) would understand that CR/EL and "rules" of that ilk shouldn't exist, and would not object to DMs who ignore them.





Ahnehnois said:


> To say that CRs are pointless is not to say that the DM shouldn't pick a level of challenge that is appropriate for his style of play. I'm merely saying that CRs are not helpful in doing that.



I don't know whether or not you count 4e as a "derivative of 3E" in this respect. It has encounter level rules, and as a GM I find them quite helpful. I'm pretty sure that my players expect me to have regard to them in building encounters. (Of course they are not the only thing relevant to building encounters in 4e; the various GM advice books discuss other relevant "mechanical" considerations, like terrain, NPC/monster roles, and obviously story considerations are very important too.)



Ahnehnois said:


> I do think that the idea of "balanced" encounters is toxic to good gaming.





Ahnehnois said:


> That's the problem with CRs. They are self-justifying. You can't really know how unnecessary they are until you try playing a game where they're ignored and see that it works.



I have experience with systems that do not have encounter building guidelines, and that make it hard to assess monster/NPC challenge level (Rolemaster is an instance of such a game). One feature of 4e that I very much enjoy is that it is superior in this respect - it makes encounter buidling, levelling monsters/NPCs up and down, etc much easier, with far more predicatable results.

A very wide range of RPGs use the idea of "balanced" encounters (ie mathematical predictability in encounter building): not just 3E and 4e D&D, but also much more free-formy games like HeroWars/Quest, and also The Dying Earth (both by Robin Laws - hardly a toxic RPG designer!). Don Turnbull tried to introduce the idea into classic D&D via his MonsterMark, but had to contend with the swinginess of pre-4e D&D monsters resulting from factors like SoD, immunity to normal weapons, etc.

I also don't really see how you think that a GM is going to "pick a level of challenge that is appropriate" while eschewing the notion of "balanced" encounters. Once we have the notion of a spectrum of degrees of challenge, on which the GM is to find the appropriate point for his/her game, we also have the notion of a "balanced" encounter, namely one whose degree of challenges fits with some designated "balance point".


----------



## Balesir (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't buy this dichotomy you're setting up.



Well, as I have already said, it's not absolute, but then very little is. But it is noticeable - _vide_ the number of debates it brings about.



Ahnehnois said:


> There are ample elements of skill involved in SoD situations;



OK, let's break them down, shall we?



Ahnehnois said:


> designing characters with good save bonuses and other defenses,



Before 3.x this simply amounts to choosing a class. IIRC Clerics had the best save vs. death - so presumably an all-cleric party was expected?? In the later editions you had more scope to "build" for defences - but with three saves/NADs plus AC to cover you had to nerf other areas quite badly to get good in them all (although one of the PCs in the 4E game I run has been built this way).



Ahnehnois said:


> avoiding surprise



Again, prior to 3.x the rule for surprise was "the party is surprised on a 1 or 2". How do you avoid that? Well, of course, there is a way, and IME it was actually quite common, but I'll come back to that.



Ahnehnois said:


> and anticipating encounters,



In the "regular" dungeon this was only really possible with magic - and then only to the extent the DM wanted to let it be (part of the wider point I'll make later).



Ahnehnois said:


> recognizing the threat,



Yep, good old "old school" play - "memorise the MM or you're toast". Some folks like it - good on 'em.



Ahnehnois said:


> countering it in various ways.



Right - this gets to the widest argument I have here. How do you avoid surprise, anticipate encounters or counter dangerous/SoD abilities when no edition has had actual explicit rules for doing any of this? Easy - you play "blag the DM". More formally, you invite the DM to use their power to improvise additional rules on the spot to allow the regular rule (if any) to be bypassed or to allow priviledges of information or exemption from power effects that are not a part of the normal rules. If you can get the DM to like what you are proposing - because it fits their conception of what is "realistic" or it fits their conception of what is "cool" or it fits some other criteria they have for what they want included in the game - you get to play by new and different rules. If you can't persuade the DM to like what you propose, you're SOL.

"But, this is a game of skill!" you might say. Sure it is - but (a) it's not part of the game as written, really, just a surrogate game that many found to play instead in the early days, and (b) it's a game that's so old and tired that, despite enjoying it for a few years when it was new, I really gave up on some time around 1981.



Ahnehnois said:


> The roll itself is chance, but the application of the ability is hardly "pure chance".



True - you can use your "Blag the DM" skill to see if you can get the base rules changed (see above).



Ahnehnois said:


> Conversely, essentially any D&D battle involves numerous dice rolls. Typically their results will be "average", but it is entirely possible for a battle involving only attack rolls and hp to be decided by luck, and many such battles do not involve a whole lot of skill.



If you have few hit points you need to be extremely careful, if you have lots you can be a bit more adventurous; there's the most basic application of skill right there. The point is that there are things that are written into the game that you can do to mitigate the risk. Absent significant DM license, with SoD there seldom is. Another comment was made about "starting out of range of the SoD effect"; with line of sight effects or in a "dungeon" that's usually not a real option.



Ahnehnois said:


> Also, if you're not into games of luck (which is fine; I'm not big into emphasizing that element either), you must really hate rolling for ability scores. Is that "bad design" as far as D&D is concerned?



Look again; I didn't say that any randomisation is bad - just that which creates a "you lost" situation with no opportunity to avoid it (in play). Characteristic generation is different; it sets up the resources that you will have to work with in play, but it doesn't lead to "you're dead" (except, maybe, in Traveller!). That said, I do prefer point buy for D&D, but I wouldn't refuse to play just because it was a "roll stats" game. And HârnMaster games are positively enhanced by attribute rolling (because the aim of play is very different).


----------



## Tuft (Jul 15, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My own experience here fits with what Umbran says. A system that makes information, and similar strategic considerations, the key to success in action resolution, can very easily lead to a playstyle in which play bogs down into divination, and then using the right suite of buffs to make the actual encounter a cakewalk. I have encountered this particularly in high level (ie level 10+) Rolemaster.




I'd say that in my experience, information gathering the mundane way , through interactions or scouting, usually is more fun and more responsive than divinations. It has the advantage that it can either be a full-blown scene, or just a roll followed by some brief exposition from the DM.

In the brief exposition case,  I'd say that much more time usually is "lost" by people dithering over the best movement path to minimize attacks of opportunity, or being in the bathroom when it is their turn... 

The presence of SoD monsters are just *one* part of the exposition that information gathering opens up; the backstory that ties the adventure to the greater history of the world, what parties and forces are involved, the layout of the land, the presence of possible allies and safe spots, any clues and hints the DM wants the players to have, etc, are all possible parts of the information gathering.



pemerton said:


> A feature of 4e that I very much enjoy is that it shifts much of the locus of choice out of the "exploration" phase of play and into the "action resolution" phase of play. Toning down SoD is part of that, I think.




As one who loves the exploration and interaction phases, and who is pretty much burned-out on the combat phase, I'd like to ascribe that shift as one of the reason people voted with their dollars, and note that WoTC *do* want to strengthen those parts in the fifth. But this may be edging a little too close to edition warring...


----------



## Balesir (Jul 15, 2013)

Tuft said:


> As one who loves the exploration and interaction phases, and who is pretty much burned-out on the combat phase, I'd like to ascribe that shift as one of the reason people voted with their dollars, and note that WoTC *do* want to strengthen those parts in the fifth. But this may be edging a little too close to edition warring...



For me the solution there is simple: make exploration and interaction a matter of _action resolution_ rather than an opportunity to (try to) persuade the DM to give you as much as you can get. 4E tried to do this, but it was pretty lacklustre about it in the end; on the upside it at least made a start, on the downside it really didn't expand on that start anywhere near enough.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2013)

Tuft said:


> As one who loves the exploration and interaction phases, and who is pretty much burned-out on the combat phase, I'd like to ascribe that shift as one of the reason people voted with their dollars



I don't understand why you equate "action resolution" (my phrase) with "combat" (your word) - especially given that, in my post, I talked expressly about non-combat dimensions of action resolution.

EDIT: Ninja-ed (somewhat, at least) by  [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION].


I have played Rolemaster sessions where the bulk of the session consisted in planning the spell load-out (including placing spells on one-use items, imbuing non-casters with spell ablity etc, within a context in which stored/imbued spells could be "nested" so that they could only come out in the order they went in unless further "bypass" abilities were used). Once this was done, actual action resolution consisted in declaring the casting of the spells in the specified (nested) order for the win.

This is not entirely without interest, but can become closer to the solving of a crossword puzzle than to an action fantasy adventure in its tone.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 15, 2013)

One difficulty with information gathering as an element of gamist play is it encourages the use of out-of-character knowledge. This is fine for some playstyles, such as Gygaxian D&D, but if players are expected to act in character then it leads to a conflict of interest, with the use of OOC knowledge often regarded as preferable to PC death.

Also, in a world as strange as the typical D&D world, it can be hard to distinguish between monsters of widely varying power. Is a walking corpse a zombie, a wight, or a revenant?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

Hussar said:


> BRG - take the following example.
> 
> AD&D PC with 10 HP is successfully hit by a snake which has a SOD poison attack (pretty standard in AD&D) three times.  The PC has a 50/50 chance of making his save.  This character now dies 7/8 times or 87.5% of the time.  And the chances actually don't significantly change even if you double his chance of saving.  If he saves 75% of the time, he still dies 60% of the time in this scenario.
> 
> ."




Getting hit three times succesfully is not a forgone concusion, particularly with a low hp creature like a snake. And even though 1E and 3E do let you go down to -10 for death (for 2E death is at 0 HP), you do start to die at -1 hp (so that probability also needs to be factored in). A 10 hp character has a pretty good chance of being knocked down to -1 hp after three succesful hits. Against a snake, a full party will most likely take it out before it has a chance for even a second attack (assumingit wins initiative). 

Also, i am not disputing that SoD significantly raises the chance of death. That is what it is supposed to do. That is why I like it. I am just questioning the claim you made that it means one character dies nearly 100% of the time it is introduced (this will vary considerably dopending on party level, the characters and the encounter itself----in 2E, a 1st level priest has a death save of 10, but at 20th he has a 2). Also, as the party increases in level, their number of resources to del with such threats (particularly poison and petrification) go up considerably.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Before 3.x this simply amounts to choosing a class.



I suspect this is largely true, though IIRC there were magic items (including some that specifically enhanced saves against death); magic item acquisition is certainly a part of character building in D&D. There may also have been NWPs but I don't know that one way or the other. But yes, limited options before 3e.

However, in 3e, there are plenty of options. Every level you take affects saves. Ability scores and anything that changes them. Feats. Resistance bonuses. Maximizing your saves is a significant part of building a 3e character.



> Again, prior to 3.x the rule for surprise was "the party is surprised on a 1 or 2". How do you avoid that?



They had divinations before 3e, didn't they? They had talking to people and finding out what the threats are in the area in advance?

But again, limitations of pre-3e rules are significant, but 3e gives us the important perception and stealth skills and a number of spells and special abilities that help you see what's coming.



> Yep, good old "old school" play - "memorise the MM or you're toast".



Again, 3e has knowledge skills to explicitly deal with this, while 2e had some NWPs that were more limited, as I recall.



> How do you avoid surprise, anticipate encounters or counter dangerous/SoD abilities when no edition has had actual explicit rules for doing any of this?



Well, I've covered surprise and anticipation enough, so there's rules for that, but yes there are also explicit rules for countering. What do you think Death Ward is? That predates 3e. There's also other spells and items that give you save bonuses or more qualified immunities. If it's a gaze attack (Medusa) there's also the whole averting your eyes business. With an enemy spellcaster, there's counterspelling and disruption. If we're including "save or suck" abilities, many of those are subject to dispel and break enchantment.

There's also broader tactics. If it's a death effect with limited range, you can just stay out of range. Many SoD monsters are not particularly mobile and don't have other combat options, so sniping is quite viable against, say, a bodak. In other cases, the death effect may be targeted, in which case, sending in your backstab-y rogue or pulling out invisibility spells may be quite effective.



> Easy - you play "blag the DM". More formally, you invite the DM to use their power to improvise additional rules on the spot to allow the regular rule (if any) to be bypassed or to allow priviledges of information or exemption from power effects that are not a part of the normal rules.



I see nothing inherently wrong with improvisational play, but that's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, as there are ample explicit rules that deal with the subject.



> If you have few hit points you need to be extremely careful, if you have lots you can be a bit more adventurous; there's the most basic application of skill right there.



Perhaps you missed the whole debate in some other thread recently (blanking on which one) about whether characters know how many hp they have and whether that counts as metagaming. But yes, that is a (very basic) application of skill.



> The point is that there are things that are written into the game that you can do to mitigate the risk. Absent significant DM license, with SoD there seldom is.



Except, you know, all that stuff about specific spells, averting one's eyes, and so on.



> Another comment was made about "starting out of range of the SoD effect"; with line of sight effects or in a "dungeon" that's usually not a real option.



Don't be silly. There's a cantrip specifically for opening and closing doors at a distance. There's summoning garbage monsters to go ahead for you. There's perception skills and clairvoyance and other such divinations to help you see what's waiting for you. Dungeons do present an unusual set of circumstances, but you still shouldn't be just barging into a room with no idea what's going on, and people who play in dungeons ought to know how to deal with threats in confined spaces. And if, for any reason, a powerful opponent gets within 30 ft. of you without you knowing anything about it, you're in deep trouble whether it has an SoD or not.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Doug McCrae said:


> One difficulty with information gathering as an element of gamist play is it encourages the use of out-of-character knowledge. This is fine for some playstyles, such as Gygaxian D&D, but if players are expected to act in character then it leads to a conflict of interest, with the use of OOC knowledge often regarded as preferable to PC death.
> 
> Also, in a world as strange as the typical D&D world, it can be hard to distinguish between monsters of widely varying power. Is a walking corpse a zombie, a wight, or a revenant?



Out-of-character knowledge can be problematic, but I find it interesting to play with people's expectations as a DM. One's word choice in describing that walking corpse makes quite a difference in what they think of it!


----------



## N'raac (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Again, 3e has knowledge skills to explicitly deal with this, while 2e had some NWPs that were more limited, as I recall.




Well, yes and no.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.
> 
> For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.




So, 7 CR and 6 HD.  Assuming our L7 character has maxed out his Knowledge - Nature, that's 10 ranks.  Knowledge-Nature isn't likely being taken by a high INT character (more likely a Druid or Ranger, so say +11.  A 5 gets one useful piece of info, a 10 gets 2.  Not too many special abilities, the poisonous snake hair and a gaze that petrifies.  Maybe skilled with bows, if we stretch.  So, if we roll a 9 an the GM says "The medusa has poisonous snakes for hair", do we proceed on the basis we know nothing about its petrifying gaze?

Now, Banshees are Kn religion, so +1 INT, and our party was 17th level, so say 20 ranks +1 INT = +21.  The Banshee has 19 HD, so DC 29 (pulled from Pathfinder).  A 13 gets two bits of knowledge, and an 18 gets three.  Special powers for a Banshee?  Its incorporeal; can sense the beating of living hearts; its touch causes terror; its wail causes death; tack on all the Undead abilities and weaknesses or assume anyone with Kn Religion knows these (but then, do we assume all with Kn Planes know standards for evils, demons, archons, etc)? So, if we roll a 15, and know the Banshee is incorporeal and can sense the beating of living hearts, do we ignore its Wail?  Are we using PC knowledge from the skill, player knowledge from memorizing monster stats, or a combination?



Ahnehnois said:


> There's also broader tactics. If it's a death effect with limited range, you can just stay out of range. Many SoD monsters are not particularly mobile and don't have other combat options, so sniping is quite viable against, say, a bodak. In other cases, the death effect may be targeted, in which case, sending in your backstab-y rogue or pulling out invisibility spells may be quite effective.




The Banshee flies at 60' with perfect maneuverability (probably another special ability that should be up there). and moves through walls.  And, again, how much does my KS need to succeed by to add details of the creature's mobility?

Plus, if I wanted to play a game where having a slim hope of character survival is dependent on thorough research through every possible source, followed by exploratory tactics ruled by OCD and paranoia (for every single character - no variation in personality; no human flaws or foibles causing any choice less than fully optimal for every circumstance), then I'd play a lot less D&D and a lot more Call of Cthulhu.  Reasonable precautions?  Sure.  Two game sessions of research and tactical planning for each encounter we have?  Not so much.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

N'raac said:


> So, 7 CR and 6 HD.  Assuming our L7 character has maxed out his Knowledge - Nature, that's 10 ranks.  Knowledge-Nature isn't likely being taken by a high INT character (more likely a Druid or Ranger, so say +11.  A 5 gets one useful piece of info, a 10 gets 2.



I would think that a death ability that is pretty much the creature's definitional attack would be the first thing revealed under most circumstances. And there are DCs on the book, but a lot of wiggle room for DMs in how to interpret these things.



> Are we using PC knowledge from the skill, player knowledge from memorizing monster stats, or a combination?



I'm not really seeing how (in-game or out), you could tell a player the monster was a banshee (or Medusa, or whatever) without making them aware of its main ability. I think that falls under common sense for both parties. That's like knowing that if you see a dragon, you should watch out for a breath weapon, or knowing that vampires suck your blood. Once you know the enemy is a Medusa, you pretty much know not to look at it. And, many of these precautions/tactics are things that make sense even if you are not 100% sure what the enemy's abilities are. If it's a scary looking undead that doesn't move that fast, you don't need to know that it's a bodak to know that ranged combat might be a good idea.



> The Banshee flies at 60' with perfect maneuverability (probably another special ability that should be up there). and moves through walls.  And, again, how much does my KS need to succeed by to add details of the creature's mobility?



That I don't know, but by banshee levels, you should be able to teleport away or move faster than that. You should also have death ward or the equivalent in items, as it is now five levels lower than your max level spells. And possibly Foresight. Banshees have some impressive abilities, but they are hardly the greatest threat a 17th level party should be worried about.

Conversely, a bodak has 20' land speed. A Medusa has 30. A gorgon is 30. A cockatrice has fly 60', but poor maneuverability and it has to actually touch you. Most of these creatures are not going to be near you unless they sneak up on you (not real stealthy, most of them) or you approach them willingly.



> Plus, if I wanted to play a game where having a slim hope of character survival is dependent on thorough research through every possible source, followed by exploratory tactics ruled by OCD and paranoia (for every single character - no variation in personality; no human flaws or foibles causing any choice less than fully optimal for every circumstance), then I'd play a lot less D&D and a lot more Call of Cthulhu.



D&D does count both Lovecraftian fiction and its games as significant influences.



> Reasonable precautions?  Sure.  Two game sessions of research and tactical planning for each encounter we have?  Not so much.



I think there are a lot of very reasonable precautions that can be effective in mitigating most SoD situations.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 15, 2013)

Hussar said:


> BRG - take the following example.
> 
> AD&D PC with 10 HP is successfully hit by a snake which has a SOD poison attack (pretty standard in AD&D) three times.  The PC has a 50/50 chance of making his save.  This character now dies 7/8 times or 87.5% of the time.  And the chances actually don't significantly change even if you double his chance of saving.  If he saves 75% of the time, he still dies 60% of the time in this scenario.
> 
> ...




What do you *expect* to happen when a venomous snake bites you *three* times? Frankly, if the venom is at all deadly, I'd expect to die. Yet, via the saving throws in the game, some PCs manage to survive certain death. What this indicates is a fundamental difference in expectations. Some of us seem to expect a little more verisimilitude in our game environments. Deadly creature in real life that kills you via methods other than simply battering you = deadly creature in game life that kills you via methods other than simply battering you. 

I'll grant that save or die may be a bad mechanic if you expect every challenge you might face to whittle you down via hit point ablation. But that's actually a terrible mechanic if you expect some effects to be able to bypass hit point ablation like charms, transformations, or stun settings on phasers and blaster rifles. There's no objective reason either makes for a better game - rather just better fits to certain types of expectations.




Hussar said:


> And let's be honest here, no DM worth his salt is going to bomb an elder wyrm red dragon on the party before they are ready to take it on.  Might as well declare "rocks fall everyone dies."




Well, let's not impugn people's DMing abilities because you think they're having badwrongfun. If the party is trekking through a wilderness known to be near an elder wyrm's lair, it stands to reason that dragon may be a (probably rare) random encounter. That would be entirely appropriate for a sandbox campaign. This, of course, doesn't mean all hope is necessarily lost since that encounter may be at enough distance for the PCs to hide under decent cover.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Getting hit three times succesfully is not a forgone concusion, particularly with a low hp creature like a snake. And even though 1E and 3E do let you go down to -10 for death (for 2E death is at 0 HP), you do start to die at -1 hp (so that probability also needs to be factored in). A 10 hp character has a pretty good chance of being knocked down to -1 hp after three succesful hits. Against a snake, a full party will most likely take it out before it has a chance for even a second attack (assumingit wins initiative).
> 
> Also, i am not disputing that SoD significantly raises the chance of death. That is what it is supposed to do. That is why I like it. I am just questioning the claim you made that it means one character dies nearly 100% of the time it is introduced (this will vary considerably dopending on party level, the characters and the encounter itself----in 2E, a 1st level priest has a death save of 10, but at 20th he has a 2). Also, as the party increases in level, their number of resources to del with such threats (particularly poison and petrification) go up considerably.




No, of course it's not a foregone conclusion.  Failing your saving throw isn't either.  However, you're also presuming a single snake vs an entire party.  This being AD&D, normal snakes appear in groups of 1-6.  

But, that's the point - it's rocket tag.  Either we kill the snake before it gets a chance to make some hits, or we almost guarantee a fatality.  Whereas with a normal monster, given the EXACT same setup, the chances of fatality are far, far less.

Put it another way.  Single hit is still about 50:50 PC death.  Single hit with a d8 weapon cannot even drop the PC into the negatives.  How's that for being overpowered?  Your PC's best chances of survival are 50:50.  

It's interesting though, that you bring up 2nd Edition D&D, in regards to poison.  Here's what the 2e PHB says about Poison:



			
				2e D&D PHB page 140 said:
			
		

> The strength of different poisons varies wildly and is frequently overestimated.  The bite of the greatly feared black widow spider kills a victim in the United States only once every other year.  Only about 2% of rattlesnake bites prove fatal.
> 
> At the other extreme, there are natural poisons of intense lethality.  Fortunately, such poisons tend to be exotic and rare...




Yet, according to the rules, any poisonous snake that bites a PC has about a 50/50 chance of instantly killing that PC.  The text doesn't match the rules.  Sure, while the priest might have a bit better chance of shrugging off poison, everyone else is worse than 50:50 until 9th (for fighters - everyone else is worse until well into double digit levels), so, in most parties, almost everyone has worse than a 50:50 chance of dying from any poison effect.

So, spread it out over time then if you don't like it in a single encounter.  Hit by three poison effects between 1st and 5th level and you're almost guaranteed (about 90%) of dying.  And you don't get neutralize poison until 7th.  

Oh, and against the medusa, no one gets better than 50:50 until the fighter at 9th level.  So, again, party of 4 PC's faces a medusa and the chance of PC fatality is very, very close to 100%.

See, this is why I don't buy the "oh, it's all a matter of personal preference" argument.  The math just doesn't work.  It doesn't do what proponents want it to do - ie. make combat more random - all it does is yank the chance of PC death way too high.

You'd get exactly the same effect by tripling the damage output of any monster.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

On IPhone so will leave the 2E issues for another time (since I can't look up the poison entry now). But the issue here is SOD not 2E poison rules and descriptions.

Hussar, I think these numbers are still pretty questionable. The only times you would confidently be able expect a 90- 99 percent chance of a party death is with a sod effect that targets the whole party and all their saves are around fifty-fifty. But like I said earlier, let us assume those numbers: a 90 percent chance or greater one party member dies and we don't know who it will be? Talk about a thrilling combat! That is exactly the kinds if stakes I hope to occasionally face in a campaign. This is entirely a matter of preference.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would think that a death ability that is pretty much the creature's definitional attack would be the first thing revealed under most circumstances. And there are DCs on the book, but a lot of wiggle room for DMs in how to interpret these things.




RAW is one factoid for success, and one more for every 5 you succeed by.  About the only wiggle room is which one to reveal first.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not really seeing how (in-game or out), you could tell a player the monster was a banshee (or Medusa, or whatever) without making them aware of its main ability. I think that falls under common sense for both parties. That's like knowing that if you see a dragon, you should watch out for a breath weapon, or knowing that vampires suck your blood.




Then why do we have knowledge skills to determine the monster's special abilities?  The PLAYER knows the enemy has petrification gaze and snakes for hair once we say "Medusa" if he has knowledge of greek mythology.  Of course, he would also know there is only one Medusa, and that her sisters the Gorgons have the same abilitied, and cannot be killed (and are not metal cows that breathe out a petrifying mist).  A Banshee by lore neither kills instantly with its keening nor attacks with a terrfifying negative energy touch.  It is a harbinger of death, not the cause of death, in folklore.  It seems like your "common sense" is more "all players and PC's have read the Monster Manual" than anything else.



Ahnehnois said:


> Once you know the enemy is a Medusa, you pretty much know not to look at it. And, many of these precautions/tactics are things that make sense even if you are not 100% sure what the enemy's abilities are. If it's a scary looking undead that doesn't move that fast, you don't need to know that it's a bodak to know that ranged combat might be a good idea.




How many of our group have ranks in Knowledge:  Nature?  You can't use it untrained for anything above DC 10, so not to ID monster abilities.  If the player rolls a '1', does that not mean that, regardless of whether he can recite the MM entry, word for word, the character remembers nothing about a Medusa?  I don't think you can have it both ways - either the Knowledge skill governs knowledge of monsters and their abilities (so it can be used to determine Monster X has a deadly SoD ability) or it does not.



Ahnehnois said:


> That I don't know, but by banshee levels, you should be able to teleport away or move faster than that. You should also have death ward or the equivalent in items, as it is now five levels lower than your max level spells. And possibly Foresight. Banshees have some impressive abilities, but they are hardly the greatest threat a 17th level party should be worried about.




Agreed - they are CR 13, IIRC, so they should be pretty much no threat at all.  Yet it seems they are, and they are because of that SoD mechanic.  

By your logic above, though, whenever our brave, bold L17 team sees a monster, we should all join hands and Teleport away (or we should all be fast enough to flee at better than 60', and should clearly do so).  Then we should upate our entire repertoire of spells so we are specifically defended against this one entity, at which time we return.  It, of course, will have done nothing in the interim.  And we always have a full day to retreat, review and revise our repertoire - never any time pressure, of course.



Ahnehnois said:


> D&D does count both Lovecraftian fiction and its games as significant influences.




D&D had been around quite a few years before there was a Call of Cthulhu game.  They did manage to get sued for including a Lovecraftian chapter in their first edition of Deities & Demigods, though.



billd91 said:


> What do you *expect* to happen when a venomous snake bites you *three* times? Frankly, if the venom is at all deadly, I'd expect to die. Yet, via the saving throws in the game, some PCs manage to survive certain death. What this indicates is a fundamental difference in expectations. Some of us seem to expect a little more verisimilitude in our game environments. Deadly creature in real life that kills you via methods other than simply battering you = deadly creature in game life that kills you via methods other than simply battering you.
> 
> I'll grant that save or die may be a bad mechanic if you expect every challenge you might face to whittle you down via hit point ablation. But that's actually a terrible mechanic if you expect some effects to be able to bypass hit point ablation like charms, transformations, or stun settings on phasers and blaster rifles. There's no objective reason either makes for a better game - rather just better fits to certain types of expectations.




I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic.  Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 15, 2013)

Depending on which Save you're calling for, we can take a really good guess as to who's going down.

Will Save?  Bye-bye fighters, and probably Rogues.

Reflex Save?  Rangers will make it, but Fighters, Wizards and clerics are going away.

Fort Saves?  Bet that those Wizards and Sorcerers wished they'd protected themselves better, eh?

There isn't any one Save that will be a 50/50 for every character, unless you have some very unlikely builds on the table.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

Hussar said:


> It's interesting though, that you bring up 2nd Edition D&D, in regards to poison.  Here's what the 2e PHB says about Poison:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Again it is a side issue, and i would prefer not to spend time away from other things to look stuff up and post it, but you ought to re-read the snake entries in the 2E monsters manual:

POISONOUS SNAKES
All poisonous snakes deliver toxins automatically through their bite. Roll on the table below (or choose) to determine what type of poison is present. 


Die    Modifier    Onset    Result of Failed
Roll    to Save    Time    Saving Throw*
1-4    +3    1-4 turns    Incapacitated for 2-8 days
5-6    +2    2-5 rounds    Death
7-11    +1    2-12 rounds    2-8 points of damage
12-14    None    1-6 rounds    3-12 points of damage
15-17    -1    2-8 rounds    Incapacitated for 1-4 days
18-19    -2    1-4 rounds    Incapacitated for 1-12 days
20    -3    1 round    Death

So this basically takes care of the isue of some snakes having deadlier venom than others. Some of these only incapacitate or do just 2d4 damage. Only two are death.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 15, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> But like I said earlier, let us assume those numbers: a 90 percent chance or greater one party member dies and we don't know who it will be? Talk about a thrilling combat! That is exactly the kinds if stakes I hope to occasionally face in a campaign. This is entirely a matter of preference.




I think, in this, we thus prove the only point that can be proved on the notion - there's no one style that suits all people.

Me, I'd not think of that as a "thrilling combat".  Thrilling combat comes from an interesting and tense give-and-take between the combatants.  Like having a sporting contest in which good players on both sides keep the score close to a tie until the last playing period - that's thrilling to me.  Adding, "And we'll kill one of the players - you don't know which one!" doesn't add to it.  Tension comes from events we can at least attempt to influence. Mostly forgone conclusions, in and of themselves, are not interesting.  

Dealing with the consequences may be interesting.  But, "I'm going to kill a character so we get to see how they respomd," seems a pretty storngarm way to influence the drama.  Shocking people just for the sake of shocking them is a tool, but one often used unwisely.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I think, in this, we thus prove the only point that can be proved on the notion - there's no one style that suits all people.
> 
> Me, I'd not think of that as a "thrilling combat".  Thrilling combat comes from an interesting and tense give-and-take between the combatants.  Like having a sporting contest in which good players on both sides keep the score close to a tie until the last playing period - that's thrilling to me.  Adding, "And we'll kill one of the players - you don't know which one!" doesn't add to it.  Tension comes from events we can at least attempt to influence. Mostly forgone conclusions, in and of themselves, are not interesting.
> 
> Dealing with the consequences may be interesting.  But, "I'm going to kill a character so we get to see how they respomd," seems a pretty storngarm way to influence the drama.  Shocking people just for the sake of shocking them is a tool, but one often used unwisely.




Sure this probably where a good many people are. My point isn't to disuade folks who dislike SOD that it is good. Only to point out there are those of us out there who find this kind of combat very enjoyable. Just want to clarify though, I find it more exciting for the most part when the GM adds in these sorts of things randomly not simply deciding to throw an encounter at the party that will kill one member (and again as I stated, I think that is far from certain with most of these, but once in a while a SoD beast that has a good chance of killing a single member of the party really keeps my interest and makes the game more exciting for me). This is one reason I am a huge fan of random encounters and random encounter subtables. 

But your mileage may vary, and I have no expectation that my preference here is shared, or even that SoD will end up in 5E (I think a dial so people can scale it would be handy). Should SoD make it into the next iteration of D&D? Maybe, maybe not. I do hope though that the designers understand some of us really enjoy them, and that the precise numbers of how they play out can be tweaked to make them less lethal overall if that is an enormous concern (much of this depends on saves of course). I was just disputing the claim someone made that SOD are objectively bad design.

In terms of what encounters people find exciting, that is all preference. Your preference for something more like an evenly matched sporting event is entirely valid. I can see why some like that. To me it gets a bit boring and predictable if combats tend to always play out that way. But everyone has their own feeling about what makes for an exciting night of fighting in D&D. I guess for me, long drawn-out evenly split matches can be really exciting, but only if they are more on the rare side. It is a bit like boxing for me. Epic battles between two truly well matched opponents can be a treat, but so can first or second round knock outs if they are spectacular. I think what really keeps things fun is variety. I guess for me, risk is a huge part of thrilling combat as well. If one of our players got turned to dust by a terrifying monster last adventure, that really hammers home for me the danger and helps keep me on my toes and my blood pumping next time we face threats.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 15, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Just want to clarify though, I find it more exciting for the most part when the GM adds in these sorts of things randomly not simply deciding to throw an encounter at the party that will kill one member




To me, rather than being opposed, those are pretty synonymous.  

But, really, I'd rather it be a choice by the GM for its impact rather than devotion to a table.  "Hm, the table says I should kill someone today?  Okay!"  Tables don't know from dramatic pacing.



> To me it gets a bit boring and predictable if combats tend to always play out that way.




Well, it doesn't always play out that way.  I was merely talking about that which is thrilling.  It then follows that I don't expect (or want) all combats to be thrilling.  However you evoke it, adrenaline is a limited resource, and should be invoked sparingly, or it loses it's punch.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 15, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic.  Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.




I certainly only used snakes because Hussar did in his example. I would suggest not reading too much into it vis a vis 3e poisons. That said, I think the shift to ability damage was a pretty good one for things like natural venoms which often aren't instantly deadly (though again, 3 bites from a deadly venom and I'm still expecting to die whether it's because I simply died outright or suffered enough Con damage in those 3 doses of venom to expire). The model had, in my opinion, become better in 3e and still had the advantage of not directly involving the ablation of hit points to cause the target of the venom problems. 

However, I still stand by my statement that hit point ablation is a terrible mechanic for adjudicating effects that reasonably bypass beating the target into submission. In those cases, I prefer a hit point bypass mechanic whether it's turning a creature to stone, conquering its will, knocking it unconscious (the old stun blast thing in Star Trek or Star Wars), or killing it outright.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

Umbran said:


> To me, rather than being opposed, those are pretty synonymous.
> 
> But, really, I'd rather it be a choice by the GM for its impact rather than devotion to a table.  "Hm, the table says I should kill someone today?  Okay!"  Tables don't know from dramatic pacing
> 
> .




That is fair, and I think this just points to how different preferences are. I really like the unexpected aspect of random encounter tables and am not so worried about dramatic pacing (I just want excitement and to be suprised by an evening of play).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic.  Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.




Look at the snake entries and the full poison entry in the 2E Monstrous Manual and DMG. There were different varieties of poison with different effects and only a couple of kinds of snake venom killed you on a failed save.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

N'raac said:


> RAW is one factoid for success, and one more for every 5 you succeed by.  About the only wiggle room is which one to reveal first.



I'm not sure about that. Here's the RAW:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters *and* their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.



The way I read this, a successful check identifies the monster *and* tells you a bit of useful information. For example, if a character made a successful knowledge check against the base DC for a Medusa, I would tell them that "this is a medusa, a foul and malicious creature with snakes for hair that hates other living things and surrounds herself with a menagerie of petrified creatures of all sorts *and* the snakes are poisonous and the poison drains the life out of you". i.e. you would get the basics about the monster, plus something (per the RAW) "special", meaning not obvious and not revealed as part of identifying the monster. Frankly, any other approach seems extremely harsh, given the basic DCs for other uses of the Knowledge skill:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).



The scale only goes as high as 30. Knowing that a bodak has a death gaze is not a really tough question.

That being said, I base the Knowledge DC and results on context and don't use those rules, because they make no sense (how easy it is to know something about a creature has nothing to do with how tough it is, IMO, only how commonly known it is).

In any case, I think most parties should be able to tell that a Medusa can turn them to stone by the time they face one.



> It seems like your "common sense" is more "all players and PC's have read the Monster Manual" than anything else.



No, it means that not all knowledge is covered by Knowledge skills. I think most anyone living in a D&D world knows that red dragons are evil and breathe fire, regardless of their Knowledge ranks. I also think that most anyone knows that you shouldn't touch a cockatrice, or that you need silver to kill a werewolf. It's on the same level as knowing that snakes are sometimes poisonous or that cats hunt mice and purr. Those creatures exist in this world. These sorts of things are either DC 10 Knowledge checks or simply assumed. The monster identification rules are a supplement, to tell you things that are not common knowledge like which monsters have SR or which elements a bodak is resistant to.



> By your logic above, though, whenever our brave, bold L17 team sees a monster, we should all join hands and Teleport away (or we should all be fast enough to flee at better than 60', and should clearly do so).  Then we should upate our entire repertoire of spells so we are specifically defended against this one entity, at which time we return.  It, of course, will have done nothing in the interim.  And we always have a full day to retreat, review and revise our repertoire - never any time pressure, of course.



Well, that's what they should do if they aren't already ready to kill the monster. More than likely they should have death ward on hand. Or maybe they can just sneak a cleric in and have him turn it. Or they could just leave and let it go, depending on the scenario. But yes, that's pretty much how high level D&D works: face things on your terms if at all. If the banshee is smart, it will have moved on.



> I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic.  Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.



I think it was more a question of filling new design space. I would guess that they came up with the concept of ability damage first, and then asked "hey what are some things that should cause ability damage?" and then saw that poison was a candidate. In any case, it's not an SoD per se, but it can in some cases disable or kill the character independent of hp.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> They had divinations before 3e, didn't they? They had talking to people and finding out what the threats are in the area in advance?



Both of those get whatever information the DM feels like giving you. They fall into the "blag the DM" bucket.



Ahnehnois said:


> But again, limitations of pre-3e rules are significant, but 3e gives us the important perception and stealth skills and a number of spells and special abilities that help you see what's coming.



All of which are by "DM discretion", again. In other words, you can try it, but whether that factors into your chances of getting hit by an SoD monster really depends on the DM far more than it depends on your decisions. The actual rules are silent on the subject.



Ahnehnois said:


> Again, 3e has knowledge skills to explicitly deal with this, while 2e had some NWPs that were more limited, as I recall.



And, as [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] pointed out, they rely on DM discretion again. You're not paying for good bacon; you're buying a pig in a poke.



Ahnehnois said:


> Well, I've covered surprise and anticipation enough, so there's rules for that, but yes there are also explicit rules for countering. What do you think Death Ward is? That predates 3e. There's also other spells and items that give you save bonuses or more qualified immunities. If it's a gaze attack (Medusa) there's also the whole averting your eyes business. With an enemy spellcaster, there's counterspelling and disruption. If we're including "save or suck" abilities, many of those are subject to dispel and break enchantment.



Yes, I'll grant you that there are some countermeasures against some specific effects, which are fine if you are going up against those specific effects and you know in advance that that's what you're going to do. To ensure that these are always the case, however, demands mindbendingly tedious (to me and those I game with) play such as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] refers to.



Ahnehnois said:


> Perhaps you missed the whole debate in some other thread recently (blanking on which one) about whether characters know how many hp they have and whether that counts as metagaming. But yes, that is a (very basic) application of skill.



As I recall I was part of the discussion, but  I hardly think that is relevant, here. Any actual choices being made will necessarily come from the player, not the character, as they are the only one of the two with a real mind, ergo the "skill" we're talking about here must be the player's, not the character's.



Ahnehnois said:


> Don't be silly. There's a cantrip specifically for opening and closing doors at a distance. There's summoning garbage monsters to go ahead for you. There's perception skills and clairvoyance and other such divinations to help you see what's waiting for you. Dungeons do present an unusual set of circumstances, but you still shouldn't be just barging into a room with no idea what's going on, and people who play in dungeons ought to know how to deal with threats in confined spaces. And if, for any reason, a powerful opponent gets within 30 ft. of you without you knowing anything about it, you're in deep trouble whether it has an SoD or not.



This just harks back to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s point; if getting within 30' of a monster without having it scoped and planned for is a problem, the characters never get past level 1, since their only "reasonable" option is to stay in town and get a job.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not sure about that. Here's the RAW:




Here's the complete RAW, which I posted a couple of pages back, again.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.
> 
> For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.






Ahnehnois said:


> The way I read this, a successful check identifies the monster *and* tells you a bit of useful information. For example, if a character made a successful knowledge check against the base DC for a Medusa, I would tell them that "this is a medusa, a foul and malicious creature with snakes for hair that hates other living things and surrounds herself with a menagerie of petrified creatures of all sorts *and* the snakes are poisonous and the poison drains the life out of you". i.e. you would get the basics about the monster, plus something (per the RAW) "special", meaning not obvious and not revealed as part of identifying the monster. Frankly, any other approach seems extremely harsh, given the basic DCs for other uses of the Knowledge skill:
> The scale only goes as high as 30. Knowing that a bodak has a death gaze is not a really tough question.




I read it as it is written.  A successful check gets you the identity of the monster, and one useful fact, not a complete descrption of the  monster's abilities plus more.  That is what the rules say.



Ahnehnois said:


> That being said, I base the Knowledge DC and results on context and don't use those rules, because they make no sense (how easy it is to know something about a creature has nothing to do with how tough it is, IMO, only how commonly known it is).




So it works as long as we don't actually follow the rules.  If Medusas are commonplace, then we should have a lot less towns and a lot more statues.



Ahnehnois said:


> No, it means that not all knowledge is covered by Knowledge skills. I think most anyone living in a D&D world knows that red dragons are evil and breathe fire, regardless of their Knowledge ranks. I also think that most anyone knows that you shouldn't touch a cockatrice, or that you need silver to kill a werewolf. It's on the same level as knowing that snakes are sometimes poisonous or that cats hunt mice and purr. Those creatures exist in this world. These sorts of things are either DC 10 Knowledge checks or simply assumed. The monster identification rules are a supplement, to tell you things that are not common knowledge like which monsters have SR or which elements a bodak is resistant to.




So what makes these things "common knowledge"?  Every peasant has a Monster Manual to read up on these things?



Ahnehnois said:


> Well, that's what they should do if they aren't already ready to kill the monster. More than likely they should have death ward on hand. Or maybe they can just sneak a cleric in and have him turn it. Or they could just leave and let it go, depending on the scenario. But yes, that's pretty much how high level D&D works: face things on your terms if at all. If the banshee is smart, it will have moved on.




So "flee and come back loaded for this one specific monster, if it hasn't moved on" is heroic fantasy?  My preference clearly is not similar to your own.  I'm back to "the only prudent choice is to stay in town and earn a  much safer living".



Ahnehnois said:


> I think it was more a question of filling new design space. I would guess that they came up with the concept of ability damage first, and then asked "hey what are some things that should cause ability damage?" and then saw that poison was a candidate. In any case, it's not an SoD per se, but it can in some cases disable or kill the character independent of hp.




We can certainly speculate.  I think it was more a case of "well, we have all these different poison suggestions, but everyone uses only 'save or drop dead'.  We need a new mechanic."


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Both of those get whatever information the DM feels like giving you. They fall into the "blag the DM" bucket.
> 
> All of which are by "DM discretion", again. In other words, you can try it, but whether that factors into your chances of getting hit by an SoD monster really depends on the DM far more than it depends on your decisions. The actual rules are silent on the subject.



So...circumstances outside of the character's control are decided by the DM? Okay. That's pretty much how this game works.



> Yes, I'll grant you that there are some countermeasures against some specific effects, which are fine if you are going up against those specific effects and you know in advance that that's what you're going to do. To ensure that these are always the case, however, demands mindbendingly tedious (to me and those I game with) play such as @Umbran refers to.



Can't say I ever saw that happen, so clearly, it isn't "demanded". IME, players usually prepare their characters for combat before entering combat. We're not talking about some intricate series of highly specific abilities, we're talking about a couple of spells (Death Ward, Dispel, Break Enchantment) that are available to multiple classes and are common and rational choices when they become available and are available in scroll form. We're also talking about averting one's eyes (bodak, Medusa) or simply avoiding being touched (cockatrice), which does not exactly drag the game to a halt.

You can't get killed by a Medusa or a bodak or a basilisk unless you look at it and are within point blank range (30 ft.). That's a pretty easy counter. Given the overall weakness of those enemies of those enemies, simply fighting blind is potentially a viable option.



> This just harks back to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s point; if getting within 30' of a monster without having it scoped and planned for is a problem, the characters never get past level 1, since their only "reasonable" option is to stay in town and get a job.



Given that (under the 3.5 DMG guidelines), an average of 13.3 characters or equivalent monsters must be defeated in combat for a group of four characters to gain a level (and most of those 13 are likely dead), I'd say that staying in town and getting a job is an entirely rational decision. Adventuring is not safe! It's a bloodbath out there! The point of the rules is not to make it seem that going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters is a reasonable career choice.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 15, 2013)

Balesir said:


> They fall into the "blag the DM" bucket.




Can you drop this phrasing? Not all of us are from Yorkshire and know what "blag the DM" means. Is it really that difficult for you to just say divinations, etc. rely on DM fiat?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I read it as it is written.  A successful check gets you the identity of the monster, and one useful fact, not a complete descrption of the  monster's abilities plus more.  That is what the rules say.



The identity of a werewolf includes shapeshifting. The identity of a magmin includes setting things on fire. The identity of a basilisk includes turning things to stone. Are you saying that the "identity" refers to a creature's name and tells you absolutely nothing else about it?



> So it works as long as we don't actually follow the rules.



According to the rules, the highest DC is 30 for really tough questions. That means if I'm a player and I roll a 30 on a Knowledge check with the right skill for a monster, I expect to learn every piece of information that could be meaningful to me, even regarding the most unusual monster that I have no reason to know about.


> If Medusas are commonplace, then we should have a lot less towns and a lot more statues.



Are you suggesting the converse? That in a world where "Medusa" is a race, not an individual (and is real, not a part of some mythology), that their identity is a mystery to anyone who can't make a DC 17 trained Knowledge check? And that someone who can only learns about the obvious petrification ability if the DM decides to let that be the "useful bit" of Knowledge?

Are you suggesting that a trained adventurer, having slain a hundred monsters or so to reach level 7 and traveled the world and had great adventures, could see a Medusa in the distance, clearly identify its scaly skin and snaky hair, rolls a 16 on the appropriate Knowledge check, and turns to his compatriots and says "Hey, what's that thing?" The implications of what you're suggesting are that everyone in a D&D world is astonishingly stupid.

In that case, the players aren't getting screwed by the SoD!



> So what makes these things "common knowledge"?  Every peasant has a Monster Manual to read up on these things?



They don't need one. The monsters in the MM exist when the players are not fighting them. They communicate (in some cases anyway). People interact with them, fight them. Then those people communicate. I should think that if, say, basilisks live in a particular area, a DC 10 to 15 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info should tell you "hey, watch out for those lizards with the petrifying gaze!". Seeing a field of statues should allow a DC 15 or so Knowledge (Arcana) check to know that a monster with a petrifying ability is probably nearby. The monster identification rules are a backup in case that kind of stuff does not work.



> So "flee and come back loaded for this one specific monster, if it hasn't moved on" is heroic fantasy?  My preference clearly is not similar to your own.  I'm back to "the only prudent choice is to stay in town and earn a  much safer living".



That's kind of a natural consequence of high-level D&D play. If you want to avoid that dynamic, you have to create situations (teleport blocking, time limited goals, etc.) that force characters not to do that.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> So...circumstances outside of the character's control are decided by the DM? Okay. That's pretty much how this game works.



Well, I generally prefer it if most of the "character interface" ones are decided by the rules, because otherwise the "system" to be gamed becomes the GM.



Ahnehnois said:


> You can't get killed by a Medusa or a bodak or a basilisk unless you look at it and are within point blank range (30 ft.). That's a pretty easy counter. Given the overall weakness of those enemies of those enemies, simply fighting blind is potentially a viable option.



Not in most games I've played. The medusa - sure, you need to look at it. The bodak and basilisk are different, though - they need to see you, not the other way around. This is what makes basilisks far more dangerous than medusae - especially if they get surprise.



Ahnehnois said:


> Given that (under the 3.5 DMG guidelines), an average of 13.3 characters or equivalent monsters must be defeated in combat for a group of four characters to gain a level (and most of those 13 are likely dead), I'd say that staying in town and getting a job is an entirely rational decision. Adventuring is not safe! It's a bloodbath out there! The point of the rules is not to make it seem that going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters is a reasonable career choice.



This now gets circular - yes, sure, it's dangerous, but there is a difference between "dangerous that good tactics and a modicum of forethought will overcome" and "dangerous that is down to dumb luck (absent some sort of obsessive planfest)".



Jacob Marley said:


> Can you drop this phrasing? Not all of us are from Yorkshire and know what "blag the DM" means. Is it really that difficult for you to just say divinations, etc. rely on DM fiat?



Oh, sorry - though I'm pretty sure it's far from confined to Yorkshire - I'll explain and try to use a different word in future:

If I see a friend of mine in the pub and "blag" a beer off him, it means I used some technique - ranging from friendly persuasion and/or promises to outright confidence trickery - to get him to buy me a beer. Much the same sort of thing is often tried on GMs. Is the word really that unknown? I had no idea.



Ahnehnois said:


> Are you suggesting the converse? That in a world where "Medusa" is a race, not an individual (and is real, not a part of some mythology), that their identity is a mystery to anyone who can't make a DC 17 trained Knowledge check? And that someone who can only learns about the obvious petrification ability if the DM decides to let that be the "useful bit" of Knowledge?



I think N'raac's point is that *the rules of the game* are actually suggesting that.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 15, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> The point of the rules is not to make it seem that going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters is a reasonable career choice.




True.  The point of the rules is to give the players an enjoyable play experience.  This, of course, is subjective:

For some players, that may mean making going on dangerous quests in a world full of monsters into a reasonable career choice - at least for PCs.

For some players, it means the opposite.  But, to be honest, it cannot be *too* unreasonable - there's a limit where death is too common to make the game fun.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Not in most games I've played. The medusa - sure, you need to look at it. The bodak and basilisk are different, though - they need to see you, not the other way around. This is what makes basilisks far more dangerous than medusae - especially if they get surprise.



That is not how gaze attacks work. Link. Anything that disrupts vision either provides a miss chance or avoids the effect, depending on how badly vision is compromised. Averting one's eyes, smoke clouds, darkness, etc. In pitch black you cannot be affected by a gaze (unless you have Darkvision). This is true for bodaks and basilisks, but is particularly important for the former as they are allergic to sunlight; a bodak is only dangerous given starlight or torchlight.

All of this is 3e; I suspect the answer is similar for earlier versions but don't know.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 15, 2013)

Jacob Marley said:


> Can you drop this phrasing? Not all of us are from Yorkshire and know what "blag the DM" means. Is it really that difficult for you to just say divinations, etc. rely on DM fiat?



Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.

But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat".  The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game).  The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Umbran said:


> But, to be honest, it cannot be *too* unreasonable - there's a limit where death is too common to make the game fun.



Of course. I'm certainly not trying to state the contrary (that arbitrarily high lethality is desirable). Only that a particular subclass of abilities that contribute to that level of lethalty are, to reference the thread title, within the limits of "ethical" gaming.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 15, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.
> 
> But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat".  The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game).  The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.



Right - or, perhaps more commonly in RPGs, taking a situation where no rules exist and finagling things such that the new rules the GM invents on the spot (as they are obliged and empowered to do) suit your purposes.



Ahnehnois said:


> Of course. I'm certainly not trying to state the contrary (that arbitrarily high lethality is desirable). Only that a particular subclass of abilities that contribute to that level of lethalty are, to reference the thread title, within the limits of "ethical" gaming.



That wasn't where the discussion with me came from - indeed, it's a bit of a diversion from the original thread topic - because if it was we would have no difference of opinion, here.

My original post made it quite clear (I thought) that I don't regard SoD as "unethical", or even as undesirable, in itself. I just don't think it fits well in a game of D&D, given the type of game that I come to D&D for. You then claimed that the D&D SoD don't count/aren't what I meant/somehow get a pass - specifically for 3e D&D, as far as I can make out - so SoD in D&D must be OK. My position is that you haven't convinced me one whit away from my original opinion - which was that I don't particularly like SoD in D&D because I think it clashes with what the rest of the game offers to me. Others, obviously, may differ.

For other games - which don't have other D&D mechanisms such as hit points and classes and levels - SoD-type instances can work just fine.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 15, 2013)

Balesir said:


> My original post made it quite clear (I thought) that I don't regard SoD as "unethical", or even as undesirable, in itself. I just don't think it fits well in a game of D&D, given the type of game that I come to D&D for. You then claimed that the D&D SoD don't count/aren't what I meant/somehow get a pass - specifically for 3e D&D, as far as I can make out - so SoD in D&D must be OK.



AFAICT, what you were doing (or extending from other posters) is evaluating SoD in a thought experiment (one in which the characters are easily exposed to it and unable to counter it), rather than in a reasonable example of play, thus distorting its impact on the game.



> My position is that you haven't convinced me one whit away from my original opinion - which was that I don't particularly like SoD in D&D because I think it clashes with what the rest of the game offers to me.



I don't know that it clashes that much with the overall level of lethality in D&D (3e and earlier). A wizard can easily be dropped to negatives and potentially killed by even mediocre opponents for several levels. A high damage character can kill opponents in one swing (let alone one round) through most of the game. Many of the SoD monsters are D&D classics. If you're saying it doesn't fit in 4e, that's probably true, or with your own experiences and preferences, which is fair enough. I can certainly imagine someone not liking, and even being downright averse to it.



> For other games - which don't have other D&D mechanisms such as hit points and classes and levels - SoD-type instances can work just fine.



Okay.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.
> 
> But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat".  The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game).  The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.




Thanks for the clarification!

As for knowing the GM's trends, well, that almost never hurts.  There are guys in my group who, when they GM, I don't invest much in all those Familiar/Animal Companion/Paladin Mount/etc. combst tricks, because that is the quickest path to getting that critter killed.  For some of them, I won't even play a PC that has one.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 16, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My own experience here fits with what Umbran says. A system that makes information, and similar strategic considerations, the key to success in action resolution, can very easily lead to a playstyle in which play bogs down into divination, and then using the right suite of buffs to make the actual encounter a cakewalk. I have encountered this particularly in high level (ie level 10+) Rolemaster.




This is why I make sure my dungeon design incorporates information into its room structure as a matter of course.  In order to gain information about the dungeon you must explore the dungeon.  In that way, the game isn't bogging down into divination/information gathering - you simply explore the dungeon (that is, play the game) and learn about it.  

I guess it's similar to a "3 clue rule" - if there's something deadly in the dungeon, provide some clues about it.  The more dangerous, the more clues you should provide.  If there's a banshee but she's not automatically hostile you might only need one clue; if she is, then you probably need more.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> 3 bites from a deadly venom and I'm still expecting to die



This is the bit that, if I understand him right, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is querying (and also [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]?).

If I am a high level fighter I can take a "hit" from a fire giant and survive. However, given that even as a high level fighter I remain a mortal hero, a literal hit from a fire giant would kill me. It follows, therefore, that a "hit" from a fire giant isn't in the literal sense a hit - it is a blow that I narrowly dodge, or that send me flying rather than cutting me in two, or something similar (as per Gygax's essays on hit points).

Parallel logic suggests that 3 "hits" from a poisonous snake aren't literally bites that inject venom. Yet, by the rules, each requires me to make a poison save or die. _That_ is the perceived inconsistency of SoD poison with the broader attack and damage mechanics - SoD poison implies that snakes and spiders pose a type of threat, or attack with a degree of accuracy, that fire giants lack. Which makes little sense within the fiction.

I would add - even if you regard hit points as meat, the oddity remains, because hit points are a type of meat that can survive being peppered by arrows or cut in two by a giant, but that can't survive a bite from a snake or spider. Very fickle meat!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> I guess it's similar to a "3 clue rule" - if there's something deadly in the dungeon, provide some clues about it.  The more dangerous, the more clues you should provide.  If there's a banshee but she's not automatically hostile you might only need one clue; if she is, then you probably need more.




"Aye, there's a bodak in there alright, matey!  And nobody who goes in ever comes out!"
"Right.  So how do you know it's a bodak, if nobody's come back to tell you?"
"Err... "


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> "Aye, there's a bodak in there alright, matey!  And nobody who goes in ever comes out!"
> "Right.  So how do you know it's a bodak, if nobody's come back to tell you?"
> "Err... "




Bodaks are difficult because they don't leave corpses and don't produce that Unnatural Aura that some undead have (so canaries are of no use).  But there should be something we can use!  The first thing that springs to mind is a peephole covered by a painting that looks into the bodak's lair.  So you do the regular D&D thing - explore the room - and find out, crap, bodak.

Actually the bodak would leave corpses, just as long as they aren't humanoid.  Though there wouldn't be any information about its method of death, other than being punched to death.  You could put some other monsters (not necessarily hostile ones) in the dungeon - like a gargoyle - who has seen the bodak, and the two avoid each other.

There are probably other things you could do.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 16, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Oh, sorry - though I'm pretty sure it's far from confined to Yorkshire - I'll explain and try to use a different word in future:
> 
> If I see a friend of mine in the pub and "blag" a beer off him, it means I used some technique - ranging from friendly persuasion and/or promises to outright confidence trickery - to get him to buy me a beer. Much the same sort of thing is often tried on GMs. Is the word really that unknown? I had no idea.






Umbran said:


> Admittedly, it isn't common US slang.
> 
> But note that it doesn't mean "divinations" or "rely on DM fiat".  The closest normal English phrase would be to "play the GM" (as opposed to playing the game).  The GM will have patterns, things he or she likes or dislikes - blagging the GM would be knowing the GM's foibles, and using the player's real-world charisma to finagle getting what they wanted, whether or not it should really happen by the rules of the game.






Balesir said:


> Right - or, perhaps more commonly in RPGs, taking a situation where no rules exist and finagling things such that the new rules the GM invents on the spot (as they are obliged and empowered to do) suit your purposes.




Thanks. That's a word I haven't heard before here in Minnesota. Or on other message boards, for that matter!


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This is the bit that, if I understand him right, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is querying (and also [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]?).
> 
> If I am a high level fighter I can take a "hit" from a fire giant and survive. However, given that even as a high level fighter I remain a mortal hero, a literal hit from a fire giant would kill me. It follows, therefore, that a "hit" from a fire giant isn't in the literal sense a hit - it is a blow that I narrowly dodge, or that send me flying rather than cutting me in two, or something similar (as per Gygax's essays on hit points).
> 
> ...




It's suggests your thinking is narrowed to just hit point ablation already, rather than accepting the possibility that the venom (or other save or die attack form) may have a different effect on the body than the physical trauma of being struck or at least physically attacked. What about a neurotoxins and cardiotoxins that may interfere with internal organs and cause respiratory paralysis or heart failure? Frankly, I think those effects *should* be modeled in a different way from impact injuries.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Frankly, I think those effects *should* be modeled in a different way from impact injuries.




That's as may be.  But there's a bit of genre consistency to be aware of.  We are talking about people who can eventually fall 100 feet without protection, and get up and walk away.  And not as a fluke, but can do so regularly.  The issue isn't how the impact injury is modeled, but of the type of genre that modelling implies.  These are not people who should be killed by run of the mill rattlesnakes.  These are more like old west heroes, so tough and leathery and just plain ornery that if a rattlesnake bites them, it's the snake that dies!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 16, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I think that's a very big ask for a given set of RPG rules, unless you are going to deal with the issue via supplementing a basically gritty ruleset with GM fudging, or player "fudging" using Fate Points etc.



I would think that rolls resulting in PC death (SoD or otherwise) are one of the most frequent situations where "DM cheating" is employed, which despite the name is an entirely legitimate DM tool. Nothing wrong with optional action points (or other mechanics that help evade death) either.



> I also don't really see how you think that a GM is going to "pick a level of challenge that is appropriate" while eschewing the notion of "balanced" encounters. Once we have the notion of a spectrum of degrees of challenge, on which the GM is to find the appropriate point for his/her game, we also have the notion of a "balanced" encounter, namely one whose degree of challenges fits with some designated "balance point".



Each encounter is different. If the DM is trying to scare the PCs, one level of challenge is appropriate. If the DM is trying to kill them, another. If the DM is trying to reward them for reaching a certain goal with a fluff battle, the appropriate challenge is again different.

If the DM is running a true sandbox style game, then the level of the PCs is irrelevant and they simply find whatever is in a given environment.

So, figuring out the point at which an average party will use 20% of their resources is one thing (and again, one thing that is virtually impossible to do well). Figuring out what level of challenge is appropriate for what the DM is trying to do is a lot more than a simple table of recommended ELs.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that, in all the Great Snake Debate, no one has mentioned the change from 2e to 3e where poison stopped being SoD and went to the new Ability Damage mechanic. Clearly, someone decided that the SoD was excessive, whether for comparison to real world poisons or for game design reasons.




Actually, I mentioned this several times, but was told that just because the game designers decided that SoD was perhaps a bad mechanic for this, doesn't mean anything.  Go figure.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> That's as may be.  But there's a bit of genre consistency to be aware of.  We are talking about people who can eventually fall 100 feet without protection, and get up and walk away.  And not as a fluke, but can do so regularly.  The issue isn't how the impact injury is modeled, but of the type of genre that modelling implies.  These are not people who should be killed by run of the mill rattlesnakes.  These are more like old west heroes, so tough and leathery and just plain ornery that if a rattlesnake bites them, it's the snake that dies!




I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel? That's a quirky artifact of the way hit point ablation has been designed to keep more advanced PCs in the game and a solution is out there - the massive damage rule. 

But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes? They're comparatively non-deadly aside from necrosis. Would a king cobra die if it was the one who bit Conan? Or an inland taipan? Or would being envenomed by one be an ordeal he had to grit through, perhaps with the help of spirits summoned by Akiro? I think the idea of a snake being the one who dies is a bit of a caricature even for fantasy - unless that fantasy involves either Chuck Norris or Vin Diesel.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> It's suggests your thinking is narrowed to just hit point ablation already, rather than accepting the possibility that the venom (or other save or die attack form) may have a different effect on the body than the physical trauma of being struck or at least physically attacked. What about a neurotoxins and cardiotoxins that may interfere with internal organs and cause respiratory paralysis or heart failure? Frankly, I think those effects *should* be modeled in a different way from impact injuries.



But, again, that misses the point; hit points don't "model" impact injuries. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, the fighter couldn't literally survive a direct hit from a Fire Giant's sword (or even a direct, unimpeded 100' fall) - the giant's blow narrowly misses (or at least glances off), the fall is broken by bushes, awnings, scree slopes or whatever is situationally appropriate.

Or, alternatively, the fighter is so supernaturally tough that surviving deadly poison should be a walk in the park.


billd91 said:


> I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel? That's a quirky artifact of the way hit point ablation has been designed to keep more advanced PCs in the game and a solution is out there - the massive damage rule.



The genre is the genre of D&D. It was *inspired by* Conan, Lankhmar and the Dying Earth, _et al_, but the very fact that it mixes sources should tell us that it's not meant to precisely "model" any one of them.



billd91 said:


> But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes? They're comparatively non-deadly aside from necrosis. Would a king cobra die if it was the one who bit Conan? Or an inland taipan? Or would being envenomed by one be an ordeal he had to grit through, perhaps with the help of spirits summoned by Akiro? I think the idea of a snake being the one who dies is a bit of a caricature even for fantasy - unless that fantasy involves either Chuck Norris or Vin Diesel.



That would depend entirely on what the author wants. If the author wants a character to bathe in and drink deadly venom while healing a variety of open wounds and survive, they can do that. That's one of the ways that written stories are different from RPGs.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Or, alternatively, the fighter is so supernaturally tough that surviving deadly poison should be a walk in the park.




Except that doesn't necessarily logically follow. Why should I expect someone who can take a giant's blow to be immune to the effects of venoms and how they effect things like the chemical interactions between neurons? 



Balesir said:


> The genre is the genre of D&D. It was *inspired by* Conan, Lankhmar and the Dying Earth, _et al_, but the very fact that it mixes sources should tell us that it's not meant to precisely "model" any one of them.




Every time someone says D&D is its own genre I think the reasoning behind that runs along the ragged edge of tautological. Why is jumping off a 100' cliff and walking away D&D genre? Because you can do it in D&D. Why is D&D a separate genre from fantasy? Because you can jump off 100' cliffs and walk away. 

D&D is definitely fantasy, it's not merely inspired by it. It just doesn't fit any single author's view of fantasy... something common to most authors of fantasy themselves. So unless we're all talking about Howard genre, Lieber genre, Tolkien genre, and Vance genre, I don't really see much point to being that specific over D&D.



Balesir said:


> That would depend entirely on what the author wants. If the author wants a character to bathe in and drink deadly venom while healing a variety of open wounds and survive, they can do that. That's one of the ways that written stories are different from RPGs.




But what author actually does that? Do you know of any other than people writing one or two-liners about Chuck Norris badassery? I can think of toxins being transformed by Bene Gesserit in Dune, but they're also described as having powers that border on quasi-psionic. But even that is described as an ordeal, not just something people casually do because they're tough.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Except that doesn't necessarily logically follow. Why should I expect someone who can take a giant's blow to be immune to the effects of venoms and how they effect things like the chemical interactions between neurons?



It doesn't 'logically follow' (whatever that means in this rarefied zone) to suggest that such a character even _has_ neurons! If you're adopting the "I'm tough enough to take a blow from a giant's club full in the face and walk away", how does having neurons even enter the picture??

That's the point [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (I think) and I are trying to make, here - either the inconsistency comes from assuming that 'poison' hits hit every single time where others (giants' clubs/axes) do not, or it comes from assuming creatures alien enough to survive fatal injuries are delicate flowers with neurons and such when faced with poison. Either way it's inconsistent.



billd91 said:


> Every time someone says D&D is its own genre I think the reasoning behind that runs along the ragged edge of tautological. Why is jumping off a 100' cliff and walking away D&D genre? Because you can do it in D&D. Why is D&D a separate genre from fantasy? Because you can jump off 100' cliffs and walk away.



How does a new genre get created? At first it's just a "quirky" take on another, most likely. Gradually, over time, it adds more and more of its own tropes and develops its own style. Taken in the round, I'm pretty sure that's something D&D has done over the last 40 years. Falling off 100' cliffs is one element, but 'Gorgons' that are poison gas breathing bulls, banshees that kill with their wail (rather than just presaging death), undead that "drain levels", magic users that can't wear armour, fireball spells, "arrangements" of "outer planes" and a host of other things are others.



billd91 said:


> D&D is definitely fantasy, it's not merely inspired by it. It just doesn't fit any single author's view of fantasy... something common to most authors of fantasy themselves. So unless we're all talking about Howard genre, Lieber genre, Tolkien genre, and Vance genre, I don't really see much point to being that specific over D&D.



Sure D&D is fantasy, but fantasy isn't a monolithic genre! You only have to read Conan, Johnathan Strange, Earthsea and the Order of the Stick to see that.



billd91 said:


> But what author actually does that? Do you know of any other than people writing one or two-liners about Chuck Norris badassery? I can think of toxins being transformed by Bene Gesserit in Dune, but they're also described as having powers that border on quasi-psionic. But even that is described as an ordeal, not just something people casually do because they're tough.



The point is not about whether they do or whether they don't - the point is that it is the nature of writing that they don't need to have rules about it. Conan can survive giant mamba poison this week but still be in mortal peril from it next week - because his survival is at the whim of the author, not subject to rules or die rolls.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## pemerton (Jul 16, 2013)

Balesir said:


> either the inconsistency comes from assuming that 'poison' hits hit every single time where others (giants' clubs/axes) do not, or it comes from assuming creatures alien enough to survive fatal injuries are delicate flowers with neurons and such when faced with poison. Either way it's inconsistent.



Yes - that is my point.

The idea that I can dodge giants' clubs til kingdom come but can't dodge a 1 HD snake (ie if it hits then I have been poisoned and must make a save) is silly.

The alternative idea that my dodging of giants' clubs is awesome (as modelled by my hp) but my dodging of snake bites is pretty ordinary(treating saving throws here as FitM adjudication of whether or not I dodged, which is one of the interpretations of saving throws flagged in Gygax's DMG) is also silly.

And the yet further idea that hp are meat, and I don't doge giants' clubs but rather take them full in the face and shrug them off (think Superman or the Hulk), yet am vulnerable to a snake's poison, is perhaps the silliest of all. Bringing in talk of "chemical interactions with neurons" just emphasises the silliness - acid does hit point damage for its chemical interactions with skin and other tissue, but poison doesn't because it is interacting with a different sort of tissue? Does acid dripped in the ear - which is likely to interact with a neuron or two! - trigger a save vs poison?

And saving throws for massive damage are just a kludge - a fighter who takes 40 hp out of 100 total has to save for massive damage, though if s/he saves s/he will be able to walk away, whereas a wizard who takes 4 hp out of 4, and so is guaranteed to be knocked out and dying, doesn't have to make any save at all despite taking what has the potential to be a fatal blow.

My view is, if you want a wound system go for a serious wound system - and now poison, giants' axes, etc are all variants within your wound mechanics - or if you want a hit point system go for a hit point system. The occasional oddity is tolerable, I think - eg vorpal swords or swords of sharpness - but too much of that sort of stuff can really drive home the weak points in a system. Poison saves are in my view certainly guilty of being "too much".


----------



## Imaro (Jul 16, 2013)

Balesir said:


> But, again, that misses the point; hit points don't "model" impact injuries. As @_*pemerton*_ said, the fighter couldn't literally survive a direct hit from a Fire Giant's sword (or even a direct, unimpeded 100' fall) - the giant's blow narrowly misses (or at least glances off), the fall is broken by bushes, awnings, scree slopes or whatever is situationally appropriate.




So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way?  Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question?   If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.

EDIT: I am also noticing that no one here on the side claiming SoD is inconsistent has addressed the massive damage rules... They allow for when a sufficient amount of damage is taken a character of any level with any amount of hit points to die.  In fact the 100ft fall @_*Umbran*_ brought up does have a chance of instantly killing any character, regardless of hit points (how does this happen if as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be implying no damage is really physically meaningful?).  This is also disregarding the alternate methods of Massive Damage Threshold that are included in the SRD for 3.x.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 16, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Actually, I mentioned this several times, but was told that just because the game designers decided that SoD was perhaps a bad mechanic for this, doesn't mean anything.  Go figure.




Again, if you look at the poison entries in the 2E dmg and the snake entry in the monster manual it isn't all automatic death on a failed save in every case. Many do hp damage of varying degrees, some just incapacitate you. 

the 3E solution was an interesting one. I found the two step process a bit involved for something like being poisoned, but i think they were trying to simulate how poison tends to work. Going after hit points was an interesting solution because it gets around the problem of hit point levels not being stable over time, and means domething that does 3d6/3d6 con is always potentially lethal even if you are high level. That can certainly work. I still prefer having poisons on the list that will kill you on a failed save though. But the ability score damage is a useful alterlative for hp damage (which many poisons in 2E did instead). Still that does mean you have to account for lowed ability scores which can sometimes be a pain.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 16, 2013)

Imaro said:


> So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way?  Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question?   If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.




i think the hp debate is a whole other discussion, one we have had many times and one where people imply disagree. But I feel that there is usually a certain amount of physical damage mixed in with hp damage. I dont think it is a matter of taking absolutley no physical am until you reach zero hp. It is an abstraction though so it isnt going to be 100 percent logical when you look at individual cases under a lens. For me it makes sense the way poison wirks within that.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 16, 2013)

Imaro said:


> EDIT: I am also noticing that no one here on the side claiming SoD is inconsistent has addressed the massive damage rules... They allow for when a sufficient amount of damage is taken a character of any level with any amount of hit points to die.  In fact the 100ft fall @_*Umbran*_ brought up does have a chance of instantly killing any character, regardless of hit points (how does this happen if as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be implying no damage is really physically meaningful?).  This is also disregarding the alternate methods of Massive Damage Threshold that are included in the SRD for 3.x.



That's a good angle that hasn't been talked about yet. Personally, I've never used that rule, and the save is easy by the core rules, but if you use the UA rules for scaling the DC, suddenly a whole lot of things become SoD.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 16, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> i think the hp debate is a whole other discussion, one we have had many times and one where people imply disagree. But I feel that there is usually a certain amount of physical damage mixed in with hp damage. I dont think it is a matter of taking absolutley no physical am until you reach zero hp. It is an abstraction though so it isnt going to be 100 percent logical when you look at individual cases under a lens. For me it makes sense the way poison wirks within that.




This pretty much lines up with my view as well... In my games a miss on the attack roll is a miss and a hit does at least some physical damage (whether it's a deep cut or a minor bruising).  the funny thing is that in 4e and (as well as some attacks in earlier editions and 13th Age... to a much lesser extent) you can actually do damage on a miss, that IMO is when the whole hit points as pure plot protection, divine favor, luck, morale, your ability to dodge, etc. comes in.  Otherwise I believe at least part of any damage taken on an actual hit is physical.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Yes - that is my point.
> 
> The idea that I can dodge giants' clubs til kingdom come but can't dodge a 1 HD snake (ie if it hits then I have been poisoned and must make a save) is silly.




You're assuming that the saving throw means you *are* poisoned. A success could mean that so little got in you that it had no effect. I would consider that to be not really poisoned (in other words, not always hit as in your terminology). 

There's really no inconsistency. Take a look at modern martial artists or boxers. They're pretty good at minimizing the effect an incoming attack has on them with blocks and other techniques. But if Floyd Mayweather sat on an inland taipan and got bit, I doubt he'd last much if any longer than Stephen Hawking would. His ability to withstand punishment in the ring certainly wouldn't be of much help. The venom simply bypasses that line of defense and directly attacks something else. 

I prefer to assume that, absent a specific rule abstraction or change in the setting (like magic), things generally work according to real world expectations. There are some things that can occur in life that don't conform well to being tracked via hit points that have been tracked in other ways in D&D or other RPGs. And if that means I have to assume that characters in an RPG have neurons (or gametes, or blood cells, or ear wax, or fingerprints, or need to urinate), then I'm fine with that. In fact, I think having a good concept of the characters as real characters rather than playing pieces kind of depends on it.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 16, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> The identity of a werewolf includes shapeshifting. The identity of a magmin includes setting things on fire. The identity of a basilisk includes turning things to stone. Are you saying that the "identity" refers to a creature's name and tells you absolutely nothing else about it?




Your premise is that everyone has already hear the legends of these creatures before encountering them.  If these creatures are rare and mysterious, that is not necessarily so.  They are, according to the D&D RAW (discussed further below).

Remove the D&D aspects - let's go talk to a fellow who has never played D&D before.  He probably knows what a werewolf is - that's deepl enough ingrained *in our 21st century pop culture* for him to know what a werewolf is.  

A Basilisk?  Very likely, Joe Average has never heard of one.  Now, maybe he has read Harry Potter - the second book has a Basilisk, IIRC.  Talk to a professor of Greek mythology and tell him how "everyone knows a basilisk turns people to stone".  Just don't pick one you are taking a course on Greek Mythology on - if you want to pass.  The gaze of the mythical basilisk causes death.  It has nothing to do with petrification.



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk said:
			
		

> According to the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the basilisk of Cyrene is a small snake, "being not more than twelve fingers in length,"[2] that is so venomous that it leaves a wide trail of deadly venom in its wake, and its gaze is likewise lethal; its weakness is in the odor of the weasel, which, according to Pliny, was thrown into the basilisk's hole, recognizable because all the surrounding shrubs and grass had been scorched by its presence.




That doesn't sound remotely familiar in a D&D context.  It's not too close to Harry Potter's Basilisk either (which petrified, but that was more paralysis than stone statue petrification).

A magmin?  That's a D&D specific monster which first appeared in an early D&D module, then got a Monster Book slot.  There is absolutely no reason for someone with no knowledge of D&D to have any knowledge of a magmin. Now, he looks like a heat-damaging creatue, but those don't all ignite their targets, so why shoul this one be different - other than having read about it in the MM.

So I come back to that Monster Manual sitting in every peasant cottage so they can look up all these bizarre creatures.

Now, the conceit of the Knowledge skill is that higher hit dice = more rare and mysterious.  That's a balance aspect, IMO, such that the ever-growing skill bonuses of the PC's are matched by ever-growing identification DC's.  A village living near a swamp where a coven of Hags dwell might well know a lot about Hags, despite lacking the appropriate knowledge skill.   But that's where the role playing aspect overrides the game aspect.  As well, might they not also be under some misconceptions?  Old wives' tales that provide you with false information should be as, or more, common as true knowlege and understanding.  How many peasants face a Basilisk and live to bring back stories?



Ahnehnois said:


> According to the rules, the highest DC is 30 for really tough questions. That means if I'm a player and I roll a 30 on a Knowledge check with the right skill for a monster, I expect to learn every piece of information that could be meaningful to me, even regarding the most unusual monster that I have no reason to know about.




The rules tell me that "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)."  They also tell me that "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.   For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."  

These are two separate points in the rule.  One is about a single question, and the other about identifying monsters and their special abilities.  Nowhere is it suggested that one overcomes the other.  They are two different checks for two different things.  By your reasoning, a 10 HD creature cannot have more than three bits of useful information, a 15 HD creature may have no more than two and a 20 HD creature is permitted only one.  If it has 21 HD, it can't have any useful bits of info, since I need a 31 to get one piece of info, and that's more than the 30 you need to answer the most difficult of questions.  So no, I do not believe the rules suggest, in any way, that a check of 30 means you know everything there is to know about the monster.  If it has 21+ HD, it means you have not even the slightest idea what this creature is - you have failed to identify it.



Ahnehnois said:


> Are you suggesting the converse? That in a world where "Medusa" is a race, not an individual (and is real, not a part of some mythology), that their identity is a mystery to anyone who can't make a DC 17 trained Knowledge check? And that someone who can only learns about the obvious petrification ability if the DM decides to let that be the "useful bit" of Knowledge?




IIRC, that's a DC 16, but I'm not going to look it up again.  I am not "suggesting" anything.  I am reading the rules.  They tell me that your ability to identify the Medusa is contingent on a Knowledge check of the appropriate DC.  They tell me that DC is 10 + the monster's HD.  And they tell me that "An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower). "  By the RAW, there is no monster whose identity or abilities are common knowledge - the DC is always greater than 10.  This suggests that, perhaps, some monsters should have their base DC lowered.  But that's a modification to the rules.  We were, I thought, discussing the actual rules.  Although, based on your expectations, it seems you are not prepared to abide by the rules as written.

Do you know which African nations the Bantu tribe resides in?  How about which US states and Canadian provinces hosted the Sioux and the Mohawk nations?  Can you show me which portions of South and Central America were home to the Incas and which to the Aztecs?  From memory -  no internet searches.  Then why would you expect every peasant to know where a few solitary medusae reside?  They're clearly not commonplace - if they were, their abilities should be common knowledge, and we should have a lot more petrified villages.  How long could a large D& settlement withstand attack by even 20 or 50 Medusae, much less the numbers needed for them to be common knowledge?



Ahnehnois said:


> Are you suggesting that a trained adventurer, having slain a hundred monsters or so to reach level 7 and traveled the world and had great adventures, could see a Medusa in the distance, clearly identify its scaly skin and snaky hair, rolls a 16 on the appropriate Knowledge check, and turns to his compatriots and says "Hey, what's that thing?" The implications of what you're suggesting are that everyone in a D&D world is astonishingly stupid.




First, if he lacks the appropriate knowledge skill, then he has no knowledge of Medusae.  Second, if he has the skill and fails the roll, he has no knowledge of Medusae.  *That is precisely what the rules say.*  Given the need for that knowledge skill, it is clear that, by the books, knowledge of medusae is rare, not commonplace.  Now, if they characters have encountered a Medusa in the past, that would imply at least the opportunity to have gleaned some info.  But if the PC's lack the right skill, or blow the rolls, then any use of their PLAYER knowledge of a Medusa is OOC knowlege being leveraged for in game advantage.  It's no more legitimate than making gunpowder or nitroglycerin because a player has the chemistry knowledge and skills to do so.

Offsetting that, if the PLAYER has no clue what a certain beast is or does, but his character has the appropriate skill and makes a good check, he will know the abilities of the creature.  He will know, for example, what a Magmin is and does, and he will know what a &D Basilisk is, as opposed to the Basilisk he saw in a Harry Potter movie or studied in a mythology course.



Ahnehnois said:


> In that case, the players aren't getting screwed by the SoD!




We again come back to play style.  Gygax style pawn play relied on player knowledge - if the players knew the MM, their characters had that knowledge.  If not, then there was no way their players had it.  Those players in the Dungeons of the Slave Lords in 1981 had no way of gathering info on the Magmin - there was no skill roll for their knowledgeable and well studied wizard to know what this unpublished beast could do.  If the objective is for the PC's to succeed or fail on their own merits - on their skills and abilities, and not those of the players - then the rolls have spoken and they know nothing of this strange, scaly creature.

How about this - you can use any knowledge you have personally, but if you want to Tumble past the guards, I want to see you drop to a shoulder roll, tumple through three somersaults, then nimbly leap back to your feet.  Don't tell me about your character's +17 roll - we're working with PLAYER skills, just like for Knowledge rolls.



Ahnehnois said:


> They don't need one. The monsters in the MM exist when the players are not fighting them. They communicate (in some cases anyway). People interact with them, fight them. Then those people communicate. I should think that if, say, basilisks live in a particular area, a DC 10 to 15 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info should tell you "hey, watch out for those lizards with the petrifying gaze!". Seeing a field of statues should allow a DC 15 or so Knowledge (Arcana) check to know that a monster with a petrifying ability is probably nearby. The monster identification rules are a backup in case that kind of stuff does not work.




And, again, this is not what the rules say.  It is your broad expansion of the rules.  Seeing a field of statues would tend to mean that, at one time, this area was inhabited and the inhabitants built statues.  Players will, however, gravitate to the "petrification" theory.  But what prevents these being some obscure relative of the Gargoyle, or small Stone Golems?



billd91 said:


> I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel? That's a quirky artifact of the way hit point ablation has been designed to keep more advanced PCs in the game and a solution is out there - the massive damage rule.




I think there's enough fantasy where the hero falls over a cliff, plummets into a river, or otherwise is left for dead because "My Lord, no one could have survived that - your enemy is dead".  Yet, by some combination of luck, skill and toughness, the hero DID survive!



billd91 said:


> But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes? They're comparatively non-deadly aside from necrosis. Would a king cobra die if it was the one who bit Conan? Or an inland taipan? Or would being envenomed by one be an ordeal he had to grit through, perhaps with the help of spirits summoned by Akiro? I think the idea of a snake being the one who dies is a bit of a caricature even for fantasy - unless that fantasy involves either Chuck Norris or Vin Diesel.




I think there are quite a few stories where Conan battles a snake, but I doubt there is a single one where he perishes from a snakebite.  I suspect, in most, he narrowly avoids the serpent's fangs on one or more occasions (the classic "just avoided the monster's strike" which ablative hit points are so often said to suggest).



Imaro said:


> So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way?  Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question?   If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.




This is the logic expounded in 1e, I believe - did that tiny nick still get some venom injected?  It made a bit more sense in 1e when the likelihood of that venom being injected declined as the hero became higher level and gained more hp.  But then, why is the save the same whether our 100 hp fighter is hale, hearty and in fine form as it is when he is exhausted and has been brutally beaten (ie is down to his last 3 hp)?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I think there's enough fantasy where the hero falls over a cliff, plummets into a river, or otherwise is left for dead because "My Lord, no one could have survived that - your enemy is dead".  Yet, by some combination of luck, skill and toughness, the hero DID survive!




there is also plenty of fantasy where such falls would presumably kill the hero. In D&D a fall from a high cliff is still potentially lethal, particularly if you are using the massive damage rules. It depends on class and level of course, but even at higher levels there is no certainty you will walk away from a complete fall if the descent is large enough. I think in 3E it maxes out at like 20 d6.




> think there are quite a few stories where Conan battles a snake, but I doubt there is a single one where he perishes from a snakebite.  I suspect, in most, he narrowly avoids the serpent's fangs on one or more occasions (the classic "just avoided the monster's strike" which ablative hit points are so often said to suggest).




plenty of conan stories have him taking heavy blows from foes, and getting up, but clearly show that so much as a nick from a giant snake will kill him (i recall one where the venom dripped on his skin and burned). I do not think conan stories translate very well into hp though, and like I said before, much of this depends on how you view HP (and while you and pemertons HP analysis is entirely valid as an opinion, it is not shared by everyone....i would say most people assume a certain amount of physcial damage from any given succesful attack). These things do break down under scrutiny, but that is the nature of abstractions.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Your premise is that everyone has already hear the legends of these creatures before encountering them.  If these creatures are rare and mysterious, that is not necessarily so.  They are, according to the D&D RAW (discussed further below).



They can be, but are not necessarily. If we were talking about an area where a Medusa has never been and where no one has traveled much, and one shows up, the DC to identify it should be pretty high. However, that is not generally going to be the case.

I do not see anything in the RAW that requires us to treat creatures that are real within the D&D world as being more obscure than their legends are in the real world.



> Remove the D&D aspects - let's go talk to a fellow who has never played D&D before.  He probably knows what a werewolf is - that's deepl enough ingrained *in our 21st century pop culture* for him to know what a werewolf is.
> 
> A Basilisk?  Very likely, Joe Average has never heard of one.  Now, maybe he has read Harry Potter - the second book has a Basilisk, IIRC.  Talk to a professor of Greek mythology and tell him how "everyone knows a basilisk turns people to stone".  Just don't pick one you are taking a course on Greek Mythology on - if you want to pass.  The gaze of the mythical basilisk causes death.  It has nothing to do with petrification.



Ask him what a giraffe is. Does he know that it has a long neck? Does he know that a jellyfish can sting you? Probably yes, even if he lives in the Midwest. People knew these things before the internet. A basilisk is very likely on the same level in a world that has them.



> A magmin?  That's a D&D specific monster which first appeared in an early D&D module, then got a Monster Book slot.  There is absolutely no reason for someone with no knowledge of D&D to have any knowledge of a magmin.



There is, however, every reason that any D&D character who had ever lived near a or been to volcano or extraplanar portal leading to the inner planes would know what one is. Character knowledge is likely to be greater than player knowledge regarding D&D-isms.



> Now, the conceit of the Knowledge skill is that higher hit dice = more rare and mysterious.



Quite a conceit!

For example, are we to believe that if an elder red dragon appears in the distance, a bunch of townsfolk will have no idea what it is, let alone that it breathes fire and is evil? That seems unlikely.



> As well, might they not also be under some misconceptions?  Old wives' tales that provide you with false information should be as, or more, common as true knowlege and understanding.  How many peasants face a Basilisk and live to bring back stories?



Peasants are generally not the chief disseminators of knowledge. All it takes is one adventurer stopping at the local inn with his stories of monsters far and wide for many of them to become common knowledge.



> These are two separate points in the rule.  One is about a single question, and the other about identifying monsters and their special abilities.  Nowhere is it suggested that one overcomes the other.  They are two different checks for two different things.



And what is your explanation of what happens when a players asks the single question: "What is that thing?". Are we required to ignore the first rule? There is nothing that says that the question _cannot_ relate to monsters or that the second use supersedes the first. I would say this is a simple case of using whichever rules is more favorable or makes more sense.



> First, if he lacks the appropriate knowledge skill, then he has no knowledge of Medusae.  Second, if he has the skill and fails the roll, he has no knowledge of Medusae.  *That is precisely what the rules say.*



The rules don't say that. They say that a DC 10 Knowledge check can be made untrained, and that one can answer a really easy question with such a check, and that trained characters can answer other questions at higher DCs. Depending on context, the existence of a monster living nearby with a powerful ability can easily be a DC 10 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info check. The existence of a really powerful monster or common race of monsters not nearby could easily fall under another Knowledge, such as Geography or Planes. Legends could fall under History or bardic knowledge. The rules, as written, _promise _that if you make the DC 10 + CR check you will get identity and useful information, but there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that a player _cannot_ identify a pertinent threat without using the DC 10 + CR rule.



> And, again, this is not what the rules say.  It is your broad expansion of the rules.  Seeing a field of statues would tend to mean that, at one time, this area was inhabited and the inhabitants built statues.  Players will, however, gravitate to the "petrification" theory.  But what prevents these being some obscure relative of the Gargoyle, or small Stone Golems?



Well, closer observation. If the statues look like they are terrified and running away or fighting, that kind of suggests that, in a world with petrification magic, they were. Again, it's very easy to rationalize this kind of thing as being a DC 10 or 15 untrained Int or Wis check (which, given a four-character party of non-imbeciles, is pretty easy for at least one to make), let alone Knowledge (Arcana).

The bottom line is that given a rational DM, most PCs will have some idea of what their opponents are and what the capabilities of said opponents are most of the time, because PCs are not stupid. Using a selective and narrow reading of the rules to suggest that DMs can deprive players the use of that knowledge is just spiteful.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 16, 2013)

Imaro said:


> So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way?  Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question?   If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.



Sure there might be bruises or a "nick or cut" - but those generally aren't going to result in a full injection of poison, which requires the fangs to sink in and remain in for a short while.



Imaro said:


> EDIT: I am also noticing that no one here on the side claiming SoD is inconsistent has addressed the massive damage rules... They allow for when a sufficient amount of damage is taken a character of any level with any amount of hit points to die.  In fact the 100ft fall @_*Umbran*_ brought up does have a chance of instantly killing any character, regardless of hit points (how does this happen if as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be implying no damage is really physically meaningful?).  This is also disregarding the alternate methods of Massive Damage Threshold that are included in the SRD for 3.x.



OK, look - this seems to be turning into you three (again) assuming that there is some sort of attack on 3.x going on, so you have to man the barricades once more. That's not where I started, and I'm not going to continue a protracted back-and-forth while you try to - what? Get me to break down and admit that 3.x was the uber-edition that perfectly simulates the ultimate fantasy reality or something? It's not going to happen.

You like 3.x D&D - I get that. You like mixing up hit points and SoD in the same game - great. Good for you. I don't, and I find it an inconsistent milieu when it happens, but I'm not going to waste more time here defending my views from people who seem to need to prove some particular scheme "right". There is no "right", here - get over it.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:


> This is the logic expounded in 1e, I believe - did that tiny nick still get some venom injected?  It made a bit more sense in 1e when the likelihood of that venom being injected declined as the hero became higher level and gained more hp.  But then, why is the save the same whether our 100 hp fighter is hale, hearty and in fine form as it is when he is exhausted and has been brutally beaten (ie is down to his last 3 hp)?




Because on one hand, a death spiral in D&D would suck a lot of the fun out of the game and on the other hand, the PC's impaired state is already abstracted into his lower hit points. He's no longer able to dodge forever. If he's down to his last 3 hit points, the venomous creature's *bite* may actually kill him outright (or put him into unconsciousness territory and dying - which is the same if he doesn't have any buddies to help him out).


----------



## Imaro (Jul 16, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Sure there might be bruises or a "nick or cut" - but those generally aren't going to result in a full injection of poison, which requires the fangs to sink in and remain in for a short while.




Wait, you're comparing a full on blow from a giant's sword... with the physical damage of a snake bite?  I'm going to go out on a limb and say the nick from a giant's sword or axe is probably at least equivalent, if not more damaging, than the actual bite (not counting poison) of an average size snake, especially since most people don't die from the actual damage of the bite.... But you keep purposefully twisting the narrative so that it makes the situation inconsistent when it is not...



Balesir said:


> OK, look - this seems to be turning into you three (again) assuming that there is some sort of attack on 3.x going on, so you have to man the barricades once more. That's not where I started, and I'm not going to continue a protracted back-and-forth while you try to - what? Get me to break down and admit that 3.x was the uber-edition that perfectly simulates the ultimate fantasy reality or something? It's not going to happen.




Ascribe motivations much, we're discussing SoD, you made a claim that it is inconsistent with hit points... that is what I (I don't know about the other two posters you are referring to since unlike you I am not a mind reader) am speaking to.  Please don't tell me why I am doing something or what I am thinking thank you very much.



Balesir said:


> You like 3.x D&D - I get that. You like mixing up hit points and SoD in the same game - great. Good for you. I don't, and I find it an inconsistent milieu when it happens, but I'm not going to waste more time here defending my views from people who seem to need to prove some particular scheme "right". There is no "right", here - get over it.




This isn't about 3.x or my liking it.  It's about you making a general claim concerning inconsistency between hit points and SoD on a public message board for discussion and then seeming to get mad and attacking the posters as opposed to the arguments when it appears not everyone agrees with you.  We are all expressing our opinions, it just seems that you feel yours should be heard but ours shouldn't... go figure.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel?




And how many times do any of those characters die from a snakebite?  Or, in fact, die at all?  Folks were arguing that the rules are not supposed to make adventuring seem a reasonable career choice, when all those characters make it seem quite tenable.  By those examples, adventurers seem to have a risk of death, but that risk remains unrealized.  Is the book interesting and exciting, even though we *know* that Conan's not going to die, because we know he's in the sequel?  

Well, so much for us needing the threat of death to be thrilling!  If you're holding up those as the examples D&D has to match, PC death doesn't need to happen much, if at all!  Thank you for handing me my point!

(But really, I was thinking more about the game's *internal* genre consistency, rather than how it may or may not match a specific external genre definition.)



> But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes?




That's like asking why it has to be a run-of-the-mill cat that kills the commoner in 3e.  The way the rules are written, a basic rattlesnake can have this effect.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> And how many times do any of those characters die from a snakebite?  Or, in fact, die at all?  Folks were arguing that the rules are not supposed to make adventuring seem a reasonable career choice, when all those characters make it seem quite tenable.  By those examples, adventurers seem to have a risk of death, but that risk remains unrealized.  Is the book interesting and exciting, even though we *know* that Conan's not going to die, because we know he's in the sequel?




Well the thing is... this view only holds up when you look at the characters of (as opposed to the stories of)  Conan or Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, or Elric without context, and ignore those around them who are also adventuring. Many of their companions and other adventurers die in mundane or horrible and/or gruesome ways.  the problem is in assuming your character is predestined to be like Conan, Fafhrd, Gray Mouser and Elric instead of the numerous other characters in the stories.  I think in D&D or most role playing games where death of a character is a possibility  this isn't a good assumption to start out with... you just might be Count Smiorgan Baldhead instead of Elric.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Well the thing is... this view only holds up when you look at the characters of (as opposed to the stories of)  Conan or Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, or Elric without context, and ignore those around them who are also adventuring.




But, doesn't that then also apply to your original point?  You don't get to cherry-pick for the characters that support you at a given moment, but then shove them aside when they're inconvenient for your point.

The real issue you're missing is that in fiction, there are main characters and secondary characters, and they follow notably different tropes.  The game most certainly does not support a differentiation between "main" PCs and "secondary" PCs.  But, I don't see you griping about that.  

My original point was about genre consistency - I meant it differently than you took it, but that's okay.  At this point, you are doing an excellent job of pointing out in how many ways the game is *not* consistent with the fictional genres that were inspirations, and that "but that doesn't happen to Conan!" is a pretty weak argument.  Do you want to continue proving that for me?


----------



## Imaro (Jul 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> But, doesn't that then also apply to your original point?  You don't get to cherry-pick for the characters that support you at a given moment, but then shove them aside when they're inconvenient for your point.




What original point, because I wasn't the original OP you responded to, and I just want to be clear and make sure we are on the same page here. 

Now that said, I feel like you're the one cherry picking, we are speaking to *genre* consistency not consistency with one particular character in said genre...  in other words we're asking are the things that happen in-game consistent with the appendix N stories that inspired it...I would say for the most part yes.  What we aren't asking is are the characters in the game replicas of Conan or Gray Mouser...



Umbran said:


> The real issue you're missing is that in fiction, there are main characters and secondary characters, and they follow notably different tropes.  The game most certainly does not support a differentiation between "main" PCs and "secondary" PCs.  But, I don't see you griping about that.




Well there are PC's and they become "main" PC's or "secondary" PC's through the fiction we create while playing the game. The main difference is a single person decides in a story while many more factors decide it in a game of D&D... I'm not sure why I would "gripe" about this though, could you please expound on what you mean? 

As to the different tropes that main characters and secondary characters follow, please expound on those because Smiorgan Baldhead comes off as a main character (and quite likable) all the way up to the point where he is burned to death by Melnibonean dragons.  



Umbran said:


> My original point was about genre consistency - I meant it differently than you took it, but that's okay.  At this point, you are doing an excellent job of pointing out in how many ways the game is *not* consistent with the fictional genres that were inspirations, and that "but that doesn't happen to Conan!" is a pretty weak argument.  Do you want to continue proving that for me?




Please explain to me what you meant by genre consistency, because in my mind D&D is pretty genre consistent (as opposed to being consistent with a single character from the genre which seems to be where your argument is going) with the fiction that inspired it.  I also agree with the fact that "but that doesn't happen to Conan!" is more than a pretty weak argument (especially since it's an argument against SoD) since, Conan the character is not a genre and you've made no agreement to play *the* protagonist in a game of D&D... only a character.

On a side note... what is your point because your argument seems incoherent.  Maybe it's the medium (an internet forum) but I am having a seriously hard time (especially after this last post) figuring out what exactly I am "proving" for you?  So please enlighten me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> That's like asking why it has to be a run-of-the-mill cat that kills the commoner in 3e.  The way the rules are written, a basic rattlesnake can have this effect.




I don't recall how 3E handles it, but in 2E, a basic rattlesnake isn't explicitly statted. They give several types of snake poison, that cover a range of results on a failed save (everything from no damage, to a little damage, to a lot of damage to instant death, to death in a bit of time). I suspect the more deadly venoms were assumed to belong to things like cobras. A rattlesnake may belong to the death in a bit of time grouping. But we should remember before we paint the game with too big a brush, even in older editions, save or die was not always the case with poison. If you run snakes as written, there is a very small chance the snake you encounter even has venom that is SoD.

I think you raise a good point here. The question is whether someone feels a run of the mill the rattlesnake should be able to kill a heroic character. Everyone will answer that differently. And this also raises the issue of how much plot immunity PCs ought to have (which also varies considerably from group to group). Personally I am fine with a highly poisonous snake killing my high level character on a failed save (I think a run of the mill rattlesnake maybe shouldn't be SoD, just potentially lethal---a cobra I am fine being SoD). I do want the chance of failing the save to go down over time, though. But then, I also really have no problem with my character dying from any number of causes along the way. 

One thing I would like to see them address in the rulebook is approaches to character death. Because people do handle this differently and emotions around it can be quite high. That would probably be a bit useful, and I think it is fair for them to include a dial on stuff like saves to either crank up or down the lethality. I see this issue come up again and again on these boards, where its clear folks have very different expectations around how often PCs deaths should occur.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 16, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> plenty of conan stories have him taking heavy blows from foes, and getting up, but clearly show that so much as a nick from a giant snake will kill him (i recall one where the venom dripped on his skin and burned). I do not think conan stories translate very well into hp though, and like I said before, much of this depends on how you view HP (and while you and pemertons HP analysis is entirely valid as an opinion, it is not shared by everyone....i would say most people assume a certain amount of physcial damage from any given succesful attack). These things do break down under scrutiny, but that is the nature of abstractions.




I would classify "the venom dripped on his skin and burned" as a D&D hit with a successful save - he skillfully avoided the main damage, got burned  by the venom and used up a bit of that skill/luck of avoiding the snake.  Or is it your contention that the PC's only hope of surviving that snake battle, over several rounds of combat, is to always be missed?  It seems unlikely for a serious threat of a monster to be that incapable of striking a heavily armored PC, much less a lughty armored (or loincloth clad) barbarian.



Ahnehnois said:


> They can be, but are not necessarily. If we were talking about an area where a Medusa has never been and where no one has traveled much, and one shows up, the DC to identify it should be pretty high. However, that is not generally going to be the case.




If there is a medusa around the area, how have the people in the area survived this long?  They're pretty dangerous to a town full of commoners, I believe.



Ahnehnois said:


> I do not see anything in the RAW that requires us to treat creatures that are real within the D&D world as being more obscure than their legends are in the real world.




I see the Knowledge Skill rules for creature identification, and the fact that the average peasant is not typically assumed to have 6 - 12 years of education not focused on their role in society.



Ahnehnois said:


> Ask him what a giraffe is. Does he know that it has a long neck? Does he know that a jellyfish can sting you? Probably yes, even if he lives in the Midwest. People knew these things before the internet. A basilisk is very likely on the same level in a world that has them.




Ask a 17th century American Indian about giraffes and jellyfish.  I saw giraffes in the zoo - do you think there are zoos full of medusae and basilisks in the D&D world?  Long before the internet, we had public libraries and encyclopediae, which were made possible by the advent of the printing press.  I don't envision the typical D&D world being that educated, or that modern.  It's easy to forget that literacy could not simply be assumed, even going back a hundred years in North America.  It's so beyond us that Barbarians in D&D need to know how to read to satisfy our modern sensibilities.



Ahnehnois said:


> There is, however, every reason that any D&D character who had ever lived near a or been to volcano or extraplanar portal leading to the inner planes would know what one is. Character knowledge is likely to be greater than player knowledge regarding D&D-isms.




Which leaves the question of how common volcanos and extraplanar portals are.  If magmin (and salamanders, fire elementals, etc.) are just wandering around, I speculate any human(oid) settlement would be long since wiped out.



Ahnehnois said:


> Quite a conceit!




Indeed.  Perhaps the better answer would have been a general guideline on monster rarity, and MM specifics as to the DC to identify a creature, and what facts are gained at each success level.  But that's a lot more work, so we take a shorthand assumption.  Much like we don't sever luck, skill, that 'sixth sense' and sheer physical toughness, nor do we separate dodging from shields and armor.  We make simplifying assumptions.



Ahnehnois said:


> For example, are we to believe that if an elder red dragon appears in the distance, a bunch of townsfolk will have no idea what it is, let alone that it breathes fire and is evil? That seems unlikely.




This highlights another problem with the Knowledge conceit - if only it were a younger dragon, the DC would be lower and he would be easier to identify!  That said, from that distance, they see a large winged shape, and likely cannot differentiate colour.  Do they wait to see whether it might be a Gold or Red Dragon?  That dragons are color-coded for our convenience is every bit as much a conceit as the Knowledge DC's.



Ahnehnois said:


> Peasants are generally not the chief disseminators of knowledge. All it takes is one adventurer stopping at the local inn with his stories of monsters far and wide for many of them to become common knowledge.




Well, clearly if some half-drunk vagrant at the inn said it, it MUST be true!  



Ahnehnois said:


> And what is your explanation of what happens when a players asks the single question: "What is that thing?". Are we required to ignore the first rule? There is nothing that says that the question _cannot_ relate to monsters or that the second use supersedes the first. I would say this is a simple case of using whichever rules is more favorable or makes more sense.




It is quite similar to that player asking to use his Knowledge: Arcana to determine a potion's effects by taste.  Identifying magic items has a specific rule.  So does identifying creatures.  "What is that thing?" is an attempt to identify a creature, not "a question in your field".  If "that thing" is a 6 HD medusa, a roll of 16 is required, which makes the question a bit more than a basic question (of DC 15).  The only issue I take with that is that the medusa should not be more difficult to identify solely because it has taken two Fighter levels and gained 2 HD.



Ahnehnois said:


> The rules don't say that. They say that a DC 10 Knowledge check can be made untrained, and that one can answer a really easy question with such a check, and that trained characters can answer other questions at higher DCs. Depending on context, the existence of a monster living nearby with a powerful ability can easily be a DC 10 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info check. The existence of a really powerful monster or common race of monsters not nearby could easily fall under another Knowledge, such as Geography or Planes. Legends could fall under History or bardic knowledge. The rules, as written, _promise _that if you make the DC 10 + CR check you will get identity and useful information, but there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that a player _cannot_ identify a pertinent threat without using the DC 10 + CR rule.




There is nothing in the rules that says you cannot identify a potion by taste either.  However, I believe most of us assume the presence of a rule for identifying a potion should be taken to indicate that this is how identification of potions works in game.  Cite a rule that suggests your position is correct and I am happy to look at it.  The absence of a rule that says you cannot use a dozen other ways to identify a monster does not indicate that those approaches are part of the rules, rather than your own house rules.



Ahnehnois said:


> Well, closer observation. If the statues look like they are terrified and running away or fighting, that kind of suggests that, in a world with petrification magic, they were. Again, it's very easy to rationalize this kind of thing as being a DC 10 or 15 untrained Int or Wis check (which, given a four-character party of non-imbeciles, is pretty easy for at least one to make), let alone Knowledge (Arcana).




I think I would deliberately have animated statues carved to look like people terrified and running away or fighting, so they can surprise you from behind while you look for the petrification monster...



Ahnehnois said:


> The bottom line is that given a rational DM, most PCs will have some idea of what their opponents are and what the capabilities of said opponents are most of the time, because PCs are not stupid. Using a selective and narrow reading of the rules to suggest that DMs can deprive players the use of that knowledge is just spiteful.




This posits a world simply teeming with monsters.  How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?



billd91 said:


> Because on one hand, a death spiral in D&D would suck a lot of the fun out of the game and on the other hand, the PC's impaired state is already abstracted into his lower hit points. He's no longer able to dodge forever. If he's down to his last 3 hit points, the venomous creature's *bite* may actually kill him outright (or put him into unconsciousness territory and dying - which is the same if he doesn't have any buddies to help him out).




But he remains just as likely to save as he was at 100 hp, when clearly any hit was a mere scratch, deftly evaded.  While I don't want a death spiral, its desirability, or lack of same, is a matter of preference, and not an objective determination.  The likelihood of the physical trauma killing him has changed due to lower hp, but the likelihood of a solid bite injecting a lethal toxin has not changed at all - espite the fact that our Hero is no longer so spry and able to evade those lethal fangs.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 16, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Well the thing is... this view only holds up when you look at the characters of (as opposed to the stories of)  Conan or Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, or Elric without context, and ignore those around them who are also adventuring. Many of their companions and other adventurers die in mundane or horrible and/or gruesome ways.  the problem is in assuming your character is predestined to be like Conan, Fafhrd, Gray Mouser and Elric instead of the numerous other characters in the stories.  I think in D&D or most role playing games where death of a character is a possibility  this isn't a good assumption to start out with... you just might be Count Smiorgan Baldhead instead of Elric.




I think the thing to keep in mind, is D&D is not neccesarily trying to model these stories exactly. It can be done for that purpose. Lots of groups like characters to have the same level of plot immunity as main characters in stories, but other people see character survival as a lot more uncertain (and its uncertainty as an important part of the game). I do not think one approach is better than the other.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I would classify "the venom dripped on his skin and burned" as a D&D hit with a successful save - he skillfully avoided the main damage, got burned  by the venom and used up a bit of that skill/luck of avoiding the snake.  Or is it your contention that the PC's only hope of surviving that snake battle, over several rounds of combat, is to always be missed?  It seems unlikely for a serious threat of a monster to be that incapable of striking a heavily armored PC, much less a lughty armored (or loincloth clad) barbarian.
> .




This is how I would treat a miss. But like I said, I am not worried about modeling conan stories. This is going to boil down to the character's AC and the to hit or THAC0 of the monster. So yes, for me if you are facing a very venomous snake, I am absolutely fine with your hope of survival hinging on not being struck by it or by making your save. Again, this would only be for truly lethal snake bites. I would not suggest using it for all poisonous snakes (and as I stated in 2E it isn't). Basically in my games, I feel Conan can die and snake bites are entirely appropriate way for him to perish if luck is not on his side. Again though, it is preference. You feel differently and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you raise a good point here. The question is whether someone feels a run of the mill the rattlesnake should be able to kill a heroic character. Everyone will answer that differently. And this also raises the issue of how much plot immunity PCs ought to have (which also varies considerably from group to group). Personally I am fine with a highly poisonous snake killing my high level character on a failed save (I think a run of the mill rattlesnake maybe shouldn't be SoD, just potentially lethal---a cobra I am fine being SoD). I do want the chance of failing the save to go down over time, though. But then, I also really have no problem with my character dying from any number of causes along the way.




Depends on what game we're playing ultimately. If we're playing a western game like Aces and Eights or Boot Hill, I'd be quite disappointed if a rattlesnake bite couldn't kill a PC. Poisonous snakes, particularly rattlers, are threats of the genre. And if we were playing a game based on the Thieves' World anthology, rattlesnakes may make no sense but the venomous pets of the Beysibs should certainly have a deadly bite. And, ultimately, I guess I don't have a problem with PCs dying form snake bites in other systems and genres either. I might look for a less abstract treatment of snake bite than D&D's save or die depending on the game and how important that sort of event was to the game, but I don't have a problem with some threats in the system being highly dangerous.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:


> If there is a medusa around the area, how have the people in the area survived this long?  They're pretty dangerous to a town full of commoners, I believe.
> ...
> Which leaves the question of how common volcanos and extraplanar portals are.  If magmin (and salamanders, fire elementals, etc.) are just wandering around, I speculate any human(oid) settlement would be long since wiped out.
> ...
> This posits a world simply teeming with monsters.  How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?



Because there are adventurers defending them?

If you don't buy that, than the level of danger a commoner must face given the threats posited in the monster manual(s) is indeed completely untenable, and believing that there are human commoners in large numbers requires some combination of rationalization and suspension of disbelief.

FWIW, I once based a campaign on the premise of exploring how miserable it must be to be a commoner in D&D.



> I see the Knowledge Skill rules for creature identification, and the fact that the average peasant is not typically assumed to have 6 - 12 years of education not focused on their role in society.



Assuming that they have proficiency in reading, they must have read something. Only barbarians are illiterate, as far as I know. Regardless, even relatively uneducated people (real or fictional) have quite a bit of knowledge.



> Indeed.  Perhaps the better answer would have been a general guideline on monster rarity, and MM specifics as to the DC to identify a creature, and what facts are gained at each success level.  But that's a lot more work, so we take a shorthand assumption.



Given the amount of comparatively useless stuff that pops up in books, I don't think that guidelines for rarity of information are at all prohibitive. The existing rule is lazy (and lousy) design.



> This highlights another problem with the Knowledge conceit - if only it were a younger dragon, the DC would be lower and he would be easier to identify!  That said, from that distance, they see a large winged shape, and likely cannot differentiate colour.  Do they wait to see whether it might be a Gold or Red Dragon?  That dragons are color-coded for our convenience is every bit as much a conceit as the Knowledge DC's.



As per your reading of the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill. That means that even if a red dragon were standing right in front of the people, regardless of its age, they would not know that it was a dragon, was evil, or breathed fire, even as they were spontaneously running in fear from the giant, rapacious lizard with smoke coming from its nostrils.



> Well, clearly if some half-drunk vagrant at the inn said it, it MUST be true!



I'm not against misinformation on occasion.



> It is quite similar to that player asking to use his Knowledge: Arcana to determine a potion's effects by taste.  Identifying magic items has a specific rule.



The books are explicit that using experimentation to identify magic items is under the DM's discretion and is entirely reasonable.


----------



## jasper (Jul 16, 2013)

nracc..This posits a world simply teeming with monsters. How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?....
They do very well by not bothering the monster. It not until the heroes show up till the peasants start dying in huge amounts. See any movie with a hero in it.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 16, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> If you don't buy that, than the level of danger a commoner must face given the threats posited in the monster manual(s) is indeed completely untenable, and believing that there are human commoners in large numbers requires some combination of rationalization and suspension of disbelief.




Or it requires that most monsters are quite rare, and don't inhabit the same areas where human(oid) settlements are located.  I think there is a need to decide what is a "monster", though.  Elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins are all in the MM,  however it seems quite reasonable to establish that these are not "monsters" for identification purposes - they are "races", and they can be identified by a C 10 or lower check.



Ahnehnois said:


> Assuming that they have proficiency in reading, they must have read something. Only barbarians are illiterate, as far as I know. Regardless, even relatively uneducated people (real or fictional) have quite a bit of knowledge.




3e+ barbarians can read too.  But this need not mean that everyone can read, only that the special breed with PC class levels can.  Having quite a bit of knowlege does not specify what they are knowledgeable of.  And there's tons of specialized knowledge that the vast majority of people lack, and tons of misconceptions they have about issues outside their expertise that they "know" with absolute certainty.



Ahnehnois said:


> Given the amount of comparatively useless stuff that pops up in books, I don't think that guidelines for rarity of information are at all prohibitive. The existing rule is lazy (and lousy) design.




I think it would be a fine approach.  It's not the RAW approach.



Ahnehnois said:


> As per your reading of the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill. That means that even if a red dragon were standing right in front of the people, regardless of its age, they would not know that it was a dragon, was evil, or breathed fire, even as they were spontaneously running in fear from the giant, rapacious lizard with smoke coming from its nostrils.




As per reading the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill.  Why would they know that all Red Dragons are evil, or that not all Dragons are red, or that not all Dragons are evil, or that some breathe fire, or that they don't all breathe fire?  What they would see is a huge, winged reptile.  The possibility that they might come rnning back from the mountains shrieking of "Dragons" which turn out to be wyverns, or some other big, winged lizard, or even a Tyranosauraus, seems perfectly believable to me, assuming these creatures are so rare that only someone with specialized knowledge might possess the skills to accurately identify them.  You are assuming "these things are everyday occurences", and concluding "they are therefore common knowledge" as a result.  I am reading the actual rule, which says "they are not common knowledge" and, from that, concluding "they must therefore be rare".



Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not against misinformation on occasion.




OK, that's just too obvious as a straight line.  I...will...resist!



jasper said:


> nracc..This posits a world simply teeming with monsters. How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?....
> They do very well by not bothering the monster. It not until the heroes show up till the peasants start dying in huge amounts. See any movie with a hero in it.




In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"?  Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 16, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Or it requires that most monsters are quite rare, and don't inhabit the same areas where human(oid) settlements are located.



That's one way of doing things. Not enumerated or even suggested by the rules though.



> I think there is a need to decide what is a "monster", though.  Elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins are all in the MM,  however it seems quite reasonable to establish that these are not "monsters" for identification purposes - they are "races", and they can be identified by a C 10 or lower check.



Rules don't say that either. And even in your example, a human that rolls a 9 has no idea what an elf is.



> You are assuming "these things are everyday occurences", and concluding "they are therefore common knowledge" as a result.  I am reading the actual rule, which says "they are not common knowledge" and, from that, concluding "they must therefore be rare".



I am not assuming that they are everyday occurrences, only that common people will have heard of them. And the rules are silent on what is and what is not common knowledge.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 16, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Because there are adventurers defending them?




I thought experienced adventurers fled at the first encounter with a monster so they could research and strategize how they can be defeated?  The peasants are an all you can eat buffet while you're out researching, planning and scribing scrolls!

Mind you, if I played the monsters as half that tactical and paranoid, the Banshee is unbeatable.  She can hear your hearts beat, remember.  So she stays incorporeal inside a wall until she identifies all the heartbeats in her lair, spying on them to determine their capabilities.  Maybe they will just go away.  Maybe one will separate frm the group, making easy prey as just a hand, or just a face, pokes out of the wall, wails or touches, then withdraws and moves 60' up/back, fleeing through several walls and circling back later to see if she got one, or must try again.  If they stay clustered, come around behind the direction those heartbeats are moving in, pop out your head, wail, and (again) flee 60' through walls and floors, hen circle back around.  

Why should she ever come all the way out of the wall, or stick around in the minute that must pass between wails?  She's immortal - your spells will run out eventually...

Death Ward lasts one minute per level.  Only attack every half hour or so and that's taken care of.  Follow them under the ground if they leave when their spells expire, stick your face out and wail, then retreat underground.  They Teleport back and forth?  When the heartbeats all cluster together, "reach out and touch someone".  If he flees, he won't teleport out with the rest.  If not, either they don't come back (mission accomplished) or they come back later (and we try, try again).  No unncecessary risks - the Banshee has all eternity.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 16, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's one way of doing things. Not enumerated or even suggested by the rules though.
> 
> Rules don't say that either. And even in your example, a human that rolls a 9 has no idea what an elf is.




Or he doesn't realize that fellow is one - or he mistakes a half elf for an elf.



Ahnehnois said:


> I am not assuming that they are everyday occurrences, only that common people will have heard of them. And the rules are silent on what is and what is not common knowledge.




Yes, completely silent...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, *you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower)*.




That is, you have to read them - the book does not scream them out at you.  Perhaps my emphasis above will be of some assistance.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2013)

billd91 said:


> You're assuming that the saving throw means you *are* poisoned. A success could mean that so little got in you that it had no effect.



So why would it be a Fort save, then?



N'raac said:


> This is the logic expounded in 1e, I believe - did that tiny nick still get some venom injected?  It made a bit more sense in 1e when the likelihood of that venom being injected declined as the hero became higher level and gained more hp.



Yes. Also, in AD&D it wasn't a Fort save. There was no such thing as a Fort save pre-3E.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I thought experienced adventurers fled at the first encounter with a monster so they could research and strategize how they can be defeated?



If necessary.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Or he doesn't realize that fellow is one - or he mistakes a half elf for an elf.



I assume when your players encounter a bear, you explain that it is a "large animal with fur" unless they make a trained Knowledge (Nature) check?



> That is, you have to read them - the book does not scream them out at you.  Perhaps my emphasis above will be of some assistance.



Well, it shows which characters know common knowledge (i.e. all of them). What knowledge counts as common is not described. So yes, it was of some assistance in proving my point.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 17, 2013)

pemerton said:


> So why would it be a Fort save, then?




Maybe because even a trace amount of poison would still be countered by your body... *shrug* of course if your group is playing in a less simulationist fashion you could always re-skin the fort save as anything you want, including a complete miss...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2013)

Going back to the math thing for a second.

If the goal here is to make certain encounters more lethal, why bother with SoD?  Why not simply increase the monster damage?  A dangerous snake does XdY damage (poison if we want to type it out) and is higher than normal for a creature of that level.  That way it becomes easy to scale  - if you want a more or less dangerous snake, simply adjust it's damage output - and we get combats that are more random.  Again, this achieves the stated goals.

SoD doesn't do this.  HP's have no memory.  If I'm hit for HP damage, and then healed, my chances of dying from the next hit are completely unaffected by the previous damage.  The chances of a PC death is all contained within that encounter (or possibly carrying on until healed later).  But SoD doesn't work like that.  SoD isn't time dependent.

Say your character makes a SoD save at 2nd, 6th and 9th level.  Now, since monsters generally scale and save DC's scale as well, you chances are somewhere in the 50:50 range.  Might be better, could be worse.  We'll use 50:50 because it makes the math easy.  The odds that you will not die to any one of these attacks is 1 in 8.  7 in 8 times you die.  Even if we reduce the saves to 25% fail, you still die about 60% of the time.  

Now, it might be the first one.  It might be the third.  Doesn't matter.  Odds say that you will die on one of these attacks.

Which is why I keep saying that these mechanics are broken.  HP ablation doesn't work like that.  Nothing else in the game works like that.  It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> If the goal here is to make certain encounters more lethal, why bother with SoD?  Why not simply increase the monster damage?



Because you don't want them to wear down HP, obviously. But, some monsters do lots of HP damage, where Fighters might live and Wizards are almost guaranteed to die. The design goal of a SOD monster and the "brute" monster is often different.


Hussar said:


> A dangerous snake does XdY damage (poison if we want to type it out) and is higher than normal for a creature of that level.  That way it becomes easy to scale  - if you want a more or less dangerous snake, simply adjust it's damage output - and we get combats that are more random.  Again, this achieves the stated goals.



If your goal is to interact with HP (and thus leave a lasting effect for later monsters that also interact with HP), then this is good design.


Hussar said:


> SoD doesn't do this.



That's pretty much the point.


Hussar said:


> Say your character makes a SoD save at 2nd, 6th and 9th level.  Now, since monsters generally scale and save DC's scale as well, you chances are somewhere in the 50:50 range.  Might be better, could be worse.  We'll use 50:50 because it makes the math easy.  The odds that you will not die to any one of these attacks is 1 in 8.  7 in 8 times you die.  Even if we reduce the saves to 25% fail, you still die about 60% of the time.



Let's use your math, because it's easy. Sounds good so far.


Hussar said:


> Now, it might be the first one.  It might be the third.  Doesn't matter.  Odds say that you will die on one of these attacks.



Correct.


Hussar said:


> Which is why I keep saying that these mechanics are broken.



Well, unless you're going for low odds of survival with the design, of course. Then they're functioning as intended, which is objectively good design.


Hussar said:


> HP ablation doesn't work like that.



*Exactly.*


Hussar said:


> Nothing else in the game works like that.



Not exactly like it, no.


Hussar said:


> It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.



Well, no, it doesn't. But, regardless, you're still arguing preference (you want high survival chances). How is this anything other than your preference? As always, play what you like


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Which is why I keep saying that these mechanics are broken.  HP ablation doesn't work like that.  Nothing else in the game works like that.



Actually, everything that allows a save pretty much works like that. Enemy uses special ability. You roll save. If you beat DC (or pre-3e equivalent), you're usually fine. If you fail, you suffer an effect. You might be nauseated. You might be dominated. You might be dead. Your hp are equally irrelevant regardless of what the save is against.

Except in some of theses 5e playtests where they have made hp relevant for these things, which I am vehemently against.



> It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.



It does not mean that. Each roll is independent. Successes do not increase the DC or pull down the die roll of future attempts.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.




Huh?  That's some real fuzzy probability going on there...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2013)

JC said:
			
		

> Well, unless you're going for low odds of survival with the design, of course. Then they're functioning as intended, which is objectively good design.




Well, since we're talking about D&D, low odds of survival is not a design goal.  After all, D&D is about heroic fantasy.  Everything else lines up with that.  It's been quite a few editions since we had disposable characters for the first three levels.

And about the fuzzy math.  Kinda sorta.  If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads.  Or am I getting my math all screwed up here?  It's been a really long time since I did stats.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Nothing else in the game works like that.




If you're specifically talking poisons, that's not true. There are lots of save or X effects in the game that impose an absolute condition of some sort (being held, charmed, paralyzed, dead, etc) so poison is not alone. If you mean save or x in general, the fact that there are lots of effects in the game that have that very mechanic makes the initial statement fairly silly. They may not be as common as effects that cause hit point damage, but they're not exactly rare.




Hussar said:


> It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.




No it doesn't. The success of any number of previous attempts has absolutely no effect on the next single attempt. I'll be charitable and assume what you're trying to say is that the chances of rolling a set of x consecutive successful saves is lower the higher the x.


----------



## jasper (Jul 17, 2013)

In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"? Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.... but you stating Nraac Monster are so common the peasants can give you the latin name and its ecology. And since monsters are so common the rules are broken because the peasant can't survive.
Ok everyone no can have pcs as the monsters ate your grand father.
And to be extra silly, going with RAW my grand kids would have a hard time surviving the Christmas Holidays especially when their old mad uncle with is ratty red and gold scarf plays a game of pull my finger (lightning bolt!)
The RAW are written with PC and adventure in mind; not as one on one realistic world where Brave heart can shoot fireballs out his bum.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Going back to the math thing for a second.
> 
> If the goal here is to make certain encounters more lethal, why bother with SoD?  Why not simply increase the monster damage?  A dangerous snake does XdY damage (poison if we want to type it out) and is higher than normal for a creature of that level.  That way it becomes easy to scale  - if you want a more or less dangerous snake, simply adjust it's damage output - and we get combats that are more random.  Again, this achieves the stated goals.
> 
> .




Because the whole point is to get around the funkiness of HP, where no matter how tough you are, the effect is similarly deadly across the board. using XdY basically just makes it a normal type of damage, but these are not normal thpes of damage. These are things that attack your organs, or turn you dust or stone. With saves you have have any number of effects keyed to failure, to help emulate unqiue types of harm (such as petrification or deadly poison). I also really elevates the stakes. Unless I tack on a huge modifier to the damage roll, there is too much of a range if its XdY damage (even 20d10 could do anything from 20 to 200 points). The whole purpose of these sorts of things is to do something outside the whittling away of hitpoints, to have a less predictable and potentially more dangerous option. Now, you might not like it. Too many people might dislike it for it to have a place in 5E. But that is still an issue of preference, not bad design. Doing something different than the core damage mechanic doesn't make it bad design (especially since it brings a host of other things to the table). Being too deadly isn't bad design, there are plenty of valid reasons for designers to make a game more deadly (not the least of which is a good chunk of the player base likes deadlier action). I am totally with you that it isnt for everyone, and I suspect it may have to be nerfed a bit or set to a dial to fit inot the new edition (and I am totally fine with that). I just have to reject that it is somehow objectively bad design.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 17, 2013)

jasper said:


> In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"? Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.... but you stating Nraac Monster are so common the peasants can give you the latin name and its ecology. And since monsters are so common the rules are broken because the peasant can't survive.
> Ok everyone no can have pcs as the monsters ate your grand father.
> And to be extra silly, going with RAW my grand kids would have a hard time surviving the Christmas Holidays especially when their old mad uncle with is ratty red and gold scarf plays a game of pull my finger (lightning bolt!)
> The RAW are written with PC and adventure in mind; not as one on one realistic world where Brave heart can shoot fireballs out his bum.




I dont find it implausible that peasants would know about monsters and have stories about how to harm them. When you think of things like vampire stories the hunters often are getting their best information from peasants in Eastern Europe. If the monsters are in the area that doesnt mean they are attacking all the time but folks may encounter them and live to tell the tale, or witness their special attacks.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> And about the fuzzy math.  Kinda sorta.  If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads.  Or am I getting my math all screwed up here?  It's been a really long time since I did stats.




It is still 50-50 that the next flip comes up heads. Even if you had a string of ten heads results, the next flip is 50-50 heads or tails. It does not change the probability of the following die roll.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Well, since we're talking about D&D, low odds of survival is not a design goal.  After all, D&D is about heroic fantasy.  Everything else lines up with that.  It's been quite a few editions since we had disposable characters for the first three levels.
> .




Perhaps in D&D it isnt. I wont argue that this may not be the case. I am not so sure it is as far in the direction of survivability you are shooting for though. 

Personally I think opinions on this are more varied than many people suspect and that the best approach is to enable groups to dial lethality up or down. There are still people who like the oldschool lethality. We are currently experiencing an explosion of products built around some of these sensibilities. It is not the majority of players but it also is not insignificant. And many of them are looking forward to the next edition.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> It's been quite a few editions since we had disposable characters for the first three levels.



A 3e or PF character is still pretty vulnerable at low levels. A basic orc can realistically kill any 1st level character (wizard or fighter) with a good hit. An appropriately advanced orc power attacking with a decent weapon can kill a wizard in one critical hit through pretty much his entire career. Characters _are _somewhat disposable. "Heroic" does not mean "invincible".



> If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads.



This is exactly the fallacy we are trying to debunk. No matter how many times you flip the coin, the next one is always purely random. You can get fifteen heads in a row, and the next flip is still 50/50 to be heads or tails. Assuming the coin is fair. If you see your players roll fifteen 20's in a row, you may want to check their dice.

Ninja'd on that I guess.

Now, if you consider several _unflipped_ coins at once, the more coins you have, the greater the chance that at least one of them will be heads. That much is fair.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

jasper said:


> In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"? Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat....



How many movies are there where the entire Monster Manual worth of monsters even exists? D&D is a high fantasy game. Exact numbers of creatures are left for you to determine, but it's clear, as I stated, that there is a _race_ of Medusas. That may be hundreds, thousands, or even millions, but it's definitely more than there were in any movie that has one (that I'm aware of).

To wit:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *A medusa* is indistinguishable from a normal human at distances greater than 30 feet (or closer, if its face is concealed). The creature often wears garments that enhance its body while hiding its face behind a hood or veil.
> 
> *A typical medusa *is 5 to 6 feet tall and about the same weight as a human.
> 
> *Medusas* speak Common.





> but you stating Nraac Monster are so common the peasants can give you the latin name and its ecology.



No, I'm not. I'm stating that peasants have a general idea of what many monsters are and why they are dangerous. I think that a peasant who sees a tarantula knows that it is a spider and may bite you, even if they have never seen one before. They may overestimate or underestimate the true danger (tarantulas actually aren't all that dangerous), but they have some idea. That does not mean that they know the Latin name and ecology and can write a paper on spider mating behaviors. It merely means that they possess common knowledge that is relevant to their lives.

Similarly, I think that a commoner who sees a cockatrice knows that it is probably not a natural bird and that you should not touch it. Do they know what the word "petrification" means? Can they spell it? Perhaps not. That's not the point.



> The RAW are written with PC and adventure in mind



Indeed. Which is why I conclude that my adventurous PCs do not need advanced academic knowledge to know basic things like "banshees kill you when they scream". That's common knowledge, especially for people who do adventure for a living.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 17, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I assume when your players encounter a bear, you explain that it is a "large animal with fur" unless they make a trained Knowledge (Nature) check?




To some extent, we are back to the "HD as rarity" issue embedded in the Monster ID rules.  I believe there is a case to be made for identifying some creatures which are not "monsters" for this purpose.  That said, would each PC be able to look at a creature charging from the underbrush and ID it as a black or brown bear, male or female, and whether it is full grown, aged or just a cub?  And which animals?  Does that character equally recognize a narwhal, an elephant and the difference between an African or Indian elephant, or batrachian or dromedary camel?

Whether one agrees with them or not, the Knowledge rules set out how creature identification is resolved.  If you want to vary that ("everyone knows what a goblin is"), then you are doing just that - *varying* the rules.

We've also deviated a long way from "Everyone knows Banshees kill you with a scream that Death Ward can block".



Ahnehnois said:


> Well, it shows which characters know common knowledge (i.e. all of them). What knowledge counts as common is not described. So yes, it was of some assistance in proving my point.




As cited numerous times above, common knowledge is clearly defined as "anything that has a DC of 10 or below".  Identifying a monster is clearly defined as having a DC of 10 + HD.  I think that's described pretty explicitly, assuming one takes the time to actually read the words.  The bigger issue is probably the lack of re-rolls.  Perhaps a character who has lots of time to sit back and reflect should be permitted a "take 20" on the knowledge check.  Oh, NOW I remember!  Just like we sometimes draw a blank on someone's name when we see them at the store, only to remember when we wake up at 3 AM.



Hussar said:


> And about the fuzzy math.  Kinda sorta.  If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads.  Or am I getting my math all screwed up here?  It's been a really long time since I did stats.




No.  The odds of the coin flipping heads or tails is always 50/50.  The odds of four consecutive flips coming up heads is 6.25%.  If you have flipped 3 heads, the odds of the fourth flip being heads is 50%.

If the PC needs to roll 11+ to save, and has already saved 3 times, he still has a 50% chance of making the fourth save.  He's beaten the odds on the first three.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

N'raac said:


> To some extent, we are back to the "HD as rarity" issue embedded in the Monster ID rules.  I believe there is a case to be made for identifying some creatures which are not "monsters" for this purpose.



I think there's a case to be made for some creatures that are.

For example, if you've played Baldur's Gate, you may remember a field of statues full of basilisks, and a halfling village nearby. I think every halfling in that village knows exactly what a basilisk is, even if their general knowledge of magical beasts is not great.



> That said, would each PC be able to look at a creature charging from the underbrush and ID it as a black or brown bear, male or female, and whether it is full grown, aged or just a cub?



No, but who needs to? All you need to know is that it's a godless killing machine. I don't care whether my bodak is a medium one or a large one either. I just care that it's an undead with a death gaze that dies in sunlight.

Of course, if it's a brown bear, the DC to identify it is 2 higher than if it's black. Two bears attack you at once and you can conceivably go "hey, watch out for that black bear and its grapple attack, and what the hell is that brown thing?". This is the system you're defending.



> And which animals?  Does that character equally recognize a narwhal, an elephant and the difference between an African or Indian elephant, or batrachian or dromedary camel?



Probably not. Again, that's not the point. The question is whether a character can recognize a monster that does live near them and its basic threat level, not whether they are a scholar of zoology.



> As cited numerous times above, common knowledge is clearly defined as "anything that has a DC of 10 or below".



That's circular reasoning. A DC 10 knowledge check can get you common knowledge, which is anything of DC 10 or below. That tells us nothing.

There's nothing in that that says a DM can't define common knowledge to include things like which monsters are likely to have instant death abilities.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 17, 2013)

I think this raises a lot of good points about knowledge issues and probably extenda beyond SoD (for example knowing vulverabilities of monsters that are immune to a number of attack types). I suppose a lot of it also does come down to campaign style. I used to run a lot of Ravenloft campaigns and a key part of the ravenloft setting, largely explored in the Van Richten guides, is the monster hunt. Discovering the threats vulnerability and past was central to investigating these monsters. S you could have a whole adventure just trying to figure out the specific history and vulnerabilities of a single flesh golem, ghost, vampire or werewolf. Because most players know the MM, for ravenloft thye started treating a lot of individual monsters as unique in terms of vulnerabilities (you can't count on every vampire being killed bya stake through the heart or every werewolf being vulnerable to silver). It is kind of the reverse of the problem being observed for regular campaigns. 

Using HD as the basis for how difficult it is to know a creatures' weakesses never really seemed like a good idea to me. And 3E's ever increasing DCs, make it hard to have a world where the peasants can know the basics (because the dcs need to be able to challenege pcs as well)----hopefully the flatter math of 5E alleviates this issue a bit. You alsmost want each monster to have a specific DC. Presumably the GM has the entry or stats in front of him, so it is no harder than having to look up the creature's HD.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 17, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> You [almost] want each monster to have a specific DC. Presumably the GM has the entry or stats in front of him, so it is no harder than having to look up the creature's HD.



Some 3.5 monster books had those entries where it gave you specific information for a Knowledge check to reveal. I do not think it would be terribly hard, given that amount of detail, to assign DCs (or more aptly, base DCs and circumstantial modifiers) to each monster.

For example, I think most people probably have an idea of what a red dragon is, but might be relatively clueless about a Thoqqua. After all, the latter lives on the Plane of Fire; it's not exactly a common sight. Meanwhile, red dragons are charismatic, interact frequently with humans, and can travel a long way, so there is every reason for them to be well known in most parts.

Regional and contextual differences matter. A human kingdom's inhabitants might not be able to distinguish the dwarven subraces, but if they live near mountains and trade with hill dwarves or go to war with duergar, then maybe that knowledge gets disseminated better.

The monster itself has a say in this as well. I would guess that liches are not well known since they tend to be reclusive (and are associated with the god of secrets in the core Greyhawk setting); their entry even suggests that unknowing adventurers may mistake their paralyzing touch for an SoD. Conversely, big dumb monsters like a purple worm are not exactly known for subtlety, and they make for an interesting story that likely gets shared a lot.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 17, 2013)

Here is an interesting blog post on the implied game world (for AD&D).

For starters you get smacked over the head with how desperate life must be even inside the few “inhabited” zones of the implied world. For you see with every encounter rolled in such areas, there is a full 25% chance that the random encounter table should be utterly ignored and a patrol encountered instead.

...

The sheer frequency of meeting such heavily-powered up bands—hell even a mid-level party would find the standard issue patrol of normal men a tough go--inside the settled environs sends a strong message that this is a world right on the knife's edge.

Not only is civilization an obsessively-patrolled armed camp, it is also damn sparse.​


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 17, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Well, since we're talking about D&D, low odds of survival is not a design goal.



I think this depends on what one wants out of the game. Neither of us can speak about the goals of the designers with any real authority, but we're talking about SOD as a well designed mechanic, not SOD in the context of D&D and Hussar's view on it.


Hussar said:


> After all, D&D is about heroic fantasy.



Mine was never, ever that way, and I never remember reading that it was supposed to be exclusively that way (or that way at all, really) in my 3.5 books.

And, designing mechanics for "heroic fantasy" is designing towards a specific preference (one I don't share). You can try to objectively measure whether or not mechanics meet that goal, but that goal was most certainly set by an initial preference, which is anything but objective.


Hussar said:


> Everything else lines up with that.



What? How do you figure? There's always been other Save of Lose spells (Hold Person, Dominate, paralyzing poison, Otto's Irresistible Dance, etc.) that completely bypass HP and end the PC's ability to be "heroic". It's been a strong and present part of D&D. I'm not saying it's objectively good (or bad), but I am disputing your "nothing else is like SOD in D&D" assertion.


Hussar said:


> It's been quite a few editions since we had disposable characters for the first three levels.



Well, that's still D&D. You know, D&D has "disposable characters" in it. It's not always "heroic fantasy", like what you're advocating for.


Hussar said:


> And about the fuzzy math.  Kinda sorta.  If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads.



Yes, it is.


Hussar said:


> Or am I getting my math all screwed up here?  It's been a really long time since I did stats.



Probably / statistics can get muddy. I wouldn't want to bet that the coin will flip to be heads 5 times in a row, but between each flip, the chance is about 50/50. I think statistically, it won't end up as heads five times in a row, but the probability between each flip is roughly 50/50? I'm not sure on the wording, but the math is in there. The Gambler's Fallacy explains it better: [sblock]







			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> [h=2]An example: coin-tossing[/h]The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin. With a fair coin, the outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly 1⁄2 (one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1⁄4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1⁄8 (one in eight).
> 
> Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. *Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only 1⁄32 (one in thirty-two), a person subject to the gambler's fallacy might believe that this next flip was less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler's fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of "first 4 heads, then a tails" are equally likely, each having probability 1⁄32.* While a run of five heads is only 1⁄32 = 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.
> 
> ...



[/sblock]
As always, play what you like


----------



## N'raac (Jul 17, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think there's a case to be made for some creatures that are.
> 
> For example, if you've played Baldur's Gate, you may remember a field of statues full of basilisks, and a halfling village nearby. I think every halfling in that village knows exactly what a basilisk is, even if their general knowledge of magical beasts is not great.




If the field is full of basilisks, my question has to be how the halflings have survived this long.  An average of 45 hp, AC 16, bite with +8 for 4 - 11 damage should be more than enough to kill lots of nhalflings, before getting into that DC 13 petrification gaze.

The fact that a computer game sets a silly scenario does not mean I find that an appropriate baseline for a game world.



Ahnehnois said:


> No, but who needs to? All you need to know is that it's a godless killing machine. I don't care whether my bodak is a medium one or a large one either. I just care that it's an undead with a death gaze that dies in sunlight.




And are bodaks as well known and well studied as bears?  I could see bears having a reduced DC, or applying a flat (and reduced) DC for common animals.  But I could also see bumping the DC up, not down, for more rare creatures.



Ahnehnois said:


> Of course, if it's a brown bear, the DC to identify it is 2 higher than if it's black. Two bears attack you at once and you can conceivably go "hey, watch out for that black bear and its grapple attack, and what the hell is that brown thing?". This is the system you're defending.




Quick, which ones climb trees better?  And I have already pointed out the issue with variable HD changing the DC of even the same monster.  



Ahnehnois said:


> That's circular reasoning. A DC 10 knowledge check can get you common knowledge, which is anything of DC 10 or below. That tells us nothing.




It tells us monster identification is not common knowledge.



Ahnehnois said:


> There's nothing in that that says a DM can't define common knowledge to include things like which monsters are likely to have instant death abilities.




Nothing says the DM can't define all wizards as having pink spots.  That doesn't set what the actual rules are.  If the abilities and weaknesses of beasts like the Bodak are common knowledge, why bother with knowledge skills at all?



Bedrockgames said:


> Using HD as the basis for how difficult it is to know a creatures' weakesses never really seemed like a good idea to me. And 3E's ever increasing DCs, make it hard to have a world where the peasants can know the basics (because the dcs need to be able to challenege pcs as well)----hopefully the flatter math of 5E alleviates this issue a bit. You alsmost want each monster to have a specific DC. Presumably the GM has the entry or stats in front of him, so it is no harder than having to look up the creature's HD.




I think "by HD" has a game basis, in that it makes more powerful monsters, faced by PC's with better skills, harder to ID.  But that isn't an essential component.  I would not be putting Bodaks at DC 10 if we were assigning difficulties, though.  It also seems like there should be some possibility of misinformation such as Old Wive's Tales.  

One of the more fun characters I recall was designed specifically to NOT be knowledgeable about everything he ran across - but he sure knew his tales.

"Och, a Pixie - let's tear off its wings and make it take us to its pot of gold."

"How do I face the Umber Hulk?  Like any TRUE warrior - I look it straight in the eye, showing I don't fear it!"

[Still amazed I got a saving throw in that fight - the '1' I rolled sure felt right...]


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> these are not normal thpes of damage. These are things that attack your organs, or turn you dust or stone.



I don't really get this.

Chlorine gas attacks your organs - yet green dragon breath does hp damage.

Acid reacts chemically with your skin - yet black dragon breath, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc do hp damage.

A hot fire will turn you to dust (or, rather, ash) - yet red dragon breath, Fireballs, etc do hp damage.

A sword attacks your organs (via penetrating them) - yet does hp damage.

None of this is, as such, an objection to SoD. But it is the reason I find the demarcation between poison, and other forms of damage, curious in principle. I don't think it is very consistent.



Bedrockgames said:


> You alsmost want each monster to have a specific DC.



This is what the 4e Monster Manuals did.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 18, 2013)

N'raac said:


> The fact that a computer game sets a silly scenario does not mean I find that an appropriate baseline for a game world.



But you're okay with the silly scenario suggested by a narrow reading of the actual rules?

Do you think the entire MM is full of creatures that only live in secret on one island shrouded in mists?



> But I could also see bumping the DC up, not down, for more rare creatures.



Certainly. If you're in a desert and you get attacked by a White Dragon, there's going to be some head scratching. Your desert character might not know too much about what's going on.



> If the abilities and weaknesses of beasts like the Bodak are common knowledge, why bother with knowledge skills at all?



Perhaps because even common knowledge could be missed by a person with no bonus 45% of the time. Or for scenarios where you actually do need to know minute details about Medusas (as opposed to the obvious "don't look at them", which I'd put at DC 10-15 or so depending on context). Perhaps for things other than monster IDs.



> I would not be putting Bodaks at DC 10 if we were assigning difficulties, though.



I wouldn't either. However, a bodak has six entries that could qualify as special abilities (and revealed as useful knowledge). I would not require a DC 43 (i.e. epic) check to learn all of them.



> One of the more fun characters I recall was designed specifically to NOT be knowledgeable about everything he ran across - but he sure knew his tales.



I find this discussion particularly ironic because I did set a group of PCs against a bodak once, and they had no religious types and rolled low and didn't have any idea what it was. They never really figured it out and didn't particularly recall the bodak from the MM even when I explained it later, and the idea that all those angry glares I described were gaze attacks and that the fort saves were against death seemingly never occurred to them. At least, until the ranger's animal companion died after several rounds of this. Even then, they smoked it and its numerous allied undead without too many worries; I think some NPC died but that wasn't a huge deal.

Which just takes us back to the idea that this "broken math" and "guaranteed PC death" nonsense is...nonsense.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 18, 2013)

pemerton said:


> This is what the 4e Monster Manuals did.



And the rules also make it so all characters get better at making those checks as they advance, suggesting that experienced adventurers _do_ know something about monsters. Oddly enough, the 4e rule is actually better.



> None of this is, as such, an objection to SoD. But it is the reason I find the demarcation between poison, and other forms of damage, curious in principle. I don't think it is very consistent.



No it isn't. Using the same system to describe blunt force trauma, lacerations, and puncture wounds is already a stretch, and that's before you throw burns in there (and a bunch of other stuff).

There is, I think a real difference with poison (venom, really, in this context) worth noting; it acts slowly. Even extremely powerful poisons take time to kill.

Of course, you can just do that as damage over time, but then you get into balance issues (namely poison can be spammed away by weak healing spells over that time).

The other difference is that it has a specificity that wounds don't; a poison could stop you breathing or stop your heart but leave you otherwise fine. Targeting wounds is possible, but much harder. Ability damage sort of captures this aspect, because there are more abilities than there are types of hp.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 18, 2013)

/snip oops.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 18, 2013)

Pemerton, my Ipad is not letting me use the quote feature for some reason, so forgive my not including quotes of your post in my response (also spelling is going to be rough as well due to typos).

i think those are very good points, and I did have to think about them, which suggests to me one can go in either direction on that particular point and I prbably would be entering the realm of pixel picking if I were to dig my heels in and defend the position that "no, poison must be different from these other things and the system supports that!" So let me start by saying my chief reason for wanting SoD is aving high stakes lethality at certain points in the game. 

Clearly you are right, the system, because it is all over the place, is inconsistent about lots of things when you break them down. Theseints are hard enough to defend that i would say you are basically right in your objecting to making a big deal over the distinction. Here are some of my thoughts on why i tend to see poison as different, as well as some reactions to your points:

-there are inconsistencies across the game. I suppose though i have at least had poison being treated differently for so long, i am willing to overlook these other areas. For me having issues with believability in sme parts ofthe game, doesnt mean it is a good idea to take away the places that i do find believable. 

-i thing with the sword wound, the difference is i can easily write off the range of damage as a scratch or an impalement depending on the result. It has shortcomings of course (you cannot stab a 20th level character in the heart unless they only have a few hp left). But that is harder to do with a cobra, where you are basically either poisoned or not and cobra venom, once in the system, goes for the organs (my understanding is it can make your heart stop or interfere with cardiac functioning). But also keep in mind many snake poisons in egame work like breath weapons. Some are save or take 2d8 damage, or some are damage plus a special condition. 3E uses ability damage that is often enough to kill. I just like having soe venomes that are death.

-dragons breath is a save but you are right falls more inline with traditional damage. This is probably best acknowledged as being somewhat inconsistebt with my claim about poison. But i can still see a difference in play, where I could take in various amounts of the gas and suffer a broad range of damage. Also fire and acid do have different properties in most editions so there is at least some effort to ake a distinction between that and a sword blow. I think the chlorine gas though is hard not to ignore. Probably a good argument formakingit save or die (or at very least con damage and maybe even dex and int).

-On the 4E MM. I do not have that (just the PHB and DMG) but i like that solution better than the 3E one. The specifics of the monster, its rarity and where it is located are much better ways to determine knowledge DCs than HD (you could have a very widespread and common monster with high HD).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 18, 2013)

Adventuring is dangerous. Adventurers die sometimes. Death can come slowly through attrition, or instantaneously in any number of ways. A character in such a dangerous occupation should live life to the fullest because any moment may be the last. 

Unlike real life, if a PC dies we can just roll up another and keep playing. Dialing down the danger level to reduce the risk of a make believe persona kicking the bucket isn't worth the tradeoff. The loss of excitement that goes along with the risk is a loss the player will notice. The sharp intake of breath from a player about to roll a save vs disintigration for a beloved PC is irreplaceable. The exhilaration felt when the save is successful only exists because of the potential anguish of a failure. 

A "safer" environment kills the full range of excitement as much as it saves the lives of fictional personas. This is a game played for the entertainment of actual people. Childproofing the environment to prevent the " opps you died" moments is like playing poker without betting, just not as exciting.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 18, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Do you think the entire MM is full of creatures that only live in secret on one island shrouded in mists?




That would imply no one would have much in the way of knowledge of those creatures.  Do you consider the MM bedtime reading for toddlers around the D&D world?



Ahnehnois said:


> Certainly. If you're in a desert and you get attacked by a White Dragon, there's going to be some head scratching. Your desert character might not know too much about what's going on.




I was referencing "some creatures would be much less well known than their HD might indicate", but the need to have separate modifiers for every character based on background and experience in different terrains multiplies the complexity considerably.  But your model suggests that both the Arctic character and the lifelong desert dweller know all the basics of that white dragon,  Where it is encountered does not alter those odds, in my view (unless we assume the arctic dweller dismisses the signs it is a White Dragon because they don't live in the desert - but then, that implies he has knowledge of the desert as well as the arctic).



Ahnehnois said:


> Perhaps because even common knowledge could be missed by a person with no bonus 45% of the time. Or for scenarios where you actually do need to know minute details about Medusas (as opposed to the obvious "don't look at them", which I'd put at DC 10-15 or so depending on context). Perhaps for things other than monster IDs.




Take 10!  Perhaps this is an answer for a lot of the randomness.  Given the knowledge check cannot be re-tried because "the check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place" , perhaps Take 10 should be automatic in many cases.  This does, however, set a pretty strict curriculum - EVERYONE with +3 knows everything with a check of 13- and nothing with a higher DC.  

I wonder whether a better answer might be that the check is "what you immediately recognize in the heat of the moment", and you may Take 20 by taking the time to sit down, in calm surroundings, gather your thoughts, and carefully consider all aspects of the issue.  Maybe that gets a penalty if you lack the appropriate tools  - say, without your notes and reference materials, you take a -5, say, much larger than the usual penalty, but with access to excellent facilities, such as a research library, you get +5.  Or perhaps taking a few moments to review the notes you carry with you, and consider the matter, allows you to Take 10 (meaning all common knowledge can be recovered in a minute or so, provided you can focus on the issue without being distracted), while access to proper research materials (your library at home, for example) and a few hours permits you to Take 20.  A great research facility might even allow "Take 20 with a bonus", while colleagues might provide a sounding board ("Aid Another").

We'd still be a long way off from "real world" realism.  Maybe not as far as I'm off the actual topic, but pretty far nonetheless.  



Ahnehnois said:


> I wouldn't either. However, a bodak has six entries that could qualify as special abilities (and revealed as useful knowledge). I would not require a DC 43 (i.e. epic) check to learn all of them.




It is another flaw in the system that more abilities = less likelihod of recall.  Perhaps a random number of facts, with a bonus for making the roll by X (and X could vary with the creature, smaller for those with lots to reveal) ensuring higher skill typically generates more results.  That said, for a rare creature with many unknowns, I have no problem with only Epic Success getting all the details, especially with NO CHANCE of misrecall or misinformation resulting in an error, rather than "don't know".



Ahnehnois said:


> I find this discussion particularly ironic because I did set a group of PCs against a bodak once, and they had no religious types and rolled low and didn't have any idea what it was. They never really figured it out and didn't particularly recall the bodak from the MM even when I explained it later, and the idea that all those angry glares I described were gaze attacks and that the fort saves were against death seemingly never occurred to them. At least, until the ranger's animal companion died after several rounds of this. Even then, they smoked it and its numerous allied undead without too many worries; I think some NPC died but that wasn't a huge deal.
> 
> Which just takes us back to the idea that this "broken math" and "guaranteed PC death" nonsense is...nonsense.




Does the fact that I once had a group roll all 1's for saves prove it's not nonsense, or do we accept the potential for statistical outliers?  If a bunch of NPC's died, as well as that Animal Companion, perhaps the issue is that you targeted the creature away from PC's, another means of mitigating the "save or die" aspects.  That, or they're heroically using the NPC's as human shields to die in their place.   The Bodak DC is 15.  At CR 8, a strong save is +6 and a weak one is +2.  It's CON based, so slap +1 to +4 on and we get a range of success from 12 (45% success) to 5 (80% success).

Now, assuming the bodak took your advice and did plenty of scouting, it should target those FORT weak characters.  Three attempts have a 9.1% of not killing the target.  Three attempts against the hardiest targets allow a 51.2% chance the target survives.



Bedrockgames said:


> i think those are very good points, and I did have to think about them, which suggests to me one can go in either direction on that particular point and I prbably would be entering the realm of pixel picking if I were to dig my heels in and defend the position that "no, poison must be different from these other things and the system supports that!" So let me start by saying my chief reason for wanting SoD is aving high stakes lethality at certain points in the game.
> 
> -i thing with the sword wound, the difference is i can easily write off the range of damage as a scratch or an impalement depending on the result. It has shortcomings of course (you cannot stab a 20th level character in the heart unless they only have a few hp left). But that is harder to do with a cobra, where you are basically either poisoned or not and cobra venom, once in the system, goes for the organs (my understanding is it can make your heart stop or interfere with cardiac functioning). But also keep in mind many snake poisons in egame work like breath weapons. Some are save or take 2d8 damage, or some are damage plus a special condition. 3E uses ability damage that is often enough to kill. I just like having soe venomes that are death.




So why does the most lethal of venoms either kill the target or leave him unharmed, with no possible result in between?  That is what SoD does.  Is that a reasonable result that satisfies your desire for verissimillitude?



Bedrockgames said:


> -dragons breath is a save but you are right falls more inline with traditional damage. This is probably best acknowledged as being somewhat inconsistebt with my claim about poison. But i can still see a difference in play, where I could take in various amounts of the gas and suffer a broad range of damage. Also fire and acid do have different properties in most editions so there is at least some effort to ake a distinction between that and a sword blow. I think the chlorine gas though is hard not to ignore. Probably a good argument formakingit save or die (or at very least con damage and maybe even dex and int).




I'm amazed you can see all those possibilities, but view poison as always having a precise dose delivered (or, perhaps, nothing), with no possibility that a hardier soul might be injured, but not killed, by the lethal venom.  If he does save, that exceptionally lethal attack did precisely nothing?  "Dead" or "Unaffected" are appropriately the sole choices?


----------



## Grydan (Jul 18, 2013)

ExploderWizard said:


> Adventuring is dangerous. Adventurers die sometimes. Death can come slowly through attrition, or instantaneously in any number of ways. A character in such a dangerous occupation should live life to the fullest because any moment may be the last.
> 
> Unlike real life, if a PC dies we can just roll up another and keep playing. Dialing down the danger level to reduce the risk of a make believe persona kicking the bucket isn't worth the tradeoff. The loss of excitement that goes along with the risk is a loss the player will notice. The sharp intake of breath from a player about to roll a save vs disintigration for a beloved PC is irreplaceable. The exhilaration felt when the save is successful only exists because of the potential anguish of a failure.
> 
> A "safer" environment kills the full range of excitement as much as it saves the lives of fictional personas. This is a game played for the entertainment of actual people. Childproofing the environment to prevent the " opps you died" moments is like playing poker without betting, just not as exciting.




As someone who has been playing 4E since June of 2008, and DMing it since February 2009, I feel safe in assuring you that neither I nor any of the players I've DMed for feel that their world is 'child-proofed' and lacking in the threat of death, despite the absence of SoD spells and effects.

Plenty of characters have died. Plenty have had close brushes, on more than one occasion. There's been at least one near-miraculous recovery, as well as quite a few last-second rescues.

Characters have died in a fire, been turned into wraiths, been hammered flat on a table, drowned in blood, turned to stone, had their mind erased, fallen to their doom, been killed by bone shrapnel, bled out, been executed, been eaten … you know, 'child-safe' sorts of fates.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 18, 2013)

N'raac said:


> That would imply no one would have much in the way of knowledge of those creatures.  Do you consider the MM bedtime reading for toddlers around the D&D world?



To a great extent, yes. We've all heard stories of fantasy and monsters, and toddlers are commonly told such stories at bedtime, and have been throughout history. And those stories are about stuff we made up. If there were _real _monsters, they would be even more ingrained in culture than our fantastical ones are.

Most children in most parts of the world have some notion of what a dragon is, what a fairy is, what a ghost is. I find it not much of a stretch to think that a D&D child (let alone an adventurer) knows more.



> But your model suggests that both the Arctic character and the lifelong desert dweller know all the basics of that white dragon



I have a model?

If anything, my model for knowledge checks is "DM sets DC based on context". That suggests that people know a great deal about creatures that live in their area, that travelers and cosmopolitans know something about a lot of creatures, and that only academics know about creatures that are actually rare or do not live nearby.



> Take 10!



Taking 10 on a Knowledge check, while not explicitly forbidden by the rules, seems pretty dubious to me. And you definitely can't do it in combat, which is usually when you're identifying monsters.



> I wonder whether a better answer might be that the check is "what you immediately recognize in the heat of the moment", and you may...[do research and stuff]



Research is yet another topic that the existing 3.5 Knowledge rules don't explicitly handle. CoC d20 has a separate skill for it.



> It is another flaw in the system that more abilities = less likelihod of recall.



There sure are a lot of really basic flaws in this system.

The whole "untrained characters can't make checks of higher than DC 10" is another one.



> Does the fact that I once had a group roll all 1's for saves prove it's not nonsense, or do we accept the potential for statistical outliers?



No. It means than in a d20 game, when people roll poorly, bad things can happen. You could just as easily be killed by a bunch of orcs rolling 20's.



> If a bunch of NPC's died, as well as that Animal Companion, perhaps the issue is that you targeted the creature away from PC's, another means of mitigating the "save or die" aspects.  That, or they're heroically using the NPC's as human shields to die in their place.   The Bodak DC is 15.  At CR 8, a strong save is +6 and a weak one is +2.  It's CON based, so slap +1 to +4 on and we get a range of success from 12 (45% success) to 5 (80% success).
> 
> Now, assuming the bodak took your advice and did plenty of scouting, it should target those FORT weak characters.  Three attempts have a 9.1% of not killing the target.  Three attempts against the hardiest targets allow a 51.2% chance the target survives.



First off, one weak fort NPC that they weren't really allied with died IIRC (and was raised), and the PCs were forming a wall preventing the undead from attacking a bunch on noncombatant NPCs. Second, I would never use a bodak or anything else out of the book straight up; this one was against a 6th (I think) level party, was advanced and had a template. It was chucking DC 20 saves at them and had an AC of 31, and and had 10 lesser undead creatures assisting it. Third, I don't remember giving any advice to bodaks, but yes it did target weaker characters and otherwise do sensible things.

And you know what, without them bothering to even avert their eyes, they still handled it fine. If someone had rolled low and died, the rest of them would have backed off and been more careful, and even though I restrict resurrection, it was an option for them. At the end of the day, this advanced bodak with a template, extra HD, better ability scores, magic items, allies, and the element of surprise was a moderately challenging and moderately exciting battle for a party of three level 6 PCs. It's not gamebreaking, or even eyebrow raising. It's just a monster from the first MM, a classic no less.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 18, 2013)

N'racc. I was conceding the believability issue largely and offering pemerton some possible subjective reasons why it still appeals to my sense of that. But that said, I do agree poison could be more realistic. It is highly simplified in the same way HP are. And as I told pemerton my main reason for supporting SoD is I find save or die effects exciting. To me they add a lot of fun to the game. I guess around things like certain poisons and magical abilities it feels appropriate to me to add in save or die. But I am not terribly worried about consistency across the system where some other effects that are arguably just as dangerous do not revive the same treatment


----------



## Balesir (Jul 18, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> N'racc. I was conceding the believability issue largely and offering pemerton some possible subjective reasons why it still appeals to my sense of that. But that said, I do agree poison could be more realistic. It is highly simplified in the same way HP are. And as I told pemerton my main reason for supporting SoD is I find save or die effects exciting. To me they add a lot of fun to the game. I guess around things like certain poisons and magical abilities it feels appropriate to me to add in save or die. But I am not terribly worried about consistency across the system where some other effects that are arguably just as dangerous do not revive the same treatment



I'll just say, here, that I understood your post perfectly, and appreciated it - thank you.

It goes back to what I said, in support of others, to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] several pages ago: it really does boil down to preferences. If you want the excitement of the "instant gamble" in your D&D, then having SoD there will suit you (this would be Bedrockgames); if the inconsistency bothers you and you want the game to all work on a consistent basis, and you're not bothered about "one off" gambles (this would be me), then they won't.

Pointing out to either of us that we're wrong to like what we like, or that BRG is wrong to say that he likes the excitement of poison being "extra special nasty" even if it doesn't match some sort of imagined "real world model" (which has any relevance why, exactly?), or that I'm wrong because there is no conceivable inconsistency between hit points being the mechanism by which heroes don't die in some situations but not being that in others is both a waste of time and offensive. If you like something different, cool - good for you. But don't argue that black is white because someone likes something different from you.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 18, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> To a great extent, yes. We've all heard stories of fantasy and monsters, and toddlers are commonly told such stories at bedtime, and have been throughout history. And those stories are about stuff we made up. If there were _real _monsters, they would be even more ingrained in culture than our fantastical ones are.




Would they?  I see very few bedtime stories about slave ownership, sweatshop labour, serial killers and crooked politicians.  The real world is largely off limits when dealing with children.  And the fact is that those bedtime stories often dealt with creatures that the teller *believed* to be real.  If we got it that wrong when we don't have a host of real monsters in our world, why would the "real monsters" world have greater accuracy?



Ahnehnois said:


> If anything, my model for knowledge checks is "DM sets DC based on context". That suggests that people know a great deal about creatures that live in their area, that travelers and cosmopolitans know something about a lot of creatures, and that only academics know about creatures that are actually rare or do not live nearby.




So write a background that males you a well-travelled cosmopolitan academic - that way, you get the best skills.  To a large extent, I find the 3rd Ed skill system was an attempt to codify use of character resources (skill points, feats) to be knowledgeable, persuasive, etc. and not leave this to who can best leverage their background and their personal abilities as a player, rather than the abilities of their character.



Ahnehnois said:


> Taking 10 on a Knowledge check, while not explicitly forbidden by the rules, seems pretty dubious to me. And you definitely can't do it in combat, which is usually when you're identifying monsters.




I thought we saw the monster, teleported away then did all our homework and spell load changing.  Now that I'm safe at home, let's consider what that creature was.



Ahnehnois said:


> Research is yet another topic that the existing 3.5 Knowledge rules don't explicitly handle. CoC d20 has a separate skill for it.




CoC has always been a very research-focused game, so it needed a separate skill.  It's been there since its Chaosium days.



Ahnehnois said:


> There sure are a lot of really basic flaws in this system.




Much like hit points, we allow playability to override realism or even verisimilitude.  That's hardly new.



Ahnehnois said:


> The whole "untrained characters can't make checks of higher than DC 10" is another one.




You want knowledge beyond that, pay for the skill.  Again, character resources dictate character abilities.  I have no desire to see the Wizard with no ranks be more knowledgeable of religion than the Cleric, or beat out the Ranger re Nature.  Not even at 1st level!



Ahnehnois said:


> No. It means than in a d20 game, when people roll poorly, bad things can happen. You could just as easily be killed by a bunch of orcs rolling 20's.




Precisely.  Just as your example means that, when people get lucky, SoD becomes less challenging.



Ahnehnois said:


> First off, one weak fort NPC that they weren't really allied with died IIRC (and was raised), and the PCs were forming a wall preventing the undead from attacking a bunch on noncombatant NPCs. Second, I would never use a bodak or anything else out of the book straight up; this one was against a 6th (I think) level party, was advanced and had a template. It was chucking DC 20 saves at them and had an AC of 31, and and had 10 lesser undead creatures assisting it. Third, I don't remember giving any advice to bodaks, but yes it did target weaker characters and otherwise do sensible things.




Not sure how the raising of an NPC of negligible consequence fits with resurrection being restricted (doesn't Raise Dead fail on death effects?).  If I had a death gaze and were inclined to engage in combat, I'd be targeting the fellows most effectively cutting down my lesser undead minions to prevent them getting to me - and getting out of Dodge if it looked like they were getting through.  But then, Bodaks have INT 6 - so they should be no more tactically savvy than, say a 7 INT dump fighter.

And I suppose if you have L6 characters powered up to the point where DC 20 saves and hitting AC 31 is simply routine, and the resources to raise (resurrect?) an NPC are easy enough to come by that we'll use them on an NPC we have no real alliance with, then this creature isn't that big a deal.  Let's add in a monster with SoD at a DC that is actually as challenging as a 15 would be for a typical L8 character and let it fight for a few rounds.

I also find it odd your initial arguments was that it's all about learning about the enemy, but now the enemy isn't really a threat anyway.



Bedrockgames said:


> N'racc. I was conceding the believability issue largely and offering pemerton some possible subjective reasons why it still appeals to my sense of that. But that said, I do agree poison could be more realistic. It is highly simplified in the same way HP are. And as I told pemerton my main reason for supporting SoD is I find save or die effects exciting. To me they add a lot of fun to the game. I guess around things like certain poisons and magical abilities it feels appropriate to me to add in save or die. But I am not terribly worried about consistency across the system where some other effects that are arguably just as dangerous do not revive the same treatment




SoD seems to me a relation of the old "pull a random level on an artifact and see if your character gets powered up or disintegrated" style of play suggested by many old 1e artifacts.  "Roll a die - oh, a 1, make a new character" doesn't strike me as a great game mechanic.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 18, 2013)

N'raac said:


> If we got it that wrong when we don't have a host of real monsters in our world, why would the "real monsters" world have greater accuracy?



Well, partially because D&D people have in some ways better (magical) methods of traveling, learning, and disseminating knowledge than we do today.



> So write a background that males you a well-travelled cosmopolitan academic - that way, you get the best skills.



To some extent, yes. However, DMs (and players) are expected to self-police themselves to some extent. Saying that your 1st level character is the guy from the Dos Equis commercials is not forbidden by any rule, but is BS.

And there is not one clear "best". If your background is "I'm an elven druid, I've lived in these woods for a hundred years and I know them like the back of my hand", your common or assumed knowledge about that area is probably much deeper and more accurate than that of some dilettante adventurer. But you may be pretty clueless about other environs; effectively raising the DC for unfamiliar settings. Conversely, a well-traveled adventurer may be a jack of all trades, master of none.



> To a large extent, I find the 3rd Ed skill system was an attempt to codify use of character resources (skill points, feats) to be knowledgeable, persuasive, etc. and not leave this to who can best leverage their background and their personal abilities as a player, rather than the abilities of their character.



I don't know about that. 3.0 was very open-ended in what a Knowledge skill could be and did not have the monster ID rule; it was codified more for 3.5 (not one of the better updates, IMO). The skill system is a mixed bag; not all skills seem to mean the same thing. Something like Jump has a very clear objective meaning (roll X, Jump Y feet), but Knowledge (as well as many other skills) seems more subjective to me. AFAICT, a 20 Knowledge check means whatever the DM says it does.

As a somewhat random sidebar, the entire skill system in 13th Age works off of players saying what their background is, leaving it to the player to define what they're spending their skill points on, and the DM to decide when they apply. Those guys seem to trust people to be reasonable about it (and one of them did write 3e).



> Much like hit points, we allow playability to override realism or even verisimilitude.  That's hardly new.



Except that in this case, the 10 + CR rule causes more difficulties in play than if you just ignored it completely, stuck with the general guidelines for Knowledge checks, and let the DM make a quick call.

Hit points aren't worth it either.



> You want knowledge beyond that, pay for the skill.  Again, character resources dictate character abilities.  I have no desire to see the Wizard with no ranks be more knowledgeable of religion than the Cleric, or beat out the Ranger re Nature.  Not even at 1st level!



Well, that would not happen (assuming the other characters maxed their main knowledge skill) unless the wizard had an Int mod 4 higher than the other character. If that's the case, I think Mr. Wizard the Genius deserves it. And so what if he does know more? Training quickly outpaces these ability score differences. If anything, I think the genius deserves more of a relative advantage. As another random sidebar, one of the minor class abilities I've added is to give several classes extra bonuses in their main knowledge skills to make sure that druids are the nature experts (nature sense expanded).

But why does this trained only line of reasoning apply only to Knowledge? A character who rolls a 20 on a Jump check jumps as far as the check result dictates. A character who rolls a 20 on Diplo gets the results of a trained diplomat. Why does a character rolling a 20 on Knowledge get no more than a character rolling a 10? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that even a person of average intelligence can answer a DC 20 question 5% of the time. People hear things. The whole Knowledge being trained only thing is another easy ignore in my book.



> Precisely.  Just as your example means that, when people get lucky, SoD becomes less challenging.



When people get lucky, any part of the game gets easier. When they get unlucky, the game tends not to go well. That's why we roll dice for everything, because we want random, unpredictable outcomes. No problem here.



> Not sure how the raising of an NPC of negligible consequence fits with resurrection being restricted (doesn't Raise Dead fail on death effects?).



The NPCs importance to the PCs and his importance in general are different things. To explain, this NPC was a rich guy the characters met only due to a teleportation accident, resurrection in my world requires that a life be sacrificed in exchange for any resurrection, and his traveling party brought along a condemned criminal and resurrection scroll for that purpose, because they knew it was a dangerous trip.



> If I had a death gaze and were inclined to engage in combat, I'd be targeting the fellows most effectively cutting down my lesser undead minions to prevent them getting to me - and getting out of Dodge if it looked like they were getting through.  But then, Bodaks have INT 6 - so they should be no more tactically savvy than, say a 7 INT dump fighter.



Also, how are they going to get out of dodge with that speed? This bodak had 10 Int, and was played as such. He did the best he could. I believe the lesser undead were mowed down by fireballs from the party wizard, who most likely was smart enough to stay far away. Not much a slow-moving bodak can do.



> And I suppose if you have L6 characters powered up to the point where DC 20 saves and hitting AC 31 is simply routine, and the resources to raise (resurrect?) an NPC are easy enough to come by that we'll use them on an NPC we have no real alliance with, then this creature isn't that big a deal.  Let's add in a monster with SoD at a DC that is actually as challenging as a 15 would be for a typical L8 character and let it fight for a few rounds.



I suspect they killed it without hitting its AC. Magic missiles and such. And, the point of all this detail is that my PCs were a good bit more powerful than your standard array, standard gold, standard rules chumps (as I would hope most are), but so was this monster. It all balances out.



> I also find it odd your initial arguments was that it's all about learning about the enemy, but now the enemy isn't really a threat anyway.



My initial arguments were about SoD not being an inordinate threat, in some part because knowledgeable PCs can mitigate that threat. This is your tangent.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 19, 2013)

N'raac said:


> SoD seems to me a relation of the old "pull a random level on an artifact and see if your character gets powered up or disintegrated" style of play suggested by many old 1e artifacts.  "Roll a die - oh, a 1, make a new character" doesn't strike me as a great game mechanic.




It need not strike you as a great game mechanic for me to enjoy it or belief it is a perfectly useful tool for designers to draw on. At the same time, if this sort of thing doesn't appeal to you, that is absolutely cool (i am not terribly fond of critical hit charts, but I don't think they are bad design, and I can see how some folks like them----i even found them fun when someone ran me through the latest edition of The Morrow Project). Not everyone enjoys saves or die. Some folks do. For me it has a place in the D&D i like to play.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 19, 2013)

Even those types of situations have an "out" for players:  Decide not to pull any levers.

When given an opportunity at a Deck of Many Things, for example, my standard answer to the question, "How many cards?" has always bee "Zero".

The risks always outweighed any possible benefits.  Think about it:  Imagine you, in real life, facing a tree with five holes in it.  Inside one opening is a diamond worth 20,000,000 dollars.  Inside another is a blade that will chop your hand off, maiming you at a minimum and possibly leaving you to bleed to death.

Would you stick your unprotected hand in any of those openings?  I wouldn't.  My life is worth more to me than $20,000,000.  So, for that matter, is my hand.

And that's a "fair" bet, a 50/50 chance.  (Yeah, there's a 60% chance nothing will happen, but all that does is give you a chance to change your mind.  Maybe.)  

Things like the "Pull a lever and get rich/powered up or get killed" gizmos are seldom a 50/50 in any D&D game I've ever played in, in any edition.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 19, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> Even those types of situations have an "out" for players:  Decide not to pull any levers.
> 
> When given an opportunity at a Deck of Many Things, for example, my standard answer to the question, "How many cards?" has always bee "Zero".
> 
> ...




I have to admit I might put my hand in the opening. 20,000,000 is a lot of money, and I have student loans to pay Plus my family would be set for life. Risk is worth the potential reward in that case for me.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 19, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to admit I might put my hand in the opening. 20,000,000 is a lot of money, and I have student loans to pay Plus my family would be set for life. Risk is worth the potential reward in that case for me.



As a man with a family, and hence responsibilities, ask yourself this"
1) Can your family make it without $20,000,000?
2) Can your family make it without you?

Remember, they either get both, or neither.  Very little in-between here.

You might be okay with dying.  Would they be okay if you weren't there to help?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 19, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> As a man with a family, and hence responsibilities, ask yourself this"
> 1) Can your family make it without $20,000,000?
> 2) Can your family make it without you?
> 
> ...




Yes, my wife is entirely capable without me. Plus it is 20,000,000 dollars. Sorry, but I am putting my hand in the opening it wouldn't just benefit my wife, but my mother, father, cousins, uncles and aunts. Too much good could come from this 20,000,000 dollars. Had you said 20,000, then I would not have taken the hole. But 20,000,000 is an epic ton of money. 

though I have to say, we have not established that I have a 100% chance of dying from the wound. People lose hands and live, so there are three possibilities:

1) I die and get no money
2) I lose my hand, live, and get no money
3) I live and get money


----------



## pemerton (Jul 19, 2013)

ExploderWizard said:


> Unlike real life, if a PC dies we can just roll up another and keep playing. Dialing down the danger level to reduce the risk of a make believe persona kicking the bucket isn't worth the tradeoff. The loss of excitement that goes along with the risk is a loss the player will notice.



I think it's obvious that this won't be true for  all D&D players.

That is, for some another PC _can't_ just be rolled up and played instead - for whatever reason a particular PC is integral to the campaign, or that player's conception of it. And the nature of excitement, and who is thrilled by what, is also highly variable. For instance, I find combat in 4e more exciting than combat in Rolemaster, even though Rolemaster has much more of a "death lottery" aspect to it (via its crit rules) because of the pacing of 4e combat.

And on the subject of difference of taste, thanks [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] for your reply. If you _want_ the "death lottery" aspect of SoD in your game, then poison is as good a place as any to put it, I guess! 

On the chlorine gas issue, one of the first things I noticed as a new player reading through the Rolemaster bestiary 20-something years ago is that the Rolemaster green dragon breathes poison that engages that's system's poison mechanics rather than its attack table mechanics (this isn't as big a difference as in D&D, because RM is death-by-wounds rather than death-by-hit-point-attrition, but it is still a mechanical difference derived from D&D). And one interesting difference between HARP and RM (given that HARP is mostly RM-lite) is that HARP takes poisons and puts them onto an attack table like the rest of the system (so there is an Internal Poison attack table for poison needles, chlorine gas etc and an External Poison attack table for acid, dragon blood etc). I prefer the HARP approach for its greater mechanical consistency.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 19, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I
> 
> On the chlorine gas issue, one of the first things I noticed as a new player reading through the Rolemaster bestiary 20-something years ago is that the Rolemaster green dragon breathes poison that engages that's system's poison mechanics rather than its attack table mechanics (this isn't as big a difference as in D&D, because RM is death-by-wounds rather than death-by-hit-point-attrition, but it is still a mechanical difference derived from D&D). And one interesting difference between HARP and RM (given that HARP is mostly RM-lite) is that HARP takes poisons and puts them onto an attack table like the rest of the system (so there is an Internal Poison attack table for poison needles, chlorine gas etc and an External Poison attack table for acid, dragon blood etc). I prefer the HARP approach for its greater mechanical consistency.




Lnking aspects of the system like this can definitely create more consistency (and so can the HARP approach). I think there are usually two reasons for not linking that sort of attack to the poison subsystem in a game (assuming the poison subsystem is a seperate mechanic): the first is that the designer simply overlooked doing so, the second is simplicity or reduction of referencing the book. I am actually working on a fantasy game now, and we have a poison and disease subsystem. In some cases, I have been reluctant to link poison attacks of more common monsters to it, simply because it is more cumbersome to employ the poison mechanic than the damage mechanic. In others I have not. My personal rationale for the decision is that the poisons are different, so if one happens to do a wound, while another engages the susbsystem, it should be okay. But it is still less consistent and the real reason is mainlybsimplicity, ease of play.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 19, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I think it's obvious that this won't be true for all D&D players.




Certainly not. Not everyone plays for the same reasons.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, partially because D&D people have in some ways better (magical) methods of traveling, learning, and disseminating knowledge than we do today.




Are they universally available, or tightly guarded secrets?  Can any peasant access teleportation magic?  If so, why are there still so many dangerous, evil monsters running around when everyone can access powerful magic?



Ahnehnois said:


> To some extent, yes. However, DMs (and players) are expected to self-police themselves to some extent. Saying that your 1st level character is the guy from the Dos Equis commercials is not forbidden by any rule, but is BS.




And character building rules typically seek to make the available options explicit, and draw the "BS Line".



Ahnehnois said:


> And there is not one clear "best". If your background is "I'm an elven druid, I've lived in these woods for a hundred years and I know them like the back of my hand", your common or assumed knowledge about that area is probably much deeper and more accurate than that of some dilettante adventurer. But you may be pretty clueless about other environs; effectively raising the DC for unfamiliar settings. Conversely, a well-traveled adventurer may be a jack of all trades, master of none.




I'm a 500 year old elf. I've spent WAY more time in dozens of environments than ANY starting Human adventurer could have spent in even ONE. But I have the same skill ranks as any other L1 character.  I think the latter is equitable.



Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know about that. 3.0 was very open-ended in what a Knowledge skill could be and did not have the monster ID rule; it was codified more for 3.5 (not one of the better updates, IMO). The skill system is a mixed bag; not all skills seem to mean the same thing. Something like Jump has a very clear objective meaning (roll X, Jump Y feet), but Knowledge (as well as many other skills) seems more subjective to me. AFAICT, a 20 Knowledge check means whatever the DM says it does.




I think it's far better than "Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate succeeds and fails on whether the GM is impressed with the player's speech and/or wants the target to be influenced".  YMMV



Ahnehnois said:


> Except that in this case, the 10 + CR rule causes more difficulties in play than if you just ignored it completely, stuck with the general guidelines for Knowledge checks, and let the DM make a quick call.




In your opinion. Why can't I use "Local Knowledge" to read , speak and understand a local language? Aren't the words and writing "local" enough for you?



Ahnehnois said:


> Well, that would not happen (assuming the other characters maxed their main knowledge skill) unless the wizard had an Int mod 4 higher than the other character. If that's the case, I think Mr. Wizard the Genius deserves it.




Then we disagree.  And I'd say the specific disagreement is whether Knowledge should be a Trained skill. I don't care how smart that Wizard is - without religious training, there is knowledge of religion he has simply never been exposed to.  Similarly, his book learning doesn't tell him which mushrooms are safe to eat.



Ahnehnois said:


> But why does this trained only line of reasoning apply only to Knowledge? A character who rolls a 20 on a Jump check jumps as far as the check result dictates. A character who rolls a 20 on Diplo gets the results of a trained diplomat. Why does a character rolling a 20 on Knowledge get no more than a character rolling a 10? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that even a person of average intelligence can answer a DC 20 question 5% of the time. People hear things. The whole Knowledge being trained only thing is another easy ignore in my book.




Roll 20 on Use Magic Device or Handle Animal with no skill ranks.  It is different because trained and untrained skills are different. 



Ahnehnois said:


> When people get lucky, any part of the game gets easier. When they get unlucky, the game tends not to go well. That's why we roll dice for everything, because we want random, unpredictable outcomes. No problem here.




And that is why your Bodak encounter did not result in wide scale fatalities - luck.



Ahnehnois said:


> The NPCs importance to the PCs and his importance in general are different things. To explain, this NPC was a rich guy the characters met only due to a teleportation accident, resurrection in my world requires that a life be sacrificed in exchange for any resurrection, and his traveling party brought along a condemned criminal and resurrection scroll for that purpose, because they knew it was a dangerous trip.




Complete aside, but I'm not seeing that suggesting great restrictions on raising the dead.  It seems like something anyone with gold can do.  Mind you, if Teleport is a routine travel means available to the peasants, then Raise Dead is probably pretty common too without adding in some restrictions to prevent universality.



Ahnehnois said:


> Also, how are they going to get out of dodge with that speed? This bodak had 10 Int, and was played as such. He did the best he could. I believe the lesser undead were mowed down by fireballs from the party wizard, who most likely was smart enough to stay far away. Not much a slow-moving bodak can do.




So he was played with the same level of tactics and strategy as a 10 INT fighter? It seems that your expectation of "standard PC knowledge and tactics" is a lot greater than for this Bodak of similar intellect.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 19, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Are they universally available, or tightly guarded secrets?  Can any peasant access teleportation magic?



No, but it only takes a few world travelers to disseminate information.



> And character building rules typically seek to make the available options explicit, and draw the "BS Line".



I think you're really missing the point. The point of the skill system is to describe, not proscribe. Before 3e, there was little to no mechanical representation for a character who knew a lot, let alone about any particular topic. The point of the skill system is to let players describe their characters in a more thorough and standardized fashion. Not so much to draw lines on what they can and cannot do with those skills.



> I think it's far better than "Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate succeeds and fails on whether the GM is impressed with the player's speech and/or wants the target to be influenced".  YMMV



AFAIC, that's pretty much how most skills work. If a player wants to do something, he declares the action, makes the roll, and I adjudicate it based on how impressed I am by the total package (his description and the roll).



> Then we disagree.  And I'd say the specific disagreement is whether Knowledge should be a Trained skill. I don't care how smart that Wizard is - without religious training, there is knowledge of religion he has simply never been exposed to.  Similarly, his book learning doesn't tell him which mushrooms are safe to eat.



It's not an issue of intelligence, it's more about luck. After all, if an untrained character gets a 15 or a 20 on something, most of that result is likely from the die roll. It just means that the character overheard something years ago and remembered it, or made an intuitive leap. You don't need religious training to have a small chance of having heard of some rare undead creature or any religious fact. Everyone knows a few random esoteric things.



> Roll 20 on Use Magic Device or Handle Animal with no skill ranks.  It is different because trained and untrained skills are different.



I would think that a sufficiently charismatic person should be able to do things with either of those skills untrained. The whole trained only concept is really unnecessary. If you don't want untrained people doing something, raise the DC.



> And that is why your Bodak encounter did not result in wide scale fatalities - luck.



That's why any challenging encounter ends with or without PC fatalities. Luck. Luck is part of the equation.



> Complete aside, but I'm not seeing that suggesting great restrictions on raising the dead.  It seems like something anyone with gold can do.



Anyone with gold and a spare life to trade (or equal or greater HD to the target to be raised). Which is an official variant, BTW.



> So he was played with the same level of tactics and strategy as a 10 INT fighter? It seems that your expectation of "standard PC knowledge and tactics" is a lot greater than for this Bodak of similar intellect.



Not really, no.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> No, but it only takes a few world travelers to disseminate information.




Provided they are prepared to spend their time adding to an educational infrastructure.  There are quite a few quantum physicists on our world, and we have the Internet.  Can you explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy off the top of your head?  Do you think you could work with a crisis involving these from memory, or even from the info available online?



Ahnehnois said:


> I think you're really missing the point. The point of the skill system is to describe, not proscribe. Before 3e, there was little to no mechanical representation for a character who knew a lot, let alone about any particular topic. The point of the skill system is to let players describe their characters in a more thorough and standardized fashion. Not so much to draw lines on what they can and cannot do with those skills.




If the only thing we wanted was standardized description, a few standardized descriptors and a line for "skills and knowledges" would do the trick just fine.  No need for mechanics.



Ahnehnois said:


> AFAIC, that's pretty much how most skills work. If a player wants to do something, he declares the action, makes the roll, and I adjudicate it based on how impressed I am by the total package (his description and the roll).




Here is where we clearly will differ.  I do not believe an articulate, passionate player with an 8 CHA character who invests nothing in social skills should gain an advantage because the player is persuasive, nor that the wallflower stuttering player running a suave James Bond character with a high CHA and significant social skill investment should be penalized.  I don't ask the couch potato player to demonstrate a shouler roll, tucked into a triple front roll,fkipping sidelong to launch himself upwards, drawing a kitchen knife from a belt loop in the process, when his character attempts to tumble through the enemy ranks to attack the wizard in the back, nor would I give a player with a Black Belt any bonuses in HTH combat.  There is no reason player skill should influence social skill success.

Now, I would certainly give a bonus for having, say, useful info to enhance those skills (for example, knowledge that the Baron likes fine wine, and a gift of a rare vintage, would certainly be worth a bonus to Diplomacy).  But we also give bonuses in combat for things like higher ground or being invisible.  Given those are +1 or +2 bonuses, that's the level I would expect in social situations as well.  Mind you, the right intel, gift, threat, bribe, etc. might well be the equivalent of a coup de grace...



Ahnehnois said:


> It's not an issue of intelligence, it's more about luck. After all, if an untrained character gets a 15 or a 20 on something, most of that result is likely from the die roll. It just means that the character overheard something years ago and remembered it, or made an intuitive leap. You don't need religious training to have a small chance of having heard of some rare undead creature or any religious fact. Everyone knows a few random esoteric things.




The d20 system is inherently random.  Why can't Knowledge-history give the player a DC 20 roll to speak or read a dead language or be proficient with an ancient weapon.  After all, everyone knows a few random esoteric things, right?



Ahnehnois said:


> I would think that a sufficiently charismatic person should be able to do things with either of those skills untrained. The whole trained only concept is really unnecessary. If you don't want untrained people doing something, raise the DC.




Once again, the issue here is whether we have a "trained" concept.  I have little difficulty with the concept there are things an untrained person cannot do.  That doesn't bother me as much as, say, setting the DC to train a horse so high (because untrained people should not be able to accomplish that task) that a horse trainer needs 15 ranks to be able to do his job.



Ahnehnois said:


> Anyone with gold and a spare life to trade (or equal or greater HD to the target to be raised). Which is an official variant, BTW.




As I said, doesn't sound inordinately restrictive.  Just go find a monster with appropriate HD, and don't let it bleed out after you defeat it.  Then pull out the scroll, or just start casting the spell.

And why would it matter whether this rule is an "official variant" (whatever one takes that to mean) or a pure homebrewed rule?  It seems to make no real difference to the rest of the discussion.



Ahnehnois said:


> That's why any challenging encounter ends with or without PC fatalities. Luck. Luck is part of the equation.




The importance of luck can be managed.  Let's assume two combats.  In each one, one combatant requires a 17+ to hit (20%), and the other needs a 5+ to hit (80%).  They have equal stats in all other respects (so, for example, who wins initiative is 50/50).  In one battle, a single hit will take down the opponent.  In the other, it will require 4 hits to take down the opponent.

There is a 50% chance the poor combatant wins initiative, in which case he has a 20% chance of ending the battle immediately, so he has a 10% chance at a win with no counterattack.  There is a 50% chance he loses intiative, and a 20% chance his opponent misses, followed by a 20% chance he hits.  That's a further 2% chance he can win in the first round.  12%, plus a declining chance of a win the longer the battle drags on.

What are the odds he will hit four times before his opponent hits him four times?  One round where he hits and his opponent misses? 50% chance he wins initiative and hits four times in a row?  That's a 0.08% chance.  His opponent has a 41% chance of hitting four times in a row, so it's more than 40% likely the fight ends with his win in four rounds. 

The above isn't as clear as I might like, but the bottom line is that the more rolls must be made, the less luck will influence the results and the more likely the higher bonus succeeds.  There can still be statistical outliers, but their likelihood declines.  SoD requires only one roll, so it makes luck a much greater factor.  Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on the play style desired.  

And randomness plays against the PC's.  They will make and face many more rolls than any NPC.  If Nameless Opponent #473 rolls a 1 and dies, Nameless Opponent #474 will be along soon (and no matter how Big Bad #473 was, that fight wasn't too memorable when he dropped so easily, so he will be Nameless soon enough).  But when PC rolls a 1 and dies, well, roll a new character.  Or, if Resurrection costs 5,000 gp and a captured monster, then death is a trivial condition and can easily be dealt with anyway.  Just don't hit me with a Rust monster, as it's much more difficult to replace my magic arms and armor than to get Raised!

We can make it more about luck.  Let's use d% instead of d20.  We can reduce the importance of luck - roll 3d6 instead of 1d20 and the bell curve changes the probabilities a lot.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 19, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Provided they are prepared to spend their time adding to an educational infrastructure.  There are quite a few quantum physicists on our world, and we have the Internet.  Can you explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy off the top of your head?  Do you think you could work with a crisis involving these from memory, or even from the info available online?



Could you come up with a more ridiculous example? The pertinent issue is whether I can recognize that certain animals might kill me and know a few general steps to avoid this outcome, and whether someone in a D&D world can do the same. No one is asking the commoner or PC to explain some complicated theory of how death effects draw energy from a negative energy plane nexus, merely that they should recognize what kinds of creatures tend to have them and know to stay away.



> If the only thing we wanted was standardized description, a few standardized descriptors and a line for "skills and knowledges" would do the trick just fine.  No need for mechanics.



It's a pretty light system as is. The entire Knowledge entry is what, half a page?



> There is no reason player skill should influence social skill success.



Player skill doesn't matter? So if one player looks at the map, moves his character around to get a flanking bonus, while another just charges in and says "I attack", the first one shouldn't get a flanking bonus? If one player describes a detailed negotiation, and the other says "I diplo him", we should just ignore that and look at the die roll? I'm not big on giving a player a Diplo bonus just because he has a Benedict Cummerbatch voice, but if he makes actual choices that change the parameters under which the check is made, that seems to easily fall under the "favorable circumstances" clause.

I don't see what's so bad about a game that rewards the skill of a player. Games tend to do that.



> The d20 system is inherently random.  Why can't Knowledge-history give the player a DC 20 roll to speak or read a dead language or be proficient with an ancient weapon.  After all, everyone knows a few random esoteric things, right?



I would think that a reasonable interpretation of the "answer one question" rule would not cover an entire language or style of fighting. However, one really good check might give you some idea of what a phrase in an ancient language means. Seems fine to me.



> Once again, the issue here is whether we have a "trained" concept.  I have little difficulty with the concept there are things an untrained person cannot do.  That doesn't bother me as much as, say, setting the DC to train a horse so high (because untrained people should not be able to accomplish that task) that a horse trainer needs 15 ranks to be able to do his job.



What the trained only concept does is subvert the linear progression of skills and DCs. If something is DC 20, that's how hard it is. Your bonus relative to the DC is how likely you are to succeed. I don't see that anything is gained by mucking up that dynamic. Yes, there are things that only trained people can do. The DCs for those should be in the 20's, so that only trained people can do them. If said tasks are hard enough that an untrained person can't realistically succeed, I don't see why one rank worth of training should make much of a difference. If they are not that hard, I don't see why an untrained person can't do them.

I certainly don't see any reason why a PC who rolls above a 10 on his Int check can't answer medium or hard knowledge questions. Are we to assume that a character without any knowledge ranks does not know a single fact that is not common knowledge? Does he go around asking people what is own name is, and then instantly forget when someone with the knowledge to identify him does let him know? The implications, which whoever revised this for 3.5 clearly did not consider, are ludicrous.



> As I said, doesn't sound inordinately restrictive.  Just go find a monster with appropriate HD, and don't let it bleed out after you defeat it.  Then pull out the scroll, or just start casting the spell.



As long as you're able and willing to do that, no it isn't inordinately restrictive. Those things are not a given, as there is not an infinite supply of creatures that you can kill (let alone without being arrested for murder or being attacked by vengeful allies), and killing creatures with a presumably diminished party carries risk. It also leaves the players in an awkward position because they do not generally know the HD of other creatures and must guess that a creature is powerful enough to be accepted in trade. It also makes resurrection harder the higher in level you get, because lives to trade are more scarce and taking them is more likely to cause problems.

Other than that, no restriction here.



> The above isn't as clear as I might like, but the bottom line is that the more rolls must be made, the less luck will influence the results and the more likely the higher bonus succeeds. There can still be statistical outliers, but their likelihood declines.  SoD requires only one roll, so it makes luck a much greater factor.  Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on the play style desired.



All of that is fine, yes. SoD is swingy, and in general is an incremental increase in swinginess over battles that do not feature it. This is a perfectly reasonable exercise of the available design space. If you want less swinginess, it's easily avoided.



> And randomness plays against the PC's.



Another fair generalization, and again a perfectly valid design choice.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 19, 2013)

Balesir said:


> I'll just say, here, that I understood your post perfectly, and appreciated it - thank you.
> 
> It goes back to what I said, in support of others, to @_*Hussar*_ several pages ago: it really does boil down to preferences. If you want the excitement of the "instant gamble" in your D&D, then having SoD there will suit you (this would be Bedrockgames); if the inconsistency bothers you and you want the game to all work on a consistent basis, and you're not bothered about "one off" gambles (this would be me), then they won't.
> 
> Pointing out to either of us that we're wrong to like what we like, or that BRG is wrong to say that he likes the excitement of poison being "extra special nasty" even if it doesn't match some sort of imagined "real world model" (which has any relevance why, exactly?), or that I'm wrong because there is no conceivable inconsistency between hit points being the mechanism by which heroes don't die in some situations but not being that in others is both a waste of time and offensive. If you like something different, cool - good for you. But don't argue that black is white because someone likes something different from you.




It's funny the only person I've seen speaking about "objectively" bad game design in this conversation is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]... But stating your opinions about something and then expecting them not to be discussed and questioned on a *discussion* board seems rather...strange.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 19, 2013)

A small note on "dark matter":  It's a commonly misused term.  "Dark matter" isn't a mystery at all, and it's easy to find.  Look down.  You're standing on some right now.

The term refers to any matter that isn't radiating light.  

As for "dark energy":  See that car driving by outside?  There it is, dark energy.  That is, an energy form that isn't radiant.  In that case, energy of the kinetic type.

Dark matter is hard to see in astronomy because, well, it's dark.  (Duh).  Starts shine.  Planets, not so much.  Dust clouds are even harder to see.  But that's the only thing mysterious about them.

Now _Strange_ matter, on the other hand, is a mystery.  Most of the time, when people talk about "dark matter" as some mysterious stuff, they're thinking of "strange matter", which is something else entirely.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Could you come up with a more ridiculous example? The pertinent issue is whether I can recognize that certain animals might kill me and know a few general steps to avoid this outcome, and whether someone in a D&D world can do the same. No one is asking the commoner or PC to explain some complicated theory of how death effects draw energy from a negative energy plane nexus, merely that they should recognize what kinds of creatures tend to have them and know to stay away.




You were the one discussing "everyone knowing some obscure facts" and "just needing a few well-travelled people so everyone will have heard of all these creatures".  We have lots of well travelled people - why do so many people get mauled by Koalas that are "so cute" because they don't realize they have powerful sharp claws? 



Ahnehnois said:


> It's a pretty light system as is. The entire Knowledge entry is what, half a page?




It sets rules for identifying creatures, and dealing with various difficulty levels.    The SRD on Knowledge is longer than that on Attacks of Opportunity, so that must be a really light system, huh?



Ahnehnois said:


> Player skill doesn't matter? So if one player looks at the map, moves his character around to get a flanking bonus, while another just charges in and says "I attack", the first one shouldn't get a flanking bonus? If one player describes a detailed negotiation, and the other says "I diplo him", we should just ignore that and look at the die roll? I'm not big on giving a player a Diplo bonus just because he has a Benedict Cummerbatch voice, but if he makes actual choices that change the parameters under which the check is made, that seems to easily fall under the "favorable circumstances" clause.
> 
> I don't see what's so bad about a game that rewards the skill of a player. Games tend to do that.




The flanking character is taking advantage of in-game opportunities to enhance the character's success.  That matches up to the diplomatic character who offers something the target really wants in return, or provides a highly appropriate gift.  And if a +2 bonus to the diplomacy roll is given in exchange (the same as that Flanking bonus), that seems perfectly reasonable. So would playing off the target's known hatred of orcs, say.  But simply making a good speech as a player should have no more effect on success than doing a shoulder roll and tumble to demonstrate how you get into flanking position.  It's your character's ability to make a persuasive speech (or tumble, or fight) that determines the character's success.  

If the player is a couch potato who has to take two rest beaks to climb a flight of stairs, his character suffers no penalty compared to an iron man competitor when determining success at a feat of endurance.  Why should a glib, well spoken player have an advantage over a stuttering wallflower in playing a smooth talking con man or a suave ladies' man spy?



Ahnehnois said:


> I would think that a reasonable interpretation of the "answer one question" rule would not cover an entire language or style of fighting. However, one really good check might give you some idea of what a phrase in an ancient language means. Seems fine to me.




If we're not clear in what can and cannot be done, then it only comes down to what each of us decides.  Why shouldn't a "really good check" get me the whole document, a "pretty good check" get me a page, a good check get a phrase and an OK one get me a word?  I'll check one word at a time, by the way.  It's easier to roll an OK check!



Ahnehnois said:


> What the trained only concept does is subvert the linear progression of skills and DCs. If something is DC 20, that's how hard it is. Your bonus relative to the DC is how likely you are to succeed. I don't see that anything is gained by mucking up that dynamic. Yes, there are things that only trained people can do. The DCs for those should be in the 20's, so that only trained people can do them. If said tasks are hard enough that an untrained person can't realistically succeed, I don't see why one rank worth of training should make much of a difference. If they are not that hard, I don't see why an untrained person can't do them.




I think you set the benchmark too high for mundane tasks performed by trained professionals.  There are some skills that require basic training to be viable.  They are not that hard *for someone trained in them*.  Is it unrealistic that no one untrained has a shot at gleaning the right result because of unusual personal experience.  Sure.  It's not realistic that the only possibilities to Knowledge are "you know it" or "you don't", rather than "false info".  The inability to roll again eliminates reflecting on the matter and realizing the answer.  There are infinite real life possibilities, and 20 possible rolls.  We sacrifice some corner case possibilities and accept simplification in the interest of playability.



Ahnehnois said:


> I certainly don't see any reason why a PC who rolls above a 10 on his Int check can't answer medium or hard knowledge questions. Are we to assume that a character without any knowledge ranks does not know a single fact that is not common knowledge? Does he go around asking people what is own name is, and then instantly forget when someone with the knowledge to identify him does let him know? The implications, which whoever revised this for 3.5 clearly did not consider, are ludicrous.




Again, the line gets drawn somewhere.  I would suggest that the Knowledge skill sets the bar that Arcane Knowledge with a 11+ DC is not common knowledge.  It simply is not.  Only those trained in this skill are exposed to it.  In play, one may pick up some knowledge, but that would be "player memory/notes" knowledge of things the character has already been exposed to, not a knowledge skill.



Ahnehnois said:


> As long as you're able and willing to do that, no it isn't inordinately restrictive. Those things are not a given, as there is not an infinite supply of creatures that you can kill (let alone without being arrested for murder or being attacked by vengeful allies), and killing creatures with a presumably diminished party carries risk. It also leaves the players in an awkward position because* they do not generally know the HD *of other creatures and must guess that a creature is powerful enough to be accepted in trade.




Emphasis added.  It's common knowledge what they can do, how to defend against it and how to deal with them, but the players can't know their hit dice?  No double standard here!  Why can't I make a "common knowledge" roll to remember successful and failed attempts?  How did the NPC's group know that criminal would do the trick?  Why can't the players use the same approach?



Ahnehnois said:


> It also makes resurrection harder the higher in level you get, because lives to trade are more scarce and taking them is more likely to cause problems.




I've rarely seen PC's have a shortage of opponents at their power level - and if not, they probably don't  need raising.



Ahnehnois said:


> Other than that, no restriction here.




Exactly.



Greenfield said:


> A small note on "dark matter":  It's a commonly misused term.  "Dark matter" isn't a mystery at all, and it's easy to find.  Look down.  You're standing on some right now.
> 
> The term refers to any matter that isn't radiating light.
> 
> ...




You and Wikipedia disagree on this issue.  Which shows the issue of misinformation - as I don't know which is correct, I have a 50/50 chance of getting the answer wrong.  "Looks like a Bodak - put salt on his head and he'll be rendered helpless!


----------



## N'raac (Jul 19, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Could you come up with a more ridiculous example? The pertinent issue is whether I can recognize that certain animals might kill me and know a few general steps to avoid this outcome, and whether someone in a D&D world can do the same. No one is asking the commoner or PC to explain some complicated theory of how death effects draw energy from a negative energy plane nexus, merely that they should recognize what kinds of creatures tend to have them and know to stay away.




You were the one discussing "everyone knowing some obscure facts" and "just needing a few well-travelled people so everyone will have heard of all these creatures".  We have lots of well travelled people - why do so many people get mauled by Koalas that are "so cute" because they don't realize they have powerful sharp claws? 



Ahnehnois said:


> It's a pretty light system as is. The entire Knowledge entry is what, half a page?




It sets rules for identifying creatures, and dealing with various difficulty levels.    The SRD on Knowledge is longer than that on Attacks of Opportunity, so that must be a really light system, huh?



Ahnehnois said:


> Player skill doesn't matter? So if one player looks at the map, moves his character around to get a flanking bonus, while another just charges in and says "I attack", the first one shouldn't get a flanking bonus? If one player describes a detailed negotiation, and the other says "I diplo him", we should just ignore that and look at the die roll? I'm not big on giving a player a Diplo bonus just because he has a Benedict Cummerbatch voice, but if he makes actual choices that change the parameters under which the check is made, that seems to easily fall under the "favorable circumstances" clause.
> 
> I don't see what's so bad about a game that rewards the skill of a player. Games tend to do that.




The flanking character is taking advantage of in-game opportunities to enhance the character's success.  That matches up to the diplomatic character who offers something the target really wants in return, or provides a highly appropriate gift.  And if a +2 bonus to the diplomacy roll is given in exchange (the same as that Flanking bonus), that seems perfectly reasonable. So would playing off the target's known hatred of orcs, say.  But simply making a good speech as a player should have no more effect on success than doing a shoulder roll and tumble to demonstrate how you get into flanking position.  It's your character's ability to make a persuasive speech (or tumble, or fight) that determines the character's success.  

If the player is a couch potato who has to take two rest beaks to climb a flight of stairs, his character suffers no penalty compared to an iron man competitor when determining success at a feat of endurance.  Why should a glib, well spoken player have an advantage over a stuttering wallflower in playing a smooth talking con man or a suave ladies' man spy?



Ahnehnois said:


> I would think that a reasonable interpretation of the "answer one question" rule would not cover an entire language or style of fighting. However, one really good check might give you some idea of what a phrase in an ancient language means. Seems fine to me.




If we're not clear in what can and cannot be done, then it only comes down to what each of us decides.  Why shouldn't a "really good check" get me the whole document, a "pretty good check" get me a page, a good check get a phrase and an OK one get me a word?  I'll check one word at a time, by the way.  It's easier to roll an OK check!



Ahnehnois said:


> What the trained only concept does is subvert the linear progression of skills and DCs. If something is DC 20, that's how hard it is. Your bonus relative to the DC is how likely you are to succeed. I don't see that anything is gained by mucking up that dynamic. Yes, there are things that only trained people can do. The DCs for those should be in the 20's, so that only trained people can do them. If said tasks are hard enough that an untrained person can't realistically succeed, I don't see why one rank worth of training should make much of a difference. If they are not that hard, I don't see why an untrained person can't do them.




I think you set the benchmark too high for mundane tasks performed by trained professionals.  There are some skills that require basic training to be viable.  They are not that hard *for someone trained in them*.  Is it unrealistic that no one untrained has a shot at gleaning the right result because of unusual personal experience.  Sure.  It's not realistic that the only possibilities to Knowledge are "you know it" or "you don't", rather than "false info".  The inability to roll again eliminates reflecting on the matter and realizing the answer.  There are infinite real life possibilities, and 20 possible rolls.  We sacrifice some corner case possibilities and accept simplification in the interest of playability.



Ahnehnois said:


> I certainly don't see any reason why a PC who rolls above a 10 on his Int check can't answer medium or hard knowledge questions. Are we to assume that a character without any knowledge ranks does not know a single fact that is not common knowledge? Does he go around asking people what is own name is, and then instantly forget when someone with the knowledge to identify him does let him know? The implications, which whoever revised this for 3.5 clearly did not consider, are ludicrous.




Again, the line gets drawn somewhere.  I would suggest that the Knowledge skill sets the bar that Arcane Knowledge with a 11+ DC is not common knowledge.  It simply is not.  Only those trained in this skill are exposed to it.  In play, one may pick up some knowledge, but that would be "player memory/notes" knowledge of things the character has already been exposed to, not a knowledge skill.



Ahnehnois said:


> As long as you're able and willing to do that, no it isn't inordinately restrictive. Those things are not a given, as there is not an infinite supply of creatures that you can kill (let alone without being arrested for murder or being attacked by vengeful allies), and killing creatures with a presumably diminished party carries risk. It also leaves the players in an awkward position because* they do not generally know the HD *of other creatures and must guess that a creature is powerful enough to be accepted in trade.




Emphasis added.  It's common knowledge what they can do, how to defend against it and how to deal with them, but the players can't know their hit dice?  No double standard here!  Why can't I make a "common knowledge" roll to remember successful and failed attempts?  How did the NPC's group know that criminal would do the trick?  Why can't the players use the same approach?



Ahnehnois said:


> It also makes resurrection harder the higher in level you get, because lives to trade are more scarce and taking them is more likely to cause problems.




I've rarely seen PC's have a shortage of opponents at their power level - and if not, they probably don't  need raising.



Ahnehnois said:


> Other than that, no restriction here.




Exactly.



Greenfield said:


> A small note on "dark matter":  It's a commonly misused term.  "Dark matter" isn't a mystery at all, and it's easy to find.  Look down.  You're standing on some right now.
> 
> The term refers to any matter that isn't radiating light.
> 
> ...




You and Wikipedia disagree on this issue.  Which shows the issue of misinformation - as I don't know which is correct, I have a 50/50 chance of getting the answer wrong.  "Looks like a Bodak - put salt on his head and he'll be rendered helpless!


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 20, 2013)

I'm not even slightly surprised.

"Normal matter" is actually the minority case in the universe, according to many estimates.  The subatomic particles that make it up fall into the general category called Baryons.

"Strange matter" (often referred to as Dark Matter) is said to be non-baryonic.  The problem is that there are no samples or examples available  The stuff is theoretical.

Originally there was a distinction made between dark matter, that which was simply dark (as in, it didn't radiate any light), and strange matter, which is supposedly a different class of matter entirely.

The two terms have become conflated, and are often used interchangeably. 

Some "dark energy" theories suggest that empty vacuum contains energy of a non-radiant form, inherent in the existence of space itself.  As space expands, so does the supply of this imeasurable, undetectable energy source, which pretty much shoots the Conservation of Matter and Energy theory to hell.  

The evidence for Strange/Dark matter/energy is derived from the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, rather than slowing down.  Alternate theories include the idea that new space isn't simply being formed at the leading edge of the universal expansion, forced into being by the presence of matter, but also interspersed throughout the existing universe, thus increasing distances between astronomical objects.  Another is that the calculated Gravitational Constant is wrong, and perhaps not a "constant" at all.  Yet another is that the "known universe" is simply us falling into a black hole, and that the observed accelerating "expansion" is actually the observers falling into the abyss faster than the outer edges, and that the only reason we haven't "hit bottom" yet is due to the time-compression we experience as our falling speed increases. 

Personally I like door number three, but that's just me.

All of which has nothing to do with Bodaks or D&D in any way, other than that it's speculation and mostly fantasy.   That being said, you should probably disregard everything I've said on the subject.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> You were the one discussing "everyone knowing some obscure facts" and "just needing a few well-travelled people so everyone will have heard of all these creatures".  We have lots of well travelled people - why do so many people get mauled by Koalas that are "so cute" because they don't realize they have powerful sharp claws?



Because they're cute. If there were a D&D monster with an SoD and a deceptively benign appearance, I bet it would be really dangerous. I don't know of any.



> It sets rules for identifying creatures, and dealing with various difficulty levels.    The SRD on Knowledge is longer than that on Attacks of Opportunity, so that must be a really light system, huh?



A more apt analogy would be comparing the rules on Knowledge with the rules on attacks, period. That's a more similar scope. By comparison, the former is pretty light.



> The flanking character is taking advantage of in-game opportunities to enhance the character's success.



The actual words the character says are in-game.



> If the player is a couch potato who has to take two rest beaks to climb a flight of stairs, his character suffers no penalty compared to an iron man competitor when determining success at a feat of endurance.  Why should a glib, well spoken player have an advantage over a stuttering wallflower in playing a smooth talking con man or a suave ladies' man spy?



I think there's a pretty clear distinction in D&D that you control the character's mind but not his body.



> If we're not clear in what can and cannot be done, then it only comes down to what each of us decides.  Why shouldn't a "really good check" get me the whole document, a "pretty good check" get me a page, a good check get a phrase and an OK one get me a word?  I'll check one word at a time, by the way.  It's easier to roll an OK check!



That would be the sort of thing that sensible DM interpretation of what the DC is and the scope of successful check easily prevents.



> I think you set the benchmark too high for mundane tasks performed by trained professionals.  There are some skills that require basic training to be viable.



There are, but I am not aware of any D&D skills that meet that description.



> We sacrifice some corner case possibilities and accept simplification in the interest of playability.



Getting rid of trained only accomplishes precisely that goal.



> Again, the line gets drawn somewhere.  I would suggest that the Knowledge skill sets the bar that Arcane Knowledge with a 11+ DC is not common knowledge.  It simply is not.  Only those trained in this skill are exposed to it.  In play, one may pick up some knowledge, but that would be "player memory/notes" knowledge of things the character has already been exposed to, not a knowledge skill.



Wait, so you're okay with a character benefiting from a player's knowledge for substituting the function of knowledge checks, but not his speech construction for diplomacy checks?
(I'm okay with both because you inhabit the character's mind and both are mental)



> Emphasis added.  It's common knowledge what they can do, how to defend against it and how to deal with them, but the players can't know their hit dice?  No double standard here!



No, there isn't. "That's a basilisk, don't look at it" is knowable to characters. Its HD are not readily observable.



> Why can't I make a "common knowledge" roll to remember successful and failed attempts?  How did the NPC's group know that criminal would do the trick?  Why can't the players use the same approach?



I don't understand the first question. As to the second, it's a good question, but they didn't really know for sure. Of course, they have a general idea of relative power levels, and one imagines that high-powered criminals who get the death penalty are a very valuable commodity. But there is a gamble there.

And the last question, the players could use the same approach, assuming they could find and chaperon a suitable sacrifice, pay all the normal costs, and _have no moral compunction about killing someone in cold blood in exchange for a resurrection_.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois - Without looking it up, what color is a common krait snake?  What does it look like?  How big is it?  What are the methods for treatment of a bite?

Even given the vast amount of information at your fingertips, I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't know anything about this snake other than its name and that it's very poisonous.  Why would you expect some Middle Ages peasants to know anything about an Athach?  Or a Bodak?  Or a Teneberous Worm?  Or a Grey Ooze? 

On and on.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> AEven given the vast amount of information at your fingertips, I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't know anything about this snake other than its name and that it's very poisonous.



Isn't that enough? "Snakes are often poisonous is common knowledge". So is "undead often drain the life out of you".



> Why would you expect some Middle Ages peasants to know anything about an Athach?  Or a Bodak?  Or a Teneberous Worm?  Or a Grey Ooze?



Because they live nearby and are dangerous. Why would you expect them to be ignorant of the world they live in?


----------



## Nagol (Jul 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Isn't that enough? "Snakes are often poisonous is common knowledge". So is "undead often drain the life out of you".
> 
> Because they live nearby and are dangerous. Why would you expect them to be ignorant of the world they live in?




Because the real-life variant thought lynx were a species or dog, beavers bit off their own testicles, and tomatoes were obviously a deadly poisonous a single bite of which would kill a grown man, for starters.

Not that I disagree with your position that the knowledge check being tied to HD and the game dropping basic frequencies were poor implementations.  If critter X is a viable threat in the area that the residents should have encountered with at least a few survivors then they should be aware of the stratagems that they think keep them safe(r) (rightly or wrongly).  And if the threat is high enough that there wouldn't be survivors then the area should have a cursed/haunted/it'll eat you rep.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 20, 2013)

Nagol said:


> Because the real-life variant thought lynx were a species or dog, beavers bit off their own testicles, and tomatoes were obviously a deadly poisonous a single bite of which would kill a grown man, for starters.



I'm guessing most people think mimics are chests of gold, too, and would be pretty surprised by a roper. There are plenty of weird D&D monsters that are deceptive or simply hard to understand. Most of the SoD monsters aren't particularly subtle though. I think most of them are clearly things that you shouldn't go near unless you know what you are doing.



> Not that I disagree with your position that the knowledge check being tied to HD and the game dropping basic frequencies were poor implementations.  If critter X is a viable threat in the area that the residents should have encountered with at least a few survivors then they should be aware of the stratagems that they think keep them safe(r) (rightly or wrongly).  And if the threat is high enough that there wouldn't be survivors then the area should have a cursed/haunted/it'll eat you rep.



Hooray!


----------



## Balesir (Jul 20, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> The evidence for Strange/Dark matter/energy is derived from the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, rather than slowing down.



I can't comment definitely on some of the other bits, but I'm afraid this is flat wrong. The inconsistency that "Dark Matter"* is intended to explain is the fact that galaxies rotate faster than they should. This was noticed as part of a test/practice exercise given to a young student - she found the result beyond strange, but couldn't find the error. When her supervisor couldn't find the error, either, they began to suspect that something very odd was going on. Years later, the result of their test is confirmed, but we still have no unambiguous evidence about what causes it; "dark matter" is still just a theory, despite large experiments searching for it - one of which was done just down the road from me in the _very_ deep Boulby potash mine.

*: which is called that because it doesn't reflect electromagnetic radiation much, nor does it interact to any noticeable degree with other matter - it has, essentially, gravity/mass with no electrical charge whatever.

Edit: it just struck me that the claim that ordinary matter "doesn't radiate light" is also slightly misconceived. Unless it is at absolute zero (-273.15 degrees C) it radiates in the infra-red (heat) to some degree. I/R radiation is not substantially different from (visible) light - humans just can't see it because out eyes aren't built for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2013)

Accidental double post.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2013)

In no particular order:

1) My guess is that so many people today get mauled by all kinds of critters- cute or not- because they are disconnected from nature.  Cuteness just raises the odds.  Its a consequence of our urbanized lifestyle.  People in an agrarian society are going to be a bit more aware of the risks of messing with wild animals than we are today.

I've seen reports of people who thought it would be a good idea to get close to a baby bear or young moose...and then Mom showed up to teach them a lesson.

A good buddy of mine worked with tigers and they knew & loved him- they acted like oversized cats around him.  Someone aking a facility tour actually asked him if he could interact like that with tigers in the wild.

On a cross country trip, my father stopped the car to take a picture of a large male elk grazing in a field.  He stopped to take its picture.  But when he saw it alert and become agitated- other drivers had followed my father's lead and spread out in a big semicircle like a pack of wolves- he took the picture and retreated.

A local golf course has a water hazard that is bigger than usual because the resident swans are EXTREMELY territorial and will attack anyone who gets too close.  And apparently, people near another friend of mine cannot read the posted signs "Beware of Bull".

2) Kraits are @3' long and bluish black with white stripes.*  but none live where I am- I know this 'cause I'm kind of into snakes.  I'd expect people who live near poisonous snakes to at least be familiar with the concept that some snakes are poisonous, and maybe even be able to ID some of the more notable facts about the most dangerous ones.  Even though they may not know what a krait is, most people in the American Southwest can ID a rattlesnake by sound, and would be loath to blithely stick their hands into nooks & crannies near rocks & rotting logs.

Extrapolating back to those in an agrarian world, I'd expect them to be aware of the natural hazards that surround them. They may not know how or why some creature kills, but they will know that it kills.











* they play awesome guitar.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 20, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Ahnehnois - Without looking it up, what color is a common krait snake?  What does it look like?  How big is it?  What are the methods for treatment of a bite?




Were I from any communities near Indian rain forests, I'd probably know. And so would most medieval, uneducated (at least formally) locals, I expect. Otherwise, this is pretty much just a BS gotcha question. That said if the region the peasants live in sports athachs or even bodaks, why wouldn't they know something about them?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 20, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though they may not know what a krait is, most people in the American Southwest can ID a rattlesnake by sound, and would be loath to blithely stick their hands into nooks & crannies near rocks & rotting logs.



Yes, but do you know what to do when you see a chupacabra?



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Otherwise, this is pretty much just a BS gotcha question.



There have been a lot of those.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 20, 2013)

Balesir said:


> I can't comment definitely on some of the other bits, but I'm afraid this is flat wrong. The inconsistency that "Dark Matter"* is intended to explain is the fact that galaxies rotate faster than they should. This was noticed as part of a test/practice exercise given to a young student - she found the result beyond strange, but couldn't find the error. When her supervisor couldn't find the error, either, they began to suspect that something very odd was going on. Years later, the result of their test is confirmed, but we still have no unambiguous evidence about what causes it; "dark matter" is still just a theory, despite large experiments searching for it - one of which was done just down the road from me in the _very_ deep Boulby potash mine.
> 
> *: which is called that because it doesn't reflect electromagnetic radiation much, nor does it interact to any noticeable degree with other matter - it has, essentially, gravity/mass with no electrical charge whatever.
> 
> Edit: it just struck me that the claim that ordinary matter "doesn't radiate light" is also slightly misconceived. Unless it is at absolute zero (-273.15 degrees C) it radiates in the infra-red (heat) to some degree. I/R radiation is not substantially different from (visible) light - humans just can't see it because out eyes aren't built for it.




I thought that rotational irregularity was being attributed to black holes.  Learned something new today...

In any case, most astronomical objects "shine" only with the light that reflects off of them.  I'm not sure how that reflectivity would be affected by the presence or absence of an electrical charge.  And as far as I know, "matter without an electrical charge" is called neutronium, another theoretical state of matter, and neutron stars aren't exactly invisible.  Even if distributed as a cloud of gas or dust, it would either block light (i.e. absorb it) or reflect it, and unless it was at absolute zero it too would have a heat signature.  (Entropy suggests that if it's absorbing light, it isn't at absolute zero.  That light energy has to go somewhere, after all.  )

In any case, theoretical physics discussions don't exactly belong in game threads.

Though it is fun to wait for someone to suggest spells like _Major Creation_ be used to produce antimatter, as a way to create an antimatter explosion.  But, like the idea of producing pure refined Thorium, there's a major flaw in this use of _Major Creation_:  You have to have a small sample of the material desired, as a component.  And, of course, you'd need to make one hell of a Knowledge check to even justify the attempt.  I don't know that I'd allow such a thing at all, simply because there isn't a "Knowledge - Nuclear Physics" skill in D&D. 

Still, it's tempting to let someone try.  The antimatter sample would kill them before they could ever get the spell off.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 20, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> I thought that rotational irregularity was being attributed to black holes.  Learned something new today...



No; black holes are localised (almost point phenomena, in a galactic context), so you can see how their gravitational effect changes with distance from them. The galactic rotation anomaly is partly that the velocity changes _too little_ as you get further from the galactic centre.

Black holes were considered, exoplanets and brown dwarves were considered - all manner of "mundane" explanations. The bottom line is that none of them work, however. The "missing mass" discrepancy is not small - ~75% on the basis of the rotation anomaly alone (and other anomalies thought to be related, such as anomalous "galactic lensing" - the way light is deflected by the gravity well around far away galaxies - have also been found). I.e., at least four times (and currently thought to be maybe seven times) as much mass is needed in the universe as we can see. It's rather a big discrepancy.



Greenfield said:


> In any case, most astronomical objects "shine" only with the light that reflects off of them.  I'm not sure how that reflectivity would be affected by the presence or absence of an electrical charge.



What we call "reflection" is actually the absorbtion of light (electromagnetic) energy by the electrons in matter, causing those electrons to become "excited" until the drop back down to their "ground state", re-releasing the photon that excited them in a different direction. Metals and non-metals do this in different ways because metals have "free" electrons while non-metals don't, so metals can reflect a coherent picture while (most) non-metals don't.



Greenfield said:


> And as far as I know, "matter without an electrical charge" is called neutronium, another theoretical state of matter, and neutron stars aren't exactly invisible.



Well, no, neutronium (which I had to look up) is a special case and very speculative. Neutrons don't have charge, but they do have a slight electronic dipole, and they interact with atomic nuclei through the strong nuclear force, since they are hadrons - which was a class that I forgot to say Dark Matter doesn't belong to.

Basically, particles of matter interact via one of the "four fundamental forces" - electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity. Dark matter - if it exists - interacts only through the last one, gravity.



Greenfield said:


> Even if distributed as a cloud of gas or dust, it would either block light (i.e. absorb it) or reflect it, and unless it was at absolute zero it too would have a heat signature.



Without being either atoms (i.e. hadron-based matter) it's impossible for anything to be what we would call "dust". Certain other forms of matter are supposed to exist in the extreme conditions within neutron stars and the like, but you'd hardly call those "dust" - they pretty much have to be a big "lump".

Without electromagnetic interactivity, light is neither absorbed nor reflected (which are actually similar - what we call "absorbtion" is generally absorbtion and re-emission at a different wavelength, often IR, whereas "reflection" is absorbtion and re-emission at (approximately) the same wavelength).



Greenfield said:


> (Entropy suggests that if it's absorbing light, it isn't at absolute zero.  That light energy has to go somewhere, after all.  )



Right - it either travels straight on by without interacting, or it gets absorbed and then re-emitted sooner or later. With "Dark Matter" the idea is that it simply doesn't interact.



Greenfield said:


> In any case, theoretical physics discussions don't exactly belong in game threads.



True, although an astounding number of people seem to want to try to apply real world physics to fantasy worlds. Go figure.



Greenfield said:


> Though it is fun to wait for someone to suggest spells like _Major Creation_ be used to produce antimatter, as a way to create an antimatter explosion.



Oh, yeah, here you're right. The list of issues with trying to do this just goes on and on, but I have pretty much always found that trying to mix science with D&D ends badly, no matter how you cut it!


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> YWe have lots of well travelled people - why do so many people get mauled by Koalas that are "so cute" because they don't realize they have powerful sharp claws?



Out of curiosity, who are all these people being mauled by koalas? I live in Australia and don't hear of very many koala-maulings!


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 20, 2013)

Balesir said:


> True, although an astounding number of people seem to want to try to apply real world physics to fantasy worlds. Go figure.
> 
> Oh, yeah, here you're right. The list of issues with trying to do this just goes on and on, but I have pretty much always found that trying to mix science with D&D ends badly, no matter how you cut it!




Wait a minute...are you saying that a system (and D&D culture) that places biomechanical limitations on mundane, martial PCs due to the invocation of atmospheric friction/drag, the weight of gravity generally and escape velocity specifically while simultaneously allowing dozens of mundane (extremely setting-relevant) creatures and their non-magical forms of locomotion to violate the same is science and D&D mixing badly (and arbitrarily)?  No wai


----------



## billd91 (Jul 20, 2013)

Balesir said:


> True, although an astounding number of people seem to want to try to apply real world physics to fantasy worlds. Go figure.
> 
> The list of issues with trying to do this just goes on and on, but I have pretty much always found that trying to mix science with D&D ends badly, no matter how you cut it!




There's a good reason why people do this - it's because no RPG out there ever constructs its own physics or other science engine. They rely, in fact have to rely, on our own understandings of the world around us to fill in the gaps. If you let go of a sword, it doesn't hang in space. It falls. If you slam a door in a charging goblin's face, it won't simply pass through the door but will hit it, possibly injuring itself and damaging the door. If you toss a sheaf of parchments in a fire, they will burn rather than freeze. Science constantly informs our understanding of cause and effect even in games, of in game actions and consequences. Without them, what sort of expectations can a player have when he has his character do something?

When it comes to RPG elements, we bend the science rules to allow for the ones we find genre appropriate. Giants don't collapse under their massive weights, dragons breath fire (or other energies), magic actually does things, the Hulk can pick up ridiculously heavy stuff without any real leverage, Cyclops's eyes can fire beams that impart kinetic energy without shoving him around, and so on. But those are all fundamental exceptions to the rules of reality that we import to games like swords fall, goblins can't intangibly walk through doors, and fire burns flammable things.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 20, 2013)

Greenfield said:


> I'm not even slightly surprised.
> 
> All of which has nothing to do with Bodaks or D&D in any way, other than that it's speculation and mostly fantasy.   That being said, you should probably disregard everything I've said on the subject.




While I agree the subject matter is off the topic, it illustrates that having some people who lecture about topics the general populace has no experience or expertise with in no way provides a substantial knowledge base for the population.



Ahnehnois said:


> Because they're cute. If there were a D&D monster with an SoD and a deceptively benign appearance, I bet it would be really dangerous. I don't know of any.




By the "everybody knows what it basically looks like and can do" belief you have been espousing, it should not matter that it is cute, unless it precisely mimics the appearance of some other creature (and even then everyone would know some creatures can do that).



Ahnehnois said:


> A more apt analogy would be comparing the rules on Knowledge with the rules on attacks, period. That's a more similar scope. By comparison, the former is pretty light.




I think your breadth is excessive.  This would imply Knowledge should occupy what, 25% to 1/3 of the rules?  We should have Knowledge Skill descriptions that are as many and varied as feats, or as spells?   That we would make as many rolls, and spend us much time, on activities focused on the knowledge skills as we do in combat, in the typical game. That just is not the case.  Knowledge skills are abbreviated abstractions because they are a limited focus of game activity.



Ahnehnois said:


> The actual words the character says are in-game.




And they are chosen by the character, based on his persuasive abilities.  A player who is quite honest and forthright, and a terrible poker player, might indicate "I try to convince the locals that this concoction of foul-smelling herbs, mud and water is a wondrous healing concoction". It is the character, with a +15 Bluff, who phrases the snappy patter that sells out the supply to the townsfolk.

Just as a high PER skill reminds a player that his character sees something subtle, and he need not pass a "where's Waldo" or "Scene-it" test to benefit from his character's skills, nor must he tell me how he feints, dodges and moves to land a sword blow - his character has those skills.



Ahnehnois said:


> I think there's a pretty clear distinction in D&D that you control the character's mind but not his body.




Why does the character have INT, WIS or CHA if the intent is that the player uses his own?  In my view, the player controls the decisions of the character, and what he attempts to do.  The rules, including the character's skills and abilities, controls his success or failure in these efforts.



Ahnehnois said:


> That would be the sort of thing that sensible DM interpretation of what the DC is and the scope of successful check easily prevents.




The rules are intended to place the players and GM on common ground as to what constitutes 'sensible GM interpretation" and "scope of successful checks". We could certainly remove to hit and damage roils, and leave that to "sensible GM interpretation" as well. Let's take a step back and remember that the rules for adjudication of success and failure are just structure for a game of "let's pretend", so rather than "I hit - fall down you're dead", offset with "No, you missed", instead the dice arbitrate the success of the attack.



Ahnehnois said:


> There are, but I am not aware of any D&D skills that meet that description.




Then we disagree on whether certain of these skills could require special training. If anything, I question Craft and Perform lacking a similar "you can only do so much untrained" aspect similar to Knowledge. Profession, though, requires training - what makes it different?  



Ahnehnois said:


> Wait, so you're okay with a character benefiting from a player's knowledge for substituting the function of knowledge checks, but not his speech construction for diplomacy checks?  (I'm okay with both because you inhabit the character's mind and both are mental)




No, I am OK with a character learning from experience without investing skill ranks.  Borog the Stupid and Sacriligious can certainly learn from experience that attacking a spectre with a non-magical weapon is futile, or be told by Leon the Learned that Silver will harm the werewolf. Having seen that in action, he can certainly consider himself justified in using a silver weapon when he encounters a werewolf again, or even deciding to try it Leon's way when they track this one down.  But just because the player is well versed in werewolf lore, that should not mean Borog (or even Leon) automatically knows werewolves are susceptible to silver.  Leon may have the knowledge skill, so he gets a roll. Borog's one skill point per level went to Intimidate.



Ahnehnois said:


> No, there isn't. "That's a basilisk, don't look at it" is knowable to characters. Its HD are not readily observable.




So despite these world travelers ensuring every schoolchild can recognize a basilisk on sight, know of its petrification gave and be aware of exactly what steps they should take in defense, they can't know that it can absorb more damage than a warhorse and keep on going? I think your "common knowledge" is very sporadic and selective in its application.



Ahnehnois said:


> I don't understand the first question. As to the second, it's a good question, but they didn't really know for sure. Of course, they have a general idea of relative power levels, and one imagines that high-powered criminals who get the death penalty are a very valuable commodity. But there is a gamble there.




To the first question, it is simply that there would seem to be pretty common resurrections, given the scroll and the condemned prisoner.  Hasn't anyone stepped up to the plate, like those world travellers, to disseminate successes and failures so we have a better idea which lives are enough?  How many sentient creatures do PC's combat? Keeping a few prisoner hardly seems a stretch. Hell, they're "condemned" anyway - would they not be a valuable commodity in being available for sacrifice to Raise nobles, even if the PC's don't need them?



Ahnehnois said:


> And the last question, the players could use the same approach, assuming they could find and chaperon a suitable sacrifice, pay all the normal costs, and _have no moral compunction about killing someone in cold blood in exchange for a resurrection_.




Suspend Animation and Shrinking spells/carrying devices seem likely developments when these creatures become such valuable commodities, as the main scarcity seems to be the life to sacrifice. Traveling NPC's of little note have the spell available.

The moral issue is the more scary one to me.  Seems an unlikely action for a Paladin, or even a Good cleric - exchanging one life for another seems an evil act.  Now, if I wanted such a system to truly make Resurrection rare, I'd be fine with it being a CANTRIP.  But the exchanged life must be given freely and voluntarily, with no compulsion, no magical or mundane coercion, and no force.  A 100% without regrets sacrifice freely chosen by the entity giving up its life for another.



Hussar said:


> Ahnehnois - Without looking it up, what color is a common krait snake?  What does it look like?  How big is it?  What are the methods for treatment of a bite?
> 
> Even given the vast amount of information at your fingertips, I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't know anything about this snake other than its name and that it's very poisonous.  Why would you expect some Middle Ages peasants to know anything about an Athach?  Or a Bodak?  Or a Teneberous Worm?  Or a Grey Ooze?
> 
> On and on.




BINGO!



Ahnehnois said:


> Isn't that enough? "Snakes are often poisonous is common knowledge". So is "undead often drain the life out of you".




Then do the PC's believe this of all snakes (it surprises many that constrictors are not poisonous, or that rattlers don't inject poison) and a walking skeleton can slay a man instantly merely by meeting its gaze? Do we fear a Crocodile might turn us to stone, and avert our eyes? It's a big reptile, like a basilisk. Or do they know the specifics of each creature independently?  The former is legend and myth, the latter textbook recognition on sight.



Ahnehnois said:


> Because they live nearby and are dangerous. Why would you expect them to be ignorant of the world they live in?




If the whole MM lives nearby, how do humans survive? This does open up the suggestion that "local knowledge" should grant an understanding of creatures that live in the local area, rather than all humanoids and only humanoids, though.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) Kraits are @3' long and bluish black with white stripes.*  but none live where I am- I know this 'cause I'm kind of into snakes.  I'd expectpeoplewho live near poisonous snakes to at least be familiar with the concept that some snakes are poisonous, and maybe even be able to ID some of the more notable facts about the most dangerous ones.  Even though they may not know what a krait is, most people in the American Southwest can ID a rattlesnake by sound, and would be loath to blithely stick their hands into nooks & crannies near rocks & rotting logs.




This shows a further abstraction - we don't want dozens or hundreds of Knowledges, so we have KN Nature for all animals, not separate skills for snakes., fish, toadstools, etc.  Knowledges are broad abstractions, like Doctors and Scientists in Sci Fi always have specialist level knowledge in dozens of separate fields.



pemerton said:


> Out of curiosity, who are all these people being mauled by koalas? I live in Australia and don't hear of very many koala-maulings!




I googled Koala Mauling - stupid people getting too close to an animal get scratched.  No reports of anyone turned to stone or slain by a death gaze, though...


----------



## N'raac (Jul 20, 2013)

Funny...we all know snakes are poisonous, deadly dangerous beasts. Yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States can name the people killed each year in the US by snake bite.  Are there that few snakes? Are humans in general that skilled at avoiding them?
And do they always know which are deadly, and which harmless, or do they often mistake one for the other?

"Common knowledge" is often vague, contradictory and inaccurate.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Funny...we all know snakes are poisonous, deadly dangerous beasts. Yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States can name the people killed each year in the US by snake bite.  Are there that few snakes? Are humans in general that skilled at avoiding them?
> And do they always know which are deadly, and which harmless, or do they often mistake one for the other?
> 
> "Common knowledge" is often vague, contradictory and inaccurate.




I think this is a much more complicated issue than knowledge checks and lots of factors are probably at work (not sure if the number of fatalities at all indicates how much people know). . You are also looking at a single country. In india they suspect the death toll from snake bites could be as high as 46,000 (from the previous 2,000). And yes, I just learned this by googling it, I know virtually nothing about snake bite statistics. 

I will say, I did grow up in southern california for a bit, and we knew the basics of what snakes to avoid and that if you did get bit by a rattlesnake, provided you got to a hospital in a timely fashion you would not likely die (people I always heard of who died were those who got bit far away from town, hours away from a hospital).


----------



## billd91 (Jul 20, 2013)

This is really starting to degenerate into arguing for arguing's sake. This whole argument is getting excessive and seems far more focused on just not letting go or not being willing to see the other side has a point. 

Do people know a fair amount about the dangerous snakes around them? Yes. I know quite well that timber rattlesnakes can be found not too far from where I live and when I go to areas they are known to inhabit, I'm wary of putting my hands or walking on rocks I can't see. And yes, they're not terribly common compared to garter snakes, can easily be distinguished from them, and we usually avoid each other pretty well. And I'm not a herpetologist nor even a zoologist or biologist. I'm a software tester who is grateful he lives in an area without too many poisonous snakes.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> This is really starting to degenerate into arguing for arguing's sake. This whole argument is getting excessive and seems far more focused on just not letting go or not being willing to see the other side has a point.
> 
> .




I agree. I think it has reached that stage of the discussoin where the actual points being debated have very little visible connection to the original dispute they emanated from.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Funny...we all know snakes are poisonous, deadly dangerous beasts. Yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States can name the people killed each year in the US by snake bite.  Are there that few snakes? Are humans in general that skilled at avoiding them?
> And do they always know which are deadly, and which harmless, or do they often mistake one for the other?
> 
> "Common knowledge" is often vague, contradictory and inaccurate.




Again, that has a lot to do with us being highly urbanized.  In general, we don't live where the snakes are anymore.  Fewer encounters means fewer bites means fewer fatalities...means fewer people aware of the facts about which snakes to avoid, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, but do you know what to do when you see a chupacabra?




I have Animal Control on my cell phone...


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I think your breadth is excessive.  This would imply Knowledge should occupy what, 25% to 1/3 of the rules?  We should have Knowledge Skill descriptions that are as many and varied as feats, or as spells?   That we would make as many rolls, and spend us much time, on activities focused on the knowledge skills as we do in combat, in the typical game. That just is not the case.  Knowledge skills are abbreviated abstractions because they are a limited focus of game activity.



In some rpgs, particularly skill-based ones, Knowledge is a skill on the same level as, say, Guns. This makes more sense, really. And I don't see that Knowledge is a limited focus of game activity. My players probably roll around the same number of Knowledge checks that they do attack rolls or saving throws. It's pretty useful to know stuff in most D&D games.



> Why does the character have INT, WIS or CHA if the intent is that the player uses his own?  In my view, the player controls the decisions of the character, and what he attempts to do.  The rules, including the character's skills and abilities, controls his success or failure in these efforts.



You missed the part where the DM controls his success or failure. The DM decides what rolls to make, what modifiers apply, and what the results mean. A player who chooses to speak eloquently or otherwise take useful actions can influence how the DM adjudicates the rules. None of which is particularly eyebrow-raising; that's D&D 101: you control your character's actions.



> Then we disagree on whether certain of these skills could require special training. If anything, I question Craft and Perform lacking a similar "you can only do so much untrained" aspect similar to Knowledge. Profession, though, requires training - what makes it different?



Nothing. None of them need a trained only clause. There's no reason an untrained character can't attempt to sail, cook, or make a living at some profession. Or try to build something. Or perform. Or know useful facts.

If you're doing a modern rpg, it may be that an untrained character can't use a computer or fly a plane. If you're doing magic skill-based, it may be that an untrained character can't do magic. Magic and technology are the only two big examples that I can think of where trained-only is reasonable.



> How many sentient creatures do PC's combat? Keeping a few prisoner hardly seems a stretch. Hell, they're "condemned" anyway - would they not be a valuable commodity in being available for sacrifice to Raise nobles, even if the PC's don't need them?



Yes, assuming the PCs have no morals and nothing bad ever comes of taking prisoners. Practically speaking, no, doing this is not a good idea.

***

The rest of this stuff is hyperbolic and repetitive and isn't worth continuing.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 20, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> In some rpgs, particularly skill-based ones, Knowledge is a skill on the same level as, say, Guns. This makes more sense, really. And I don't see that Knowledge is a limited focus of game activity. My players probably roll around the same number of Knowledge checks that they do attack rolls or saving throws. It's pretty useful to know stuff in most D&D games.




Useful? Sure. Not so much if every character knows the strengths and weaknesses of every monster by default, though. And I'm interested in other posters who see Knowledge checks being as frequent as attacks or saves.  That's not been my experience, but that's only one experience.



Ahnehnois said:


> You missed the part where the DM controls his success or failure. The DM decides what rolls to make, what modifiers apply, and what the results mean. A player who chooses to speak eloquently or otherwise take useful actions can influence how the DM adjudicates the rules. None of which is particularly eyebrow-raising; that's D&D 101: you control your character's actions.




To me, the rules make many of those decisions or, at a minimum, provide the framework for their adjudication. I consider a player who makes an eloquent speech on behalf of his 8 CHA character who has spent precisely zero skill points on any form of social or interaction skill to be poorly role playing his character, and more deserving of an xp penalty for that than of any bonus to his skill roll.



Ahnehnois said:


> Nothing. None of them need a trained only clause. There's no reason an untrained character can't attempt to sail, cook, or make a living at some profession. Or try to build something. Or perform. Or know useful facts.
> 
> If you're doing a modern rpg, it may be that an untrained character can't use a computer or fly a plane. If you're doing magic skill-based, it may be that an untrained character can't do magic. Magic and technology are the only two big examples that I can think of where trained-only is reasonable.




So one might be an expert at matters arcane (high ranks in spellcraft and arcana) but unable to cast the simplest of spells, despite possessing all relevant knowledge of how they are cast?  Seems a disconnect there.  He's just a polyglot and picks up new languages with no investment of skill points?  Disable device seems like a D&D technology skill (while some basic computer knowledge is similar to driving in the 21st century).  Anyone with a great CHA is an animal trainer?  Sleight of hand is on the cusp, but I can see this requiring some basic training.  Spellcraft is that Magic Basic Training, so seems reasonable.  Similar for Use Magic Device, although that depends on how one envisions their use working.

And if there is no reason anyone can't effectively undertake these various skills, why can't they use a longbow, or a hand crossbow effectively (or as effectively as their BAB allows)?  How much harder can it be to fire a smaller crossbow than the standard one virtually everyone can use?  



Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, assuming the PCs have no morals and nothing bad ever comes of taking prisoners. Practically speaking, no, doing this is not a good idea.




Yet it seems it was a good idea for that Noble, wasn't it?

To the moral issues, I commented on those immediately after, but you chose to ignore that aspect of my post.  If all it takes is an unwilling sacrifice, I could see many religions using worshippers of opposing deities in this manner.

The idea I do like from your various comments is modifying Local Knowledge to provide a knowledge check on indigenous species, either in addition to or probably in replacement of humanoids.  In fact, perhaps humanoids should be "common knowledge" - are there any that are all that rare? There is quite a list, but we could always move the less common to other categories - perhaps "underdark humanoids" move to Dungeoneering, some of the on the line ones get reclassified as Monstrous, etc.  If we took the very logical step of setting DC's by monster, rather than by HD, we could define some as common knowledge, and also reclassify others and/or place them on more than one list (I note 'humanoid' includes 'vampire').  We could indicate some are not restricted to "trained" users, despite having a DC above 10.

That would be a default, though. Really, each campaign setting should have its own DC's and "common" rules.  The Zeitgeist world has a lot more Fey involvement, and a lot less planar incursions, which would suggest the former are better known and the latter more of a mystery.

Finally, the prospect of someone with misinformation, rather than just not knowing, merits consideration.  [Now, what did Bree-yark mean, again?]


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 20, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Useful? Sure. Not so much if every character knows the strengths and weaknesses of every monster by default, though.



Monster identification is not exactly the main use of Knowledge skills. And creating a ridiculous overstatement of my point repeatedly does not make it any more true.



> To me, the rules make many of those decisions or, at a minimum, provide the framework for their adjudication. I consider a player who makes an eloquent speech on behalf of his 8 CHA character who has spent precisely zero skill points on any form of social or interaction skill to be poorly role playing his character, and more deserving of an xp penalty for that than of any bonus to his skill roll.



Ouch. I assume you also assign XP penalties to low-Int characters who make good tactical decisions and low-Wis characters who pay attention to what the DM says is happening.



> So one might be an expert at matters arcane (high ranks in spellcraft and arcana) but unable to cast the simplest of spells, despite possessing all relevant knowledge of how they are cast?  Seems a disconnect there.



Feel free to criticize the D&D magic system, but leave me out of it.



> Disable device seems like a D&D technology skill



Borderline. Not much in the way of technology unless you're steampunking it up. Anyone can disable the wheel to a carriage.



> (while some basic computer knowledge is similar to driving in the 21st century).



In the Western world. There are still a significant number of people who have never used one. But yes, some technology skills should not be trained only if the technology is user-friendly enough or if they are sufficiently ubiquitous.



> Anyone with a great CHA is an animal trainer?



A modestly effective one, yes. Ranks quickly outstrip ability scores, so even an uncharismatic trainer quickly surpasses an amateur. But the amateur can try, and might succeed. Some people are just good with animals.

Moreover, encouraging people to try things leads to a more interesting game.



> And if there is no reason anyone can't effectively undertake these various skills, why can't they use a longbow, or a hand crossbow effectively (or as effectively as their BAB allows)?



They can. It's only a flat -4 nonproficiency penalty. Which is exactly the difference between a first level character's maxed skill an an untrained check.



> Yet it seems it was a good idea for that Noble, wasn't it?



Given that he ultimately got himself killed anyway (in part because of him having different morals from the PCs), apparently not. But yes, a rich guy bringing along a prisoner with a large caravan with guards makes sense, moreso than an adventuring party that often needs to move quickly and quietly.



> To the moral issues, I commented on those immediately after, but you chose to ignore that aspect of my post.



You kind of missed the point. Killing is wrong. An unwilling sacrifice is clearly evil. A willing sacrifice is still arguably evil, and there aren't too many of those. The noble was from a mildly lawful evil culture where executing people for this purpose was accepted. I hope to create a thorny moral question for PCs seeking resurrection, not make them jump through logistical hoops. That's what I mean by making it difficult.



> Really, each campaign setting should have its own DC's and "common" rules.



Yes, it should.



> Finally, the prospect of someone with misinformation, rather than just not knowing, merits consideration.



The rule don't say much on this topic, but there's some room to improve them.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Monster identification is not exactly the main use of Knowledge skills. And creating a ridiculous overstatement of my point repeatedly does not make it any more true.




To me, the whole discussion started with the assertions that a knowledge check provided lots of detail about any given monster, and that pretty much everyone in the D&D world would have a pretty solid familiarity of the dangers of most, if not all, monsters and typically know them by sight.  Pretty much everyone would know a bodak, medusa or basilisk on sight, for example. If that is a ridiculous overstatement of your point, I welcome you clarifying it.



Ahnehnois said:


> Ouch. I assume you also assign XP penalties to low-Int characters who make good tactical decisions and low-Wis characters who pay attention to what the DM says is happening.




First off, I never said I was assigning a penalty.  I said that such a penalty was *more deserved* than a skill bonus when the player of an 8 CHA character with no social skills role plays an eloquent speech on the part of that character.  More so if such speeches are routine.  I can only assume the character is a stutterer, a spitter or some such, because he seems to suffer no problems with his charisma or persuasiveness otherwise.
And yes, I think it is appropriate for people to play the character they chose to build.  If you dump WIS, CHA and INT, then you should be playing an unpersuasive, imperceptive dunce.  You chose not to spend your character resources on common sense, genius or persuasiveness, so play the brute you designed.  

The player who stutters and is a wallflower, but put stats into CHA, and skill points into interaction skills to build a suave, persuasive character, should not have those advantages overridden by a player who is a persuasive orator.  The ‘face’ character does not get a bonus to combat abilities because his player deftly demonstrates brilliant defensive and offensive fencing skills.  

You choose the character you want to play, and work with that character’s resources.  Designing an 8 INT, 8 CHA brute, then playing him as a tactical genius beloved by all is, at least to me, poor role playing.  If you want to be a brilliant tactician and a leader of men, don’t give your character an 8 INT and an 8 CHA so you can pump his STR and CON up higher.



Ahnehnois said:


> Feel free to criticize the D&D magic system, but leave me out of it.




I’m not the one suggesting everyone should be able to attempt everything (or at least, not with the possibility of success), am I?

If you want a character who can cast spells, you take levels in a spellcasting class, or a feat that provides some limited casting ability.  If you want one who knows a lot about the theory of spellcasting, you take spellcraft (and if you don’t, you know nothing about it). If you want a character who knows a little bit about everything, and can answer DC 11+ questions, that is easily done by taking a rank in each Knowledge skill – you sacrifice other skill ranks you might have taken to be good at this unusual area.  Character building is about actualizing your vision of the character, within the constraints of the character building options available to you.



Ahnehnois said:


> Borderline. Not much in the way of technology unless you're steampunking it up. Anyone can disable the wheel to a carriage.




Sure – take an axe to it.  But Disable Device allows you to sabotage it so it will work well for a while, and presumably not be obviously tampered with when the carriage driver returns.  I don’t believe “just anyone” can do that.  Or more to the point, I have no objection to restricting such an ability to those who have been trained, rather than setting the DC at 30 because “it shouldn’t be easy for just anyone to do this”.



Ahnehnois said:


> A modestly effective one, yes. Ranks quickly outstrip ability scores, so even an uncharismatic trainer quickly surpasses an amateur. But the amateur can try, and might succeed. Some people are just good with animals.




I would parse that into the game by having some people take ranks in Handle Animal, not by making Handle Animal usable untrained for those purposes.  There is no requirement “trained” mean formal training – it’s just shorthand for “took at least one rank in it”.



Ahnehnois said:


> Moreover, encouraging people to try things leads to a more interesting game.




I find needing to find less obvious ways to solve a problem because we lack the skill in the obvious one can make for a very interesting game as well. I don’t find the need to set DC’s on tasks anyone trained should be fairly competent at a level that someone with a +5 needs to roll 18+ so that high stat untrained character can’t routinely accomplish it as well makes for a better game.



Ahnehnois said:


> Given that he ultimately got himself killed anyway (in part because of him having different morals from the PCs), apparently not. But yes, a rich guy bringing along a prisoner with a large caravan with guards makes sense, moreso than an adventuring party that often needs to move quickly and quietly.




As I said, magic to overcome the difficulty keeping a prisoner quiet seems quite likely in a world where it carries such advantages.  But the moral issue is the more interesting one.



Ahnehnois said:


> You kind of missed the point. Killing is wrong. An unwilling sacrifice is clearly evil. A willing sacrifice is still arguably evil, and there aren't too many of those. The noble was from a mildly lawful evil culture where executing people for this purpose was accepted. I hope to create a thorny moral question for PCs seeking resurrection, not make them jump through logistical hoops. That's what I mean by making it difficult.




You seem to waffle above from “clearly evil” to “mildly evil” above.  No question, taking a life is an evil act by definition, at least in isolation. So would a Good cleric ever consider casting this spell? 

How thorny a moral question is it? Although taking a life is clearly evil in isolation, we accept it in many circumstances – Paladins would be unplayable otherwise.  If a culture has accepted, as an example, that capital punishment is appropriate in some circumstances, is it “more evil” to use that life taken for the purpose of returning an innocent to life, or is it “more evil” to refrain from using this necessarily evil act to deliver what good it might be capable of doing? American Indian culture uses all of the animal, or as much as possible, as waste would be offensive to the animal killed.

Will the adventurer who is happy making a career out of killing people and taking their stuff really balk at taking an enemy life to return life to a friend?  “Well, I have no problem slaughtering a village full of Goblins so we can use the land they held for our own agriculture – that’s just our manifest destiny, and they’re all evil Goblins anyway.  And no one should begrudge me helping myself to their possessions afterwards – that’s just a fair wage for a fair day’s work!  But kill one of those goblins to return the life of a boy taken from us by a wagon accident? That’s just WRONG!”

As you say willing sacrifices are few and far between. That requirement would accomplish your originally stated goal of making raising the dead a rare and momentous event.  If I can kill someone for the privilege of returning, that just limits the willingness of Good persons to use it.  And, in the typical D&D setting, how much would it really limit it?  Would, say, worshippers of one deity balk at sacrificing worshippers of an enemy deity (oh, excuse me, when we’re opposed to their religion, they’re “cultists”, not “worshippers”).

Oddly, this issue seems remarkably in keeping with the thread title, despite being unrelated to the OP’s comments.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

N'raac said:


> To me, the whole discussion started with the assertions that a knowledge check provided lots of detail about any given monster, and that pretty much everyone in the D&D world would have a pretty solid familiarity of the dangers of most, if not all, monsters and typically know them by sight.  Pretty much everyone would know a bodak, medusa or basilisk on sight, for example. If that is a ridiculous overstatement of your point, I welcome you clarifying it.





> Not so much if *every* character knows the strengths and weaknesses of *every* monster *by default*, though.



I would say that _most_ _parties_ know _some_ information about _most_ monsters they _are likely to_ encounter. Remove those qualifiers, and it becomes a ridiculous overstatement.

Given core rules, a party of four characters, and an on-CR monster, one party member is fairly likely to have the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed. If the DM does not allow untrained Knowledge, the players likely have taken one rank in every worthwhile Knowledge, as min/max guides recommend, to circumvent that. The odds of a character failing a trained skill check against a DC of 10 + CR are small. If the characters' level and CR are the same, the three skill points over their level, their Int mod, any other bonuses they have, and their die roll *put together* merely need to equal 10. If the trained character fails or if no one is trained, the party has three or four chances to roll well. I assume that if the check is made, a death attack will be part of the first level of information revealed regardless of how you parse it. I assume that if one character makes this conclusion, he can quickly relay it to others as a free action.

Thus, a party of four level 6 characters that spot a Medusa that is greater than 30 ft. away from them will almost certainly realize that it has a gaze attack they should avoid before they get within range. Thus, it is not fair to assume that a party of characters exposed to it will all have to make saving throws against it. If it sneaks up on them or if they are exceptionally ignorant, this could happen, but is not all that likely. Most SoDs other than the (non-core) banshee are close range or touch range, most SoD monsters are limited in mobility and intelligence and several SoDs can be avoided by averting one's eyes. This is important in mitigating the overall threat levels of SoDs, and not everyone in this thread is willing to account for that.

My assumptions regarding knowledge checks, DCs, and interpretations shift this scenario incrementally in the PCs' favor in most cases.

Either way, I think this conclusion is entirely reasonable, and does not indicate that every single person has access to detailed cryptozoological information.



> And yes, I think it is appropriate for people to play the character they chose to build.  If you dump WIS, CHA and INT, then you should be playing an unpersuasive, imperceptive dunce.  You chose not to spend your character resources on common sense, genius or persuasiveness, so play the brute you designed.



In general, players should do that. I see no problem, however, with a player doing something clever on occasion. If the roll justifies it, he gets rewarded. If not...nothing ventured, nothing gained. In any case, I think it's for the player himself to decide what his character could reasonably think. How many great stories have unimpressive people making one key insight or saying one trenchant phrase? Heck, that's a JRR Tolkien special!



> I find needing to find less obvious ways to solve a problem because we lack the skill in the obvious one can make for a very interesting game as well. I don’t find the need to set DC’s on tasks anyone trained should be fairly competent at a level that someone with a +5 needs to roll 18+ so that high stat untrained character can’t routinely accomplish it as well makes for a better game.



I think it's simply a consistent enforcement of the heart of the d20 system: your bonus is how good you are, the DC is how hard the task is. If you beat the DC, you accomplish the task. The bonus and DC numbers determine the chance of that happening. I think that is perfectly adequate and does not need an exception for trained only skills. Even given the conceit of trained only skills, I think Knowledge skills are some of the least appropriate skills. As any ENWorlder knows, people can recall a lot of random factoids even outside of their expertise.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

> You seem to waffle above from “clearly evil” to “mildly evil” above.  No question, taking a life is an evil act by definition, at least in isolation. So would a Good cleric ever consider casting this spell?



It's never come up that I can recall. Not a lot of PC deaths since I instituted this policy. If it did, it would be interesting.



> How thorny a moral question is it? Although taking a life is clearly evil in isolation, we accept it in many circumstances – Paladins would be unplayable otherwise.  If a culture has accepted, as an example, that capital punishment is appropriate in some circumstances, is it “more evil” to use that life taken for the purpose of returning an innocent to life, or is it “more evil” to refrain from using this necessarily evil act to deliver what good it might be capable of doing? American Indian culture uses all of the animal, or as much as possible, as waste would be offensive to the animal killed.



All fair points. I am a pacifist and my players know this, so they likely interpret the rule in that context. I would describe capital punishment as evil, period, in a D&D context. A paladin can kill an opponent in combat who represents an active threat, but I would never consider it a permissible act to kill a sentient creature that cannot defend itself.

However, all characters can perform evil acts. Some people might indeed be willing to justify the restoration of a great hero, even at great cost, if they believe it serves the greater good. Sacrificing a mindless or evil creature to restore such a hero is arguably less evil than your typical evil cultist sacrificing someone for personal power or something. That's where I'm waffling.



> Will the adventurer who is happy making a career out of killing people and taking their stuff really balk at taking an enemy life to return life to a friend?



Some will, some won't. I could imagine that if a good character was the one being resurrected, he might refuse to come back. I could also imagine the party sacrificing a bear and moving on. (Though I place a lot higher value of the life of an animal than most people, and druids are a large part of my world).



> As you say willing sacrifices are few and far between. That requirement would accomplish your originally stated goal of making raising the dead a rare and momentous event.



I would. I allow unwilling sacrifices because of the interesting implications. I'd rather have a resurrection happen and be interesting than tell players they can't do it because no one of their level is willing to commit suicide. I also was thinking this way because the idea is from Heroes of Horror.

Another DM wants to do this with willing sacrifices only, that's great for him.



> If I can kill someone for the privilege of returning, that just limits the willingness of Good persons to use it.  And, in the typical D&D setting, how much would it really limit it?



I say it limits the willingness of non-evil persons to use it. Which is most people.

And, on a world level, it limits the number of total resurrections. Every time someone dies, there's one less person living. Even if he gets raised, there's still one less person living. It's a sort of "Law of Conservation of Souls". This has important thematic implications in my world.



> Would, say, worshippers of one deity balk at sacrificing worshippers of an enemy deity (oh, excuse me, when we’re opposed to their religion, they’re “cultists”, not “worshippers”).



Or would elves balk at sacrificing humans? Or would rich people balk at sacrificing poor people? So many social issues to explore!



> Oddly, this issue seems remarkably in keeping with the thread title, despite being unrelated to the OP’s comments.



Totally. I don't think I've ever discussed my resurrection policy on ENW at length before.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> <snip>
> 
> Given core rules, a party of four characters, and an on-CR monster, one party member is fairly likely to have the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed. If the DM does not allow untrained Knowledge, the players likely have taken one rank in every worthwhile Knowledge, as min/max guides recommend, to circumvent that. The odds of a character failing a trained skill check against a DC of 10 + CR are small. If the characters' level and CR are the same, the three skill points over their level, their Int mod, any other bonuses they have, and their die roll *put together* merely need to equal 10. If the trained character fails or if no one is trained, the party has three or four chances to roll well. I assume that if the check is made, a death attack will be part of the first level of information revealed regardless of how you parse it. I assume that if one character makes this conclusion, he can quickly relay it to others as a free action.




One of the interesting points of unforeseen consequence in the rule set is the roll is against HD and not CR.  Therefore really weird extra-planar entities are easier -- on a equal CR level -- to ID than large/dire/advanced versions of regular terrestrial creatures.  Since the ratio of HD:CR generally depends on the creature type, the party is likely to be able to spit out the name, major attack avenues and special defences on a creature from the 333 and a third level of the Abyss, but look at the colossal trapdoor spider and not be able to comprehend anything about it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

Is it? My mistake. Easy to confuse those things. Either way, an easy check.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Is it? My mistake. Easy to confuse those things. Either way, an easy check.




The CR-11 32-hit dice colossal spider begs to differ or even the CR-8 16-hit dice dire tiger.  

"It looks like a tiger, but it's _so much bigger!_  I can't imagine what that creature could be or what it could do!"


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

Nagol said:


> The CR-11 32-hit dice colossal spider begs to differ or even the CR-8 16-hit dice dire tiger.
> 
> "It looks like a tiger, but it's _so much bigger!_  I can't imagine what that creature could be or what it could do!"



True, that's stupid. The monsters with powerful special abilities like SoDs are not likely to have high HD though.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 21, 2013)

The discussion about knowledge checks brings up one of my pet peeves about 3E: that it's really hard to gain information.  That kobold in front of you?  He could be a 30th-level wizard.  He could be a regular kobold.  Without _Arcane Sight_, you don't have a way of knowing.

In my 3E campaign I've told the players that I'm running with AD&D-ish level assumptions - characters below level 10 are not that uncommon, but those above "name" level are extremely rare.  We're playing in Greyhawk, so Mordenkainen may be the only wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells.  Tenser, Otiluke, Rary, and the rest - they're probably between 13th and 17th level.

I'd like to incorporate a skill check to tell the players that sort of information.  I know that Oriental Adventures has something about that for Sense Motive, but considering how important that information is, I don't want to place it in any one skill.  And how do you know how powerful a wizard is, before they cast a spell?

The way I deal with this issue is that I tell the players the level of the area they're heading into.  Which is pretty metagame, and I don't like it, but I don't see a way out.

Any tips?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> True, that's stupid. The monsters with powerful special abilities like SoDs are not likely to have high HD though.




You do realize that the MM examples are the smallest versions of all monsters, don't you?

I used a CR 6 Cockatrice that had about 12 or 13 HD not that long ago.  I'm sure that there are lots of other examples.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 21, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> The discussion about knowledge checks brings up one of my pet peeves about 3E: that it's really hard to gain information.  That kobold in front of you?  He could be a 30th-level wizard.  He could be a regular kobold.  Without _Arcane Sight_, you don't have a way of knowing.
> 
> In my 3E campaign I've told the players that I'm running with AD&D-ish level assumptions - characters below level 10 are not that uncommon, but those above "name" level are extremely rare.  We're playing in Greyhawk, so Mordenkainen may be the only wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells.  Tenser, Otiluke, Rary, and the rest - they're probably between 13th and 17th level.
> 
> ...




Knowledge: Local should give them reputations of the inhabitants with histories -- including a power range.  "That's not a kobold; that's Relnick the Capricious.  It's said he killed a griffon mid-flight with but a single word.  With him is Kulc the orc.  Three years ago, he took down an entire company of Knights of the Golden Rose by himself."


----------



## Nagol (Jul 21, 2013)

Hussar said:


> You do realize that the MM examples are the smallest versions of all monsters, don't you?
> 
> I used a CR 6 Cockatrice that had about 12 or 13 HD not that long ago.  I'm sure that there are lots of other examples.




Advancement isn't such a big deal since I based the Knowledge check on the original unless there were blatant morphological differences -- that is the most common variety, after all.  Rumours and first-hand accounts were valuable to determine if the critter had any special oomph.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

LostSoul said:


> Any tips?



There is a fairly detailed application of Sense Motive, in Complete Adventurer with a nice feat to back it up. It's not trained only. Even in the core rules, there's the DC 20 "hunch" for SM, which you could easily say gives the player a guess about whether an opponent's level is higher or lower than his own.

That seems the most reasonable venue to me. Knowledge (Local) or (Geography) to get a less metagame-y sense of the danger in an area is also reasonable.



Hussar said:


> You do realize that the MM examples are the smallest versions of all monsters, don't you?
> 
> I used a CR 6 Cockatrice that had about 12 or 13 HD not that long ago.  I'm sure that there are lots of other examples.



Of course. And if you made the players make a DC 23 Knowledge check to identify it, that would be an example of why the rule is, to coin a phrase, bad game design. As stated above, there's no good reason taking the same thing and making it bigger should make it harder to identify.

Of course, the rules aren't really clear whether the DC is based on the advanced version or not.

And even a 13 HD cockatrice does not have a huge amount of HD for its CR and is still very identifiable to a trained character (if unlikely for the nontrained folks).


----------



## N'raac (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would say that _most_ _parties_ know _some_ information about _most_ monsters they _are likely to_ encounter. Remove those qualifiers, and it becomes a ridiculous overstatement.




First off, the discussion had trailed to “any given local yokel”, which also seems to overstate the case.



Ahnehnois said:


> Given core rules, a party of four characters, and an on-CR monster, one party member is fairly likely to have the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed. If the DM does not allow untrained Knowledge, the players likely have taken one rank in every worthwhile Knowledge, as min/max guides recommend, to circumvent that. The odds of a character failing a trained skill check against a DC of 10 + CR are small. If the characters' level and CR are the same, the three skill points over their level, their Int mod, any other bonuses they have, and their die roll *put together* merely need to equal 10. If the trained character fails or if no one is trained, the party has three or four chances to roll well. I assume that if the check is made, a death attack will be part of the first level of information revealed regardless of how you parse it. I assume that if one character makes this conclusion, he can quickly relay it to others as a free action.




First off, there is the issue of CR vs Hit Dice, already discussed below.  Pathfinder modified the rule from HD to CR – that may be where the error comes in, if you’ve also played Pathfinder.  The question of advanced creatures also comes in – especially for advanced creatures that may have new abilities.  The Medusa’s CR is actually greater than its HD (7 and 6), while the basilisk reverses that (5 and 6), with the abyssal greater basilisk (which has a lot of new special abilities) having 18 HD and CR 12.  Bodaks have 9 HD and CR 8.  The Banshee (Pathfinder, as it’s not in the 3.5 SRD) has 19 HD and CR 13.  As CR enhances, HD seem to grow faster than CR.

So if we assume the party has every knowledge skill maxed out, that’s 9 skills.  Leave out architecture, geography, history and nobility/royalty (the ones with no linked monster types) and we’re down to only 5, which seems manageable.

At L6, that’s 9 ranks + INT bonus.  Wizards tip the scales high on INT bonus, and can have every Knowledge, but even a 20 INT Wizard has only 7 skill points to spread around.  Make our Arcane caster a sorcerer both skill points and INT bonuses drop off.  Wizards tend away from Local, Nature and Religion, in my experience, letting someone else cover those bases.  Our group likes skills, so INT 12 – 14 is pretty common.  Let’s assume a +2 to err on the side of generosity, but not assume a wizard.  One character on the team probably dumped INT (8 or 10) too.

Our current Pathfinder team has a Cleric with Spellcraft and a Sorcerer with Kn Arcana (and the latter doesn’t cast Detect Magic), and I think no one with Planes.  That’s a bit off topic, but one anecdote of a 4 character group where no one has a stellar INT, and at least one Knowledge is missing.  The Cleric is INT 14, mainly due to a plan to be an item crafter.

So an average roll will be +11 (9 ranks and +2 INT) at 6th level.  That’s a 5+, so 80% likely.  If we’re L13 facing that Greater Basilisk, now it’s +17 versus CR 19, so only 45% likely and those untrained rolls aren’t going to cut it.  +18 on that 19 HD banshee is 50/50.

So we have a shot at recognizing its abilities.  Much more helpful if rumours tip us off to what may be in there than if we have to get within light source range to ID the creature – most common sources (light spells, everburning torches) get 20’ good light and 40’ shadowy light.  That’s only 10’ out of that 30’ range if we assume dim light is enough and the front guy has the light source.  And this ignores doors.  I think the CR’s also assume we’ll be close enough – that’s one reason why SoD monsters have low HD for their CR’s.

You keep using the medusa, where averting one’s eyes and keeping your distance allows her to fire her short bow effectively, or close for that rather nasty poison attack.  Meanwhile, since you can’t see, you get a 50/50 miss chance and can’t target properly.

Still, the odds of having at least some knowledge are pretty good.  Full knowledge is less so, but making the Medusa check by 5 (and getting both the petrification and poison) is reasonably likely, and you can see the shortbow.

Overall, though, I think the party has a decent chance of knowing a bit about the typical creature encountered, but often only when they are already in pretty close proximity.



Ahnehnois said:


> In general, players should do that. I see no problem, however, with a player doing something clever on occasion. If the roll justifies it, he gets rewarded. If not...nothing ventured, nothing gained. In any case, I think it's for the player himself to decide what his character could reasonably think. How many great stories have unimpressive people making one key insight or saying one trenchant phrase? Heck, that's a JRR Tolkien special!




Very few Tolkein characters are min/max’ed combat machines.  They tend to make friends easily and be pretty quick on the update.  They aren’t 8 INT, 8 CHA min/maxed meat grinders.  And I don’t discount the possibility that the 8 CHA character will get lucky and happen to strike the right phrasing with the right target to get a success (20 – 1 = 19 Diplomacy check, after all).  But I don’t believe that the player being a good speechmaker should move him from a -1 penalty to a +3 bonus on a regular basis.  If you want to play a persuasive, smooth talking character, then don’t dump CHA and put no ranks in social skills.  Your character doesn’t deliver the message as smoothly as the player if he lacks the skills and stats to back it up and, by the same token, a stuttering player with no social graces does not translate into the PC with 16 CHA and 8 ranks in Diplomacy suffering similar drawbacks to the player, calling the king “that dude with the crown” and spitting when he talks.



Ahnehnois said:


> I think it's simply a consistent enforcement of the heart of the d20 system: your bonus is how good you are, the DC is how hard the task is. If you beat the DC, you accomplish the task. The bonus and DC numbers determine the chance of that happening. I think that is perfectly adequate and does not need an exception for trained only skills. Even given the conceit of trained only skills, I think Knowledge skills are some of the least appropriate skills. As any ENWorlder knows, people can recall a lot of random factoids even outside of their expertise.




I see no issue with trained only skills – there are lots of other areas where some characters can succeed and others can’t.  The d20 system (like most/all game systems) abstracts a lot, and that takes out many statistical outliers.  PC’s don’t slip, hit their heads and die, and they don’t get that random smattering of odd factoids.




LostSoul said:


> The discussion about knowledge checks brings up one of my pet peeves about 3E: that it's really hard to gain information. That kobold in front of you? He could be a 30th-level wizard. He could be a regular kobold. Without _Arcane Sight_, you don't have a way of knowing.
> 
> I'd like to incorporate a skill check to tell the players that sort of information. I know that Oriental Adventures has something about that for Sense Motive, but considering how important that information is, I don't want to place it in any one skill. And how do you know how powerful a wizard is, before they cast a spell?






Nagol said:


> Knowledge: Local should give them reputations of the inhabitants with histories -- including a power range. "That's not a kobold; that's Relnick the Capricious. It's said he killed a griffon mid-flight with but a single word. With him is Kulc the orc. Three years ago, he took down an entire company of Knights of the Golden Rose by himself."




I like the idea of removing Humanoids from Local Knowledge and moving them to, say, Nature, then making the Local Knowledge skill provide intel on creatures that are prominent locally, and the specific local residents of note.  The problem with “local knowledge” is that players travel around a lot, but it seems fair to interpret this skill as including the ability to pick up a lot from local gossip, tavern talk, etc., so it doesn’t take long to acclimatize to a new locale.  Geography also seems plausible for residents of note.  History could be appropriate for long-lived entities, and Nobles for persons of both rank and special note.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's never come up that I can recall. Not a lot of PC deaths since I instituted this policy. If it did, it would be interesting.
> 
> All fair points. I am a pacifist and my players know this, so they likely interpret the rule in that context. I would describe capital punishment as evil, period, in a D&D context. A paladin can kill an opponent in combat who represents an active threat, but I would never consider it a permissible act to kill a sentient creature that cannot defend itself.




So that moves the Paladin to “well, if we’re losing, just surrender – he won’t kill us or let anyone else kill us”.  The same should apply to any Good character.  Why don’t those Good characters strike with the flat of their blade, at least in some strikes (especially when the battle is pretty much won anyway), take feats that allow non-lethal instead of lethal damage, etc. to minimize loss of life?  What do L1 Good characters do with those three Orcs that failed their Sleep save?  They’re helpless now.  Where does the line get drawn?  As you note, all characters can perform evil acts (presumably for good reasons if they are good).



Ahnehnois said:


> However, all characters can perform evil acts. Some people might indeed be willing to justify the restoration of a great hero, even at great cost, if they believe it serves the greater good. Sacrificing a mindless or evil creature to restore such a hero is arguably less evil than your typical evil cultist sacrificing someone for personal power or something. That's where I'm waffling.




That’s where the line starts getting grey.  A forced sacrifice to achieve your own ends above his sounds pretty evil, no matter who the sacrifice or what the goals.  If there is great need to restore that great hero, would a truly Good character sacrifice someone else, or offer his own life?



Ahnehnois said:


> Some will, some won't. I could imagine that if a good character was the one being resurrected, he might refuse to come back. I could also imagine the party sacrificing a bear and moving on. (Though I place a lot higher value of the life of an animal than most people, and druids are a large part of my world).




Why not sacrifice a cow or a horse?  A black bear has 3 HD just like a heavy horse.  I was avoiding animals on the assumption the sacrifice must be sentient.  Why not use a Giant Insect spell to create a sacrifice from household vermin? 

How many cows, pigs, fish and chickens has the PC already “sacrificed” to maintain his own life?  We were going to kill it for steaks anyway – if we can Raise a dead family member, or other member of the community. at the same time, why not?

I assume I can’t use Undead or Outsiders, so a straight Summoning is out, although Summon Nature’s Ally gets some pretty tough animals.



Ahnehnois said:


> Another DM wants to do this with willing sacrifices only, that's great for him.




As noted above, I don’t think being willing to kill an evil being, an enemy soldier (to raise “one of our boys” that he killed), much less an animal, to raise a person from the dead is going to be that big a moral dilemma for many people.  Deciding that a human prisoner (a criminal, as your Noble was described) is a preferable sacrifice to a beast of burden seems much more a moral issue (well, horses are more useful than this guy is).

You initially mentioned making return from the dead much more a momentous occasion, not a commonplace spell PC’s can access.  Willing sacrifices would do that.  Unwilling sacrifices let anyone with wealth pull it off, especially once we allow animals to be used.

Leaving animals out, what's "willing"?  Does it count if he's charmed?  If he's blackmailed (you agree, or I kill your family) or coerced (a life of luxury for 20 years in exchange for use as a Raise Sacrifice after; I'll pay enough that your family will want for nothing when you are gone)?  Does it fail if the sacrifice has any doubts or regrets?  I think there's lots to explore under either approach.  However, given D&D is largely focused on using violence to solve your problems, I question how taking a life to return a fallen person is more evil than taking a life to prevent him falling in the first place.  I can't imagine how our own society would have evolved if that were possible.



Ahnehnois said:


> I say it limits the willingness of non-evil persons to use it. Which is most people.
> 
> And, on a world level, it limits the number of total resurrections. Every time someone dies, there's one less person living. Even if he gets raised, there's still one less person living. It's a sort of "Law of Conservation of Souls". This has important thematic implications in my world.




If any sacrifice would work, would it become common for an elder relative, who has limited time remaining and is confident of his place in the afterlife, being willing to sacrifice a few remaining months or years for a grandchild taken too soon?  How frequently would a parent lay down their life for a child?  Now we’re even into the realm of willing sacrifice.  And “greater love has no one than this:  to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” – your place in the afterlife is clearly secure.




Ahnehnois said:


> Or would elves balk at sacrificing humans? Or would rich people balk at sacrificing poor people? So many social issues to explore!




If we allow animals, maybe not so much.  Although the wealthy noble willing to sacrifice a subject rather than a horse, because the latter is more valuable than the former, certainly strikes at the heart of moral issues.  

The ability to use non-sentient sacrifices changes the playing field a lot.  How many L1 characters can be raised as we prepare for the Thanksgiving Day Feast?  It seems we’re back to “finding a sufficiently skilled Cleric” being the tough part.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

First off, this text is unreadable on a dark background.


N'raac said:


> Where does the line get drawn?  As you note, all characters can perform evil acts (presumably for good reasons if they are good).



Personally, I draw that line in that killing to prevent an imminent threat is usually accepted, while doing so to prevent a non-immenent threat or for some other reason is not. An orc temporarily rendered helpless is still a threat if it wakes up a minute later. However, a captured prisoner is not.

Nothing I say will exactly remove gray areas here.



> That’s where the line starts getting grey.  A forced sacrifice to achieve your own ends above his sounds pretty evil, no matter who the sacrifice or what the goals.  If there is great need to restore that great hero, would a truly Good character sacrifice someone else, or offer his own life?



Good question.



> Why not sacrifice a cow or a horse?  A black bear has 3 HD just like a heavy horse.  I was avoiding animals on the assumption the sacrifice must be sentient.  Why not use a Giant Insect spell to create a sacrifice from household vermin?



You can. However, I treat any creature (excepting certain extraplanar ones) with mental ability scores as having (in D&D terms) a soul, which carries moral implications. I don't think I'd allow a nonintelligent vermin in trade.



> How many cows, pigs, fish and chickens has the PC already “sacrificed” to maintain his own life?  We were going to kill it for steaks anyway – if we can Raise a dead family member, or other member of the community. at the same time, why not?



Remember, raise dead is a level 5 spell. Farm animals have very limited HD. Finding a higher-HD animal and sacrificing it is not a given and is highly likely to anger druids/rangers/fey creatures that protect nature. Subsistence hunting by humanoids is likely to be tolerated by nature's defenders (though not good-aligned ones), but sacrificing animals for unnatural magical rituals will likely anger even evil druids.

Incidentally, I do not require a life in trade for druidic reincarnation, but my reincarnation options are a little more colorful than the base table.

However, your point also assumes that slaughtering farm animals is acceptable for non-evil characters, which in my view it is not. Societies that do so are abetting evil, in my view, which carries another complex set of implications.



> I assume I can’t use Undead or Outsiders, so a straight Summoning is out, although Summon Nature’s Ally gets some pretty tough animals.



IMC undead, outsiders, and elementals do not have souls and the gods will not accept them in trade. Summoned creatures do not actually die when killed and thus are likewise unacceptable. No shirking my requirement.



> As noted above, I don’t think being willing to kill an evil being, an enemy soldier (to raise “one of our boys” that he killed), much less an animal, to raise a person from the dead is going to be that big a moral dilemma for many people.



Part of the point here is to create conflicts for good characters specifically. Evil characters are not worried about moral dilemmas like this. I want things so that the evil road is clearly the easier one sometimes, which creates dramatic conflict.

It sets the stage for questions of fairness. If this behavior is condoned, how do humans feel when their POWs are sacrificed to resurrect the enemy? The rules of war are largely about what one would consider acceptable given a reversal of circumstances.



> If any sacrifice would work, would it become common for an elder relative, who has limited time remaining and is confident of his place in the afterlife, being willing to sacrifice a few remaining months or years for a grandchild taken too soon?  How frequently would a parent lay down their life for a child?  Now we’re even into the realm of willing sacrifice.  And “greater love has no one than this:  to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” – your place in the afterlife is clearly secure.



Yes, but then we're back to needing a 5000 gp diamond. Not within reach for many people. But I absolutely have considered the implications of the old sacrificing life for the young. Potentially a very noble act.



> The ability to use non-sentient sacrifices changes the playing field a lot.  How many L1 characters can be raised as we prepare for the Thanksgiving Day Feast?  It seems we’re back to “finding a sufficiently skilled Cleric” being the tough part.



How many level 1 characters have 5000 gp? The gp limit and the spell level is what limits resurrection in the core rules.

Also, another IMC factor is that I use spontaneous divine casting, meaning that clerics actually have to select spells known. This makes finding a cleric or a scroll to actually cast the spell considerably more difficult.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> First off, this text is unreadable on a dark background.




Did something change on my posts?  I haven't changed anything from defaults, to my knowledge.



Ahnehnois said:


> Personally, I draw that line in that killing to prevent an imminent threat is usually accepted, while doing so to prevent a non-immenent threat or for some other reason is not. An orc temporarily rendered helpless is still a threat if it wakes up a minute later. However, a captured prisoner is not.




1 minute per level for Sleep seems like enough time to disarm the Orcs so they are not an imminent threat.  Considering the sheer volume of Goblins our Sorcerer has used Sleep to deal with, and the fact we have few prisoners, perhaps our alignments are in jeopardy.  But if we return them as prisoners, I suspect the local authorities (also ostensibly Good, or at least not Evil) seem rather more likely to kill them than to feed and house them.



Ahnehnois said:


> Nothing I say will exactly remove gray areas here.




Which, practically, is what makes the discussion interesting, at least in my view.



Ahnehnois said:


> You can. However, I treat any creature (excepting certain extraplanar ones) with mental ability scores as having (in D&D terms) a soul, which carries moral implications. I don't think I'd allow a nonintelligent vermin in trade.




"Has a soul" seems a reasonable dividing line, as reasonable as sentience.  To extraplanar creatures, I'd draw the line at any creature which just goes home, rather than actually losing its life.  The extension of souls to animals is an unusual step, but not an unreasonable one.  What does this mean to carnivores?  Are most societies, or at least most non-evil societies, vegetarians in your games?  Seems like that costs a lot of historical verisimilitude, but is certainly consistent with knowing absolutely that animals also have souls.  What does it mean for carnivores in the animal kingdom?  Is a plow horse slave labour?  Is a war horse drafted?  Is a Druid who makes regular use of Summon Nature's Ally evil fro risking their lives so cavalierly?  It opens up a lot of questions.  Which is not, in itself, a bad thing.



Ahnehnois said:


> Remember, raise dead is a level 5 spell. Farm animals have very limited HD. Finding a higher-HD animal and sacrificing it is not a given and is highly likely to anger druids/rangers/fey creatures that protect nature. Subsistence hunting by humanoids is likely to be tolerated by nature's defenders (though not good-aligned ones), but sacrificing animals for unnatural magical rituals will likely anger even evil druids.




Bison are domesticated now - would they be if agrarian societies were coupled with plains of buffalo?  That's 5 HD, more if we breed them for size and strength like horses were bred for war.  Elephants have been domesticated, and they have 11 HD (again, breed them for size and strength and they get bigger, right?)  Even whales don't have much higher starting HD, so we are hitting a limit in that area, but that's a pretty substantial level.

From your comments above, good aligned societies would have to be vegetarian, wouldn't they?  Given most weaponry started out with the purpose of hunting, what does that mean for the arms race?



Ahnehnois said:


> Incidentally, I do not require a life in trade for druidic reincarnation, but my reincarnation options are a little more colorful than the base table.




That's a logical outgrowth from one perspective, although again it is returning a soul from the afterlife, so I could see that going either way.



Ahnehnois said:


> However, your point also assumes that slaughtering farm animals is acceptable for non-evil characters, which in my view it is not. Societies that do so are abetting evil, in my view, which carries another complex set of implications.




Again, I return to the vegetarian society - seems that Neutral societies would not find this acceptable either, given you indicate this is not acceptable for those who are not evil.



Ahnehnois said:


> IMC undead, outsiders, and elementals do not have souls and the gods will not accept them in trade. Summoned creatures do not actually die when killed and thus are likewise unacceptable. No shirking my requirement.




I'd use the same interpretation.  Undead lacking souls is a classic reason why creation of Undead is evil while raising the dead is not.



Ahnehnois said:


> It sets the stage for questions of fairness. If this behavior is condoned, how do humans feel when their POWs are sacrificed to resurrect the enemy? The rules of war are largely about what one would consider acceptable given a reversal of circumstances.




Unquestionably - but much of the POW rules of war we know arose within the last 100 years, and they did not evolve in a model where the death of an enemy soldier could restore the life of a comrade or an innocent.



Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, but then we're back to needing a 5000 gp diamond. Not within reach for many people. But I absolutely have considered the implications of the old sacrificing life for the young. Potentially a very noble act.




Well, clearly, any Good creature choosing between another +1 for his magical weapon and spending the wealth on returning the innocent to life would choose that weapon enchantment, right?  Of course, that's just as much a moral issue for the standard raise dead rules.



Ahnehnois said:


> How many level 1 characters have 5000 gp? The gp limit and the spell level is what limits resurrection in the core rules.




Indeed it is - but you indicated you have made a specific decision to depart from those core rules, and my understanding was that it was intended to further restrict such occurrences.   If the cash and the cleric level remain the only, or even primary, restrictions, I question the achievement of that goal.  Your nobleman needed 10k to get a Resurrection as Raising fails with death effects (IIRC).



Ahnehnois said:


> Also, another IMC factor is that I use spontaneous divine casting, meaning that clerics actually have to select spells known. This makes finding a cleric or a scroll to actually cast the spell considerably more difficult.




But, again, that Noble had no problems doing so.  Why would it be tougher for player characters?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Did something change on my posts?  I haven't changed anything from defaults, to my knowledge.



This post is readable again. Your last was in a gray color that was (and still is) not. I don't know why.



> Are most societies, or at least most non-evil societies, vegetarians in your games?



Some are, some aren't. Those that aren't I would qualify as being in a moral gray area. "Where does leather armor come from" is also a valid concern.


> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.



The D&D definition of good does not specify anything about humans or intelligent creatures, and indeed is pretty clear that good characters are concerned with all sentient beings. However, what "respect for life" "concern for dignity" constitutes is open to interpretation. There's a case to be made for an omnivorous creature hunting or scavenging as being appropriate. After all, carnivorous animals aren't evil. The case for farm animals, either as labor or as food, being within the definition of respect for life is pretty tenuous in my opinion.

How does this apply to societies? As the quote goes, if slaughterhouses had glass walls we would all be vegetarians. Farmers who produce meat beyond the bare minimum needed to survive are pretty clearly not good, and might be either neutral or evil. Gentry who consume these products without being involved in their production are abetting it, whether they know/care or not. That does not prevent them from doing other good deeds, but does make it challenging to maintain a good alignment. Really, any noble would struggle to maintain a good alignment.

IMC most good-aligned characters are (among other things) vegetarians. Most druids and other nature-y types are as well (I never understood why it was okay for druids to weather leather armor; perhaps they take it from creatures who die naturally?). Thus, the practice is a minority, but a significant and influential one, and many people that are not vegetarians restrict their use of animals on moral grounds. While D&D is not set in Southeast Asia, this is one aspect in which my world tends to resemble the history of India and surrounding regions. I have something of a constant cold war going between the druids and their ilk and civilized humanoids; farming is one of their main points of difference.

*Of course, all of this is in a D&D context where morals are absolute, alignments are mechanically defined, souls exist, and all of this is distinct from the real world and its history. Real life issues are thornier. I am, unsurprisingly, vegetarian myself, but I am not making this post to claim that real people who participate in conventional eating practices are immoral.*



> Bison are domesticated now - would they be if agrarian societies were coupled with plains of buffalo?  That's 5 HD, more if we breed them for size and strength like horses were bred for war.  Elephants have been domesticated, and they have 11 HD (again, breed them for size and strength and they get bigger, right?)  Even whales don't have much higher starting HD, so we are hitting a limit in that area, but that's a pretty substantial level.



Independent of what the D&D rules implications are, I think that sitting a restrained elephant beside a corpse, conducting a ritual, and sacrificing the elephant in exchange for the character's life would give most people pause.



> From your comments above, good aligned societies would have to be vegetarian, wouldn't they?  Given most weaponry started out with the purpose of hunting, what does that mean for the arms race?
> ...
> Again, I return to the vegetarian society - seems that Neutral societies would not find this acceptable either, given you indicate this is not acceptable for those who are not evil.



My conception of alignment is that there are very few "good societies", and that most are mixed. In my mind, a diverse human society supports good and evil, and the good elements are constantly conflicting with the evil ones, which includes, to my way of thinking, animal agriculture and war.



> Unquestionably - but much of the POW rules of war we know arose within the last 100 years, and they did not evolve in a model where the death of an enemy soldier could restore the life of a comrade or an innocent.



For as long as wars have been fought, there have been rules of war. They have not always been codified as modern society does, but there have always been de facto laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners. Of course, some real societies included the sacrifice of prisoners as being perfectly within their rules, which is a big deal to those who don't agree.



> Well, clearly, any Good creature choosing between another +1 for his magical weapon and spending the wealth on returning the innocent to life would choose that weapon enchantment, right?  Of course, that's just as much a moral issue for the standard raise dead rules.



On a world level, one assumes that 5000+ gp diamonds are not infinitely available. Yes, the core rules raise all kinds of questions about how and when resurrection is used, even before you start mining HoH for ideas to change how it works.



> Indeed it is - but you indicated you have made a specific decision to depart from those core rules, and my understanding was that it was intended to further restrict such occurrences.   If the cash and the cleric level remain the only, or even primary, restrictions, I question the achievement of that goal.



Well, okay. I think it's pretty clear that the life in trade is a restriction, and it is intended to supplement the core rules, not replace them. Given the paucity of character deaths and resurrections in my games lately, it's hard to say what I did or did not accomplish in my own game. As I've subsequently indicated, the goal here is also to change the tone surrounding resurrection magic, and in that I most definitely succeeded.



> But, again, that Noble had no problems doing so.  Why would it be tougher for player characters?



The noble was a 12th level assassin. I expect the technical aspects of resurrection to be eminently achievable to a character of that stature. The PCs were, at the time, level 6, and had commensurately lower social status and resources. If a level 6 character wanted a resurrection, that would be much more difficult. My intention is not to make it impossible for high level characters to do difficult (and morally questionable) things.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 21, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Wait a minute...are you saying that a system (and D&D culture) that places biomechanical limitations on mundane, martial PCs due to the invocation of atmospheric friction/drag, the weight of gravity generally and escape velocity specifically while simultaneously allowing dozens of mundane (extremely setting-relevant) creatures and their non-magical forms of locomotion to violate the same is science and D&D mixing badly (and arbitrarily)?  No wai




Of course they don't, its just fantasy worlds have lots of different atomic particles ... "mu-ons"


----------



## N'raac (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> This post is readable again. Your last was in a gray color that was (and still is) not. I don't know why.




Could be the computer used - I alternate between a work computer (at two different regular locations plus travel), a home computer (sometimes other home computers), and an iPad.  I wonder if I posted from the iPad or the home machine yesterday...



Ahnehnois said:


> Some are, some aren't. Those that aren't I would qualify as being in a moral gray area. "Where does leather armor come from" is also a valid concern.




Many other products as well.



Ahnehnois said:


> The D&D definition of good does not specify anything about humans or intelligent creatures, and indeed is pretty clear that good characters are concerned with all sentient beings. However, what "respect for life" "concern for dignity" constitutes is open to interpretation. There's a case to be made for an omnivorous creature hunting or scavenging as being appropriate. After all, carnivorous animals aren't evil. The case for farm animals, either as labor or as food, being within the definition of respect for life is pretty tenuous in my opinion.




The Awaken spell makes it pretty clear animals are not considered "sentient" in 3.5 D&D.  I believe the rules use "sentient" in terms of ability to reason, a pretty common misuse.  In any case, if we accept farm animals as labour and food is not evil (which, I believe, is the common D&D assumption), then their use as sacrifices seems equally acceptable.

Within your campaign, however, the animals having souls casts this into an even greyer area.  If a carnivorous animal is not evil, how is a carnivorous human rendered evil?  Here, the addition of souls to animals would seem to reduce the differentiation between animal and human.



Ahnehnois said:


> How does this apply to societies? As the quote goes, if slaughterhouses had glass walls we would all be vegetarians. Farmers who produce meat beyond the bare minimum needed to survive are pretty clearly not good, and might be either neutral or evil. Gentry who consume these products without being involved in their production are abetting it, whether they know/care or not. That does not prevent them from doing other good deeds, but does make it challenging to maintain a good alignment. Really, any noble would struggle to maintain a good alignment.




So it's OK to kill animals for my own survival, but not to aid in the survival of others?  Is the farmer evil for feeding his children, who cannot fend for themselves?  What about his aged and disabled parents, who would starve without the meat he produces?  It's OK to kill it as long as I raise it?  Does that apply to children as well as farm animals?  It all seems very grey, and rendered more so by applying souls to the animals.  It's pretty grey in our 21st century world already.



Ahnehnois said:


> IMC most good-aligned characters are (among other things) vegetarians. Most druids and other nature-y types are as well (I never understood why it was okay for druids to weather leather armor; perhaps they take it from creatures who die naturally?). Thus, the practice is a minority, but a significant and influential one, and many people that are not vegetarians restrict their use of animals on moral grounds. While D&D is not set in Southeast Asia, this is one aspect in which my world tends to resemble the history of India and surrounding regions. I have something of a constant cold war going between the druids and their ilk and civilized humanoids; farming is one of their main points of difference.




I think you vary from the perception of druids by the rules.  Their respect for nature extends, by default, to survival of the fittest, and consumption of other life to survive.  Where is the differentiation?  Is it OK to eat insects?  What about crustaceans or mussels?  What about plants?  "Are ze snails stupeed enough for M'sieu?"  My old psych prof pointed out that even plants have behaviours - turn a plant away from the light and watch which way it grows.  In D&D we have spells to allow speaking with plants - would that lead Druids to demand equal rights for carrots?  Of course, we also have Create Food spells - that can mitigate the need to consume other life forms (assuming clerics high enough level to create food are in sufficient abundance to feed everyone, perhaps supplementing renewable food sources like milk - where do unfertilized eggs fall in the spectrum?).



Ahnehnois said:


> *Of course, all of this is in a D&D context where morals are absolute, alignments are mechanically defined, souls exist, and all of this is distinct from the real world and its history. Real life issues are thornier. I am, unsurprisingly, vegetarian myself, but I am not making this post to claim that real people who participate in conventional eating practices are immoral.*




Of course, it's much easier to be able to prescribe specific issues as "good" and "evil", but even killing orcs is accepted by most Good societies in D&D.  I also note that 







> A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.



  Paladins kill a lot of creatures in a typical D&D campaign, don't they?



Ahnehnois said:


> Independent of what the D&D rules implications are, I think that sitting a restrained elephant beside a corpse, conducting a ritual, and sacrificing the elephant in exchange for the character's life would give most people pause.




So would slaughtering an animal - yet there is no shortage of meat at the grocery store.  Frankly, I think magic in any form would give most people pause.  It's also easy to describe the Fireball you cast to burn those Ogres - I suspect the actual smell of their burning flesh may not be overly palatable.  Meanwhile, pretty much all of us have an idea what goes into a hot dog, but they still sell a lot of them.



Ahnehnois said:


> Well, okay. I think it's pretty clear that the life in trade is a restriction, and it is intended to supplement the core rules, not replace them. Given the paucity of character deaths and resurrections in my games lately, it's hard to say what I did or did not accomplish in my own game. As I've subsequently indicated, the goal here is also to change the tone surrounding resurrection magic, and in that I most definitely succeeded.




The problem with a lot of these rules is that, if the issue rarely arises, their impact is pretty limited.



Ahnehnois said:


> The noble was a 12th level assassin. I expect the technical aspects of resurrection to be eminently achievable to a character of that stature. The PCs were, at the time, level 6, and had commensurately lower social status and resources. If a level 6 character wanted a resurrection, that would be much more difficult. My intention is not to make it impossible for high level characters to do difficult (and morally questionable) things.




But you are imposing your morality on the question.  Substitute "paladin" for "assassin", and the same opportunities would exist, wouldn't they?  The only question is whether that Paladin would find this morally ambiguous (you know, as compared to dining on his steak dinner before going out to slaughter orcs and goblins because they threaten the farmers that have expanded into their territory).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

N'raac said:


> The Awaken spell makes it pretty clear animals are not considered "sentient" in 3.5 D&D.  I believe the rules use "sentient" in terms of ability to reason, a pretty common misuse.  In any case, if we accept farm animals as labour and food is not evil (which, I believe, is the common D&D assumption), then their use as sacrifices seems equally acceptable.



I don't know about that. Magical rituals could be said to violate the natural order of things. I don't know that everyone would agree that animal slaughter (for mundane purposes) and animal sacrifice (for magical purposes) are morally equivalent.

I do agree that whoever wrote this was probably not thinking about its implications for the treatment of animals.

Awaken notes that the creature gains "humanlike sentience", which to my mind does not preclude sentience that is not like human sentience. Animals are pretty clearly sentient being regardless of these semantics.



> Within your campaign, however, the animals having souls casts this into an even greyer area.  If a carnivorous animal is not evil, how is a carnivorous human rendered evil?  Here, the addition of souls to animals would seem to reduce the differentiation between animal and human.





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.



It does. The animal is not evil because it is not intelligent enough make informed moral choices, and because it actually needs to eat other animals in order to survive, and because it eats only what it needs. Conversely, a humanoid is adapted to eat a plant-based diet, and does not require animal flesh to survive, and farming is different from hunting in that it generally produces more food than needed and co-opts the animal's entire life towards that purpose, and humans are intelligent enough to recognize these issues and make decisions based on them. Cut and dry, all issues solved? No.



> So it's OK to kill animals for my own survival, but not to aid in the survival of others?  Is the farmer evil for feeding his children, who cannot fend for themselves?  What about his aged and disabled parents, who would starve without the meat he produces?  It's OK to kill it as long as I raise it?  Does that apply to children as well as farm animals?



This is an ends justifying the means argument. I see no reason why the farmer could not accomplish the same goals by raising plants. And indeed, he and his beneficiaries might be better suited by plants. In D&D, cutting down a tree or harvesting a plant are not evil (unless they are sentient), though druids probably still don't like the subversion of natural order.



> It all seems very grey, and rendered more so by applying souls to the animals. It's pretty grey in our 21st century world already.



It is. In D&D, the implications of different food production strategies and their health effects are not clear. In the real world, they are clearer, but nuanced. Our ability to produce food in excess of what we need, changes in the food we produce, and increased recognition of the health effects of diet make our choices very different from those made by people only a few generations ago.



> I think you vary from the perception of druids by the rules.  Their respect for nature extends, by default, to survival of the fittest, and consumption of other life to survive.



"Survival of the fittest" is a Darwinian concept that our D&D characters don't likely understand in full. However, violence is part of nature. Druids do tend to have carnivorous animal companions. To me, good druids are clearly vegetarians, evil druids are clearly rapacious predators, and the rest are ambiguous. Again, I could imagine a neutral druid hunting an animal to fill a need, but I cannot imagine that a nature-worshipper would condone farms or farmed animals, let alone animal sacrifice for deistic magic. I always felt that the druid class and surrounding parts of the D&D canon were intended to evoke elements of the real-world hippie culture that advocated vegetarianism and environmentalism around when D&D was created, but that's just me speculating. They're nothing like real druids after all.



> Where is the differentiation?  Is it OK to eat insects?  What about crustaceans or mussels?



In D&D, it's sentience. I define that as any character that has values for all three mental ability scores, with exclusions for undead and creatures made of the stuff of other planes. Insects and crustaceans in D&D are non-sentient vermin. Should these characters be pescetarians instead? Perhaps. To me, these creatures should really have an intelligence score of 1. A crab or a bug is not exactly smart, but it is not "mindless".



> What about plants? My old psych prof pointed out that even plants have behaviours - turn a plant away from the light and watch which way it grows.  In D&D we have spells to allow speaking with plants - would that lead Druids to demand equal rights for carrots?



D&D to me implies a form of animism, that some kind of living spirit imbues creatures and plants and even objects (Stone Tell is a spell as well). To me, those spirits are so vague that it is not clear that eating a carrot causes any entity any harm. (Whereas eating a pig or a rabbit clearly does). And, of course, there's sheer necessity. We need to eat to live, but we don't need to eat animals. Us living is natural enough. Since druids do not all starve, I assume they have concluded that eating plants is okay and does not cause harm or violate nature.

Of course, killing an intelligent plant creature is clearly evil. The rules make a clear distinction between that and a regular plant.



> Of course, we also have Create Food spells - that can mitigate the need to consume other life forms (assuming clerics high enough level to create food are in sufficient abundance to feed everyone, perhaps supplementing renewable food sources like milk - where do unfertilized eggs fall in the spectrum?).



Idunno.



> Of course, it's much easier to be able to prescribe specific issues as "good" and "evil", but even killing orcs is accepted by most Good societies in D&D.  I also note that   Paladins kill a lot of creatures in a typical D&D campaign, don't they?



Yes. In a way, this contradiction is built into D&D. It rigidly defines good and evil and proscribes that the players should generally lean towards good, but the game strongly implies a great deal of violence, like the fiction it emulates. Many DMs (and producers of non-D&D fiction) gloss over the violent aspect and don't ask the hard questions that one asks on page 34 of an ENW thread on death, magic, and ethics.

I can go two ways with this. One, the paladin should take BoED vow feats and be a pacifist and a vegetarian and only kill things like nonintelligent foes and evil subtype outsiders. Two, the paladin is a massive hypocrite and that hypocrisy is ingrained in the concept. After all, what is a "holy warrior"? If '"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others', then how can a paladin, banned from evil acts, build a career around combat prowess?



> So would slaughtering an animal - yet there is no shortage of meat at the grocery store.  Frankly, I think magic in any form would give most people pause.  It's also easy to describe the Fireball you cast to burn those Ogres - I suspect the actual smell of their burning flesh may not be overly palatable.  Meanwhile, pretty much all of us have an idea what goes into a hot dog, but they still sell a lot of them.



So you're suggesting that in a D&D world, inhabitants would habituate to the unpleasant implications of magic? Perhaps. However, I think resurrections are uncommon enough and repugnant enough that accepting their implications is not the same as these other examples.



> The problem with a lot of these rules is that, if the issue rarely arises, their impact is pretty limited.



I used to kill more PCs than I do now. I also used to have more sessions than I do now. If you're suggesting that my musings on resurrection morality would be more meaningful if I put them into practice by running more sessions and killing more PCs, I agree.

However, they still have impact. Simply knowing that they exist impacts decisions. For one thing, it makes the players a lot more careful to avoid death in the first place!



> But you are imposing your morality on the question.  Substitute "paladin" for "assassin", and the same opportunities would exist, wouldn't they?  The only question is whether that Paladin would find this morally ambiguous (you know, as compared to dining on his steak dinner before going out to slaughter orcs and goblins because they threaten the farmers that have expanded into their territory).



I generally play very loose with alignments. My assassins are not necessarily evil, and my divine warrior types are not necessarily good with a code. I've banned paladins as such. But would a strongly good aligned character accept a resurrection under my system? Probably not, unless the sacrifice was willing. I've added a provision that the soul being raised knows both the identity of the caster and the identity of the creature being sacrificed, and thus can make a fairly informed decision.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 21, 2013)

billd91 said:


> There's a good reason why people do this - it's because no RPG out there ever constructs its own physics or other science engine. They rely, in fact have to rely, on our own understandings of the world around us to fill in the gaps. If you let go of a sword, it doesn't hang in space. It falls. If you slam a door in a charging goblin's face, it won't simply pass through the door but will hit it, possibly injuring itself and damaging the door. If you toss a sheaf of parchments in a fire, they will burn rather than freeze. Science constantly informs our understanding of cause and effect even in games, of in game actions and consequences. Without them, what sort of expectations can a player have when he has his character do something?



While these common expectations are clearly an obvious and useful default for any roleplaying setting, I don't really count them as "Science". They define what is commonly expected to happen, they don't explain *why* those things happen, which is at the core of what "real world" science does.

So, in the "regular" fantasy RPG world, do we expect that fire will burn paper? Sure; but is that because of the action of high potential ("hot") thermal energy on the molecular bonds in the organic material that forms the paper, or is it because the fire element mutually annihilates with the water element in the paper, leaving the earth component of the paper (the "ash") behind? I'm cool with either, but I see no reason for either the characters nor the players (including the GM) to have anything more than theories and speculations about the matter.



billd91 said:


> When it comes to RPG elements, we bend the science rules to allow for the ones we find genre appropriate. Giants don't collapse under their massive weights, dragons breath fire (or other energies), magic actually does things, the Hulk can pick up ridiculously heavy stuff without any real leverage, Cyclops's eyes can fire beams that impart kinetic energy without shoving him around, and so on.



These are precisely the kinds of feature in roleplaying/fantasy worlds that make me strongly suspect that treating them as if it was all caused by "physics and chemistry" is unhelpful. There are so many exceptions that any actual scientist in those worlds should, if they are applying the scientific method properly, end up rejecting the "scientific" hypotheses!



billd91 said:


> But those are all fundamental exceptions to the rules of reality that we import to games like swords fall, goblins can't intangibly walk through doors, and fire burns flammable things.



I don't look at it that way. The fact that swords in mid-air fall, goblins run smack into doors and fire burns paper in a fantasy world will all be explained by the underlying (meta)physics of that world, but so will giants' strength, Cyclops's fire beam and your wizard's Passwall spell. The rules by which the world works will look superficially similar to our world, but 'under the hood' they will be quite different. Ideally, the game rules should give a good guideline for the effects this creates (e.g. "paper, and things that are similarly expected to be flammable, are vulnerable to fire element attacks").



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have Animal Control on my cell phone...



You can get that spell as an App? Cool - iwantone!!


----------



## Aenghus (Jul 21, 2013)

I do find campaigns that have lots of SoD or trap monsters tend to allow the players to use out-of-character information to avoid putting them in the situation that reasonable actions taken in ignorance by the PCs would be potential suicide, but the players know this. I've primarily seen this in hack and slash games with limited roleplaying, but this is by no means confined to such games.

A game involving frequent deadly random dangers either allow the players to mitigate those dangers or accepts a high death rate and either frequent new PCs or frequent resurrection.

I've seen all sorts of variations on this issue - metagaming not allowed but the DM fudges rolls so as not to punish players who allow their PCs to act in ignorance, use of knowledge skills, no metagaming and the dangers remain deadly (which can lead to revolving PC syndrome or the surviving PCs being very cautious and paranoid)

Individual campaigns evolve customs and houserules that allow them to play the way they want to, and those who dislike the particular game style as it has evolved tend to leave.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 21, 2013)

Aenghus said:


> Individual campaigns evolve customs and houserules that allow them to play the way they want to, and those who dislike the particular game style as it has evolved tend to leave.



That's pretty much a bottom line statement with regards to the original issue. Postulate the existence of SoD, and a group figures out how to use it well, work around it effectively, or dump it.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 21, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know about that. Magical rituals could be said to violate the natural order of things. I don't know that everyone would agree that animal slaughter (for mundane purposes) and animal sacrifice (for magical purposes) are morally equivalent.




Depending on the prevalence of magic, I question whether people in a D&D milieu would perceive any difference.  And those Raise spells are granted by a deity - who are we mortals to claim their use is immoral?



Ahnehnois said:


> It does. The animal is not evil because it is not intelligent enough make informed moral choices, and because it actually needs to eat other animals in order to survive, and because it eats only what it needs. Conversely, a humanoid is adapted to eat a plant-based diet, and does not require animal flesh to survive, and farming is different from hunting in that it generally produces more food than needed and co-opts the animal's entire life towards that purpose, and humans are intelligent enough to recognize these issues and make decisions based on them. Cut and dry, all issues solved? No.




First, if it cannot make moral judgements, then how does it possess a soul?  Second, cats still hunt even when their sustenance is provided by pet owners.



Ahnehnois said:


> This is an ends justifying the means argument. I see no reason why the farmer could not accomplish the same goals by raising plants. And indeed, he and his beneficiaries might be better suited by plants. In D&D, cutting down a tree or harvesting a plant are not evil (unless they are sentient), though druids probably still don't like the subversion of natural order.




Just like animals, plants can be awakened to "humanlike sentience" by the Awaken spell, and we can speak with them - that spell even notes some might be friendly.  Equal rights for plants!



Ahnehnois said:


> "Survival of the fittest" is a Darwinian concept that our D&D characters don't likely understand in full. However, violence is part of nature. Druids do tend to have carnivorous animal companions. To me, good druids are clearly vegetarians, evil druids are clearly rapacious predators, and the rest are ambiguous. Again, I could imagine a neutral druid hunting an animal to fill a need, but I cannot imagine that a nature-worshipper would condone farms or farmed animals, let alone animal sacrifice for deistic magic. I always felt that the druid class and surrounding parts of the D&D canon were intended to evoke elements of the real-world hippie culture that advocated vegetarianism and environmentalism around when D&D was created, but that's just me speculating. They're nothing like real druids after all.




They are nothing like real druids (of whom we know very little, really).  I see no reason they would be hippies.  As you note, nature is violent.  One cannot revere nature and ignore that violence, can one?



Ahnehnois said:


> I can go two ways with this. One, the paladin should take BoED vow feats and be a pacifist and a vegetarian and only kill things like nonintelligent foes and evil subtype outsiders. Two, the paladin is a massive hypocrite and that hypocrisy is ingrained in the concept. After all, what is a "holy warrior"? If '"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others', then how can a paladin, banned from evil acts, build a career around combat prowess?




Perhaps he needs to take those "merciful" feats, and strike only to subdue.  Or perhaps we accept the spirit of the game, that violence for its own sake is wrong, but that violence can be applied to even Good purposes.  The Paladin does not love violence, but might well perceive the need.  



Ahnehnois said:


> I generally play very loose with alignments. My assassins are not necessarily evil, and my divine warrior types are not necessarily good with a code. I've banned paladins as such. But would a strongly good aligned character accept a resurrection under my system? Probably not, unless the sacrifice was willing. I've added a provision that the soul being raised knows both the identity of the caster and the identity of the creature being sacrificed, and thus can make a fairly informed decision.




Can he communicate before the sacrifice takes place?  If not, the death occurs for no purpose.  Is a willing sacrifice somehow better?  It's OK as long as it's suicide rather than homicide?  On the other hand, will the Good character refuse to take the opportunity to flee when another takes heroic, and ultimately suicidal, action to save the rest of the party?  Will he insist on dying too rather than accept that sacrifice?

I think we agree there are no easy right answers here, anyway.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> There's a good reason why people do this - it's because no RPG out there ever constructs its own physics or other science engine. They rely, in fact have to rely, on our own understandings of the world around us to fill in the gaps. If you let go of a sword, it doesn't hang in space. It falls. If you slam a door in a charging goblin's face, it won't simply pass through the door but will hit it, possibly injuring itself and damaging the door. If you toss a sheaf of parchments in a fire, they will burn rather than freeze. Science constantly informs our understanding of cause and effect even in games



I strongly agree with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] in relation to these examples - they are about default expectations for common-sensical happenings. They don't show us anything about science in the gameworld. For instance, the gameworld could be flat, and contain no fundamental force analagous to gravity, but swords would still fall when dropped.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 22, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Depending on the prevalence of magic, I question whether people in a D&D milieu would perceive any difference.  And those Raise spells are granted by a deity - who are we mortals to claim their use is immoral?



Even in a high-magic D&D world, I think trading a life for another is a pretty special case. I also don't know whether a good deity would allow these things. It isn't enumerated anywhere, but I think there's a good case to say that, if an unwilling sacrifice is used to power it, Raise Dead should acquire the Evil descriptor and be forbidden to some clerics.



> First, if it cannot make moral judgements, then how does it possess a soul?  Second, cats still hunt even when their sustenance is provided by pet owners.



I don't know that being able to make moral judgements is a prerequisite of having a soul. This is mostly me talking about souls; the rules make it clear that they exist but don't exactly talk much about them. I would think that many humans with low mental ability scores might have a very limited ability to make moral judgments, but they still have souls.

And well-fed cats hunt because they don't know any better. Hunting is not a rational choice, but they are unable to understand that and act accordingly.



> They are nothing like real druids (of whom we know very little, really).  I see no reason they would be hippies.  As you note, nature is violent.  One cannot revere nature and ignore that violence, can one?



There's plenty of space between acknowledging that something exists and is valid and doing it oneself. Many followers of real life pacifist/vegetarian ideologies clearly revere nature, including its violent aspects, but hold themselves to a different standard than some of the creatures they observe.



> Can he communicate before the sacrifice takes place?  If not, the death occurs for no purpose.



Ouch. Yes. There's risk there.

Under the core rules, a scenario can unfold where an evil cleric tries to raise a good character to use him as a prisoner or something, the good character says no, and the 5000 gp diamond is wasted because the spell fails. I would carry the same principle forward.



> Is a willing sacrifice somehow better?  It's OK as long as it's suicide rather than homicide?



Maybe. Maybe not. If the character talked with an elder he trusts beforehand about the value of life and the elder decides that (as discussed in previous posts) the life of a young hero is worth more than his last years, maybe the good character is honored by the sacrifice and accepts it. Conversely, a charismatic hero might have fans willing to give their lives for him, and he might decide that using them that way is wrong (though as stated, said fan is likely dead either way). These examples are malleable though. In some interpretations, suicide might simply be evil under the "respect for life" definition, making raise dead a guaranteed evil spell.



> Where is the differentiation? Is it OK to eat insects? What about crustaceans or mussels?



Let me go back to this one real quick. To me, good or evil is internal rather than external. I had a trenchant moment as a young child where I would sometimes look down at the sidewalk, see some ants crossing it, and go out of my way to step on and crush the ants. I then reached a point where I realized that this was wrong. I think many (not all) would agree that such an action is wrong, not so much because ants have rights or feelings, but because it indulges our own worst impulses. Would I kill an ant if it was invading my house? Sure. Do I kill some purely by accident? Undoubtedly. Would I kill some that are not causing me problems just for the sake of doing it? No. Because doing so would be wrong. That's a line that I drew.

Would I kill a bug to eat it, or for some other gain unrelated to alleviating any problems or danger it is associated with? Again, I file that under wrong. Gray area, definitely.



> I think we agree there are no easy right answers here, anyway.



Just warming up for my ethics conference this week. I'm guessing that raising the dead won't be on the agenda, but there will be some issues that require a lot of thought to reach no definitive answer.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 22, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I strongly agree with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] in relation to these examples - they are about default expectations for common-sensical happenings. They don't show us anything about science in the gameworld. For instance, the gameworld could be flat, and contain no fundamental force analagous to gravity, but swords would still fall when dropped.




Well, there goes any real predictability. How do I know a particular physical law applies if that's not fundamentally how things are supposed to work. 

And if I should be able to expect things to work, so i can predict how the world works, what's the point of basing it all on some different physical laws? They conform to my expectations, which are based on the real world's science anyway.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Well, there goes any real predictability. How do I know a particular physical law applies if that's not fundamentally how things are supposed to work.



Ask the GM? Negotiate it at campaign set-up? Gygax's campaign doesn't seem to have had any trouble despite the fact that chemical laws don't work (eg no gunpowder on Oerth) and geology/astronomy are also different (a planet of less dense substance and large diameter yet essentially no difference in gravitation, climate, geography, etc).

Ie the same way that I know that there will be dragons, giants and magic, none of which conform to phyiscal law.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Well, there goes any real predictability. How do I know a particular physical law applies if that's not fundamentally how things are supposed to work.
> 
> And if I should be able to expect things to work, so i can predict how the world works, what's the point of basing it all on some different physical laws? They conform to my expectations, which are based on the* real world's science* anyway.




Expecting a fantasy game to conform to real world science is sort of like asking birds not to fly.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 22, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Ask the GM? Negotiate it at campaign set-up? Gygax's campaign doesn't seem to have had any trouble despite the fact that chemical laws don't work (eg no gunpowder on Oerth) and geology/astronomy are also different (a planet of less dense substance and large diameter yet essentially no difference in gravitation, climate, geography, etc).
> 
> Ie the same way that I know that there will be dragons, giants and magic, none of which conform to phyiscal law.




Hash it out beforehand? So, you expect me to sit down with the GM and other players and design a physics engine for the game? That sounds to me, considering we can use real world understanding of physical laws, like a colossal waste of time. It's something computer RPGs and shooters have to do, sure, because they have to build a game engine for everything to exist within, but we tabletoppers have the advantage of not needing to do that. We have our own understandings of the world around us to fill in the incredibly large number of gaps that would appear if we didn't have them.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 22, 2013)

shidaku said:


> Expecting a fantasy game to conform to real world science is sort of like asking birds not to fly.




Let's assume you aren't playing Toon. If your PC tossed a sheaf of dry parchment in a bonfire, would you expect your GM to say that they burn? Would you expect a sword your PC dropped to fall at his feet or fall upward? If you managed to hit a flying dragon with a rope of entanglement and it fouled his wings, would you expect him to fall or turn pink? Would you expect a wooden longboat your PC is in that gets rammed by a trireme to be smashed to flinders or would you expect it to bounce like rubber? If you expect any of these things to act in a manner you find predictable, I submit you're expecting your game to conform to real world science to a substantial degree. Do you expect non-scientific things that fit the genre to be OK, sure. But fundamental assumptions are already there.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Let's assume you aren't playing Toon. If your PC tossed a sheaf of dry parchment in a bonfire, would you expect your GM to say that they burn? Would you expect a sword your PC dropped to fall at his feet or fall upward? If you managed to hit a flying dragon with a rope of entanglement and it fouled his wings, would you expect him to fall or turn pink? Would you expect a wooden longboat your PC is in that gets rammed by a trireme to be smashed to flinders or would you expect it to bounce like rubber? If you expect any of these things to act in a manner you find predictable, I submit you're expecting your game to conform to real world science to a substantial degree. Do you expect non-scientific things that fit the genre to be OK, sure. But fundamental assumptions are already there.




I suppose that's true for the vast majority of settings, which again I agree with Permeton, the DM needs to make their design decisions clear.  The problem with _expectations_, _assumptions_ and the like are that whoever holds them generally feels they don't need to be communicated, and for your generic LOTR-like setting, this is probably true.  So if the DM creates a setting that he expresses to not be normal, it's important for the player to question if their expectations and assumptions are worth holding on to.  

Maybe the setting is ruled by gods of writing, and thus any paper with any writing whatsoever cannot be destroyed by any means.  Written over?  Buried?  But once written on, it will not rot, burn, break or in any manner take damage.  

In D&D and life in general, assumptions tend to work out poorly and communication pretty much solves any problem they could cause.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Let's assume you aren't playing Toon. If your PC tossed a sheaf of dry parchment in a bonfire, would you expect your GM to say that they burn? Would you expect a sword your PC dropped to fall at his feet or fall upward? If you managed to hit a flying dragon with a rope of entanglement and it fouled his wings, would you expect him to fall or turn pink? Would you expect a wooden longboat your PC is in that gets rammed by a trireme to be smashed to flinders or would you expect it to bounce like rubber? If you expect any of these things to act in a manner you find predictable, I submit you're expecting your game to conform to real world science to a substantial degree. Do you expect non-scientific things that fit the genre to be OK, sure. But fundamental assumptions are already there.



I think you are conflating two steps into one. Things have properties both in the real world and in a fantasy world (step 1) and those properties are explained by the (meta)physics of the world they are in (step 2).

We generally assume that common items (and, to some extent, creatures - although the properties of these tend to be imperfectly known to many RPGers) have the properties they are generally observed to have in the real world. This is our "simplifying assumption" as far as knowing how the fantasy world looks goes. But this does not mean that the underlying "physics engine" of the world is the same as for the real world. Since we only have an imperfect understanding of the real world 'underlying mechanism', in fact, that would be impossible in practice, anyway.

So we use "step 1" as a matter of course to make the game world easier to relate to and simpler to describe. Stuff that has more earth element than air fall toward the earth (and things with more air than earth tend to drift toward the sky/upper air). Fire interacts with flammable stuff, releasing the fire within it and sublimating the watery parts, releasing the airy parts and leaving the earthy parts behind. Things like wood have properties like brittleness, hardness, strength and so on - as well as sometimes properties that do not exist in the real world but apply to certain elements of the fantasy world, such as insubstantialness, incorporeality, undeadness, magicality - that are either expected from the common meaning of the word for them ("wood", "sword" and so on) or are defined by the game system.

Step 2, however, is a "step too far". It might be amusing to speculate about is from time to time, but we don't really need it, in general, to play the game. In my capacity as an engineer, I have very often been able to do my work using just the properties of the materials I have been working with. The actual science underlying _why_ those materials have those properties might be interesting, but I don't actually need to know it in order to _use_ the material. Playing an RPG is a bit like engineering, in this respect; to resolve almost all character actions, you don't need to know the underlying 'science' of the world - you just have to know the properties of things.

Once in a while, of course, the underlying mechanisms will become relevant. What to do then? Well, my experience is that trying to understand the matter by resorting to real world physics and chemistry is unhelpful. It leads to biases for magic-using characters (because we are forced always to give magic a "free pass"), it leads to assumption clash (because all of us - no exceptions - have an incomplete or flawed model of real world mechanisms, and sometimes they clash) and it is seldom "fun".

What should we use, then? Start with the game rules. Structures like keywords and magic system divisions are especially useful. And look for analogies. Things that spells and fantastical beasts can achieve *must* be explainable by the mechanisms underlying this (game) world. What does that tell us about the current situation?

And, if all else fails, discuss it as a group and choose a set of "facts". We often do this on a _pro tem_ basis - we select a way things work to run with for now, and then review it later in more depth.

So, for instance, can a human fighter develop the strength of a giant? Well, sure - even if their size may not let them leverage it in quite the same way. Whatever mechanism operates in the giant's muscles, sinews and bones could be incorporated into those of the fighter somehow. How? Well, that's for the players to figure out.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Hash it out beforehand? So, you expect me to sit down with the GM and other players and design a physics engine for the game?



The only RPG I'm familiar with that even comes close to pretending to have a physics engine is Traveller. Most RPGs rely, either expressly or implicitly, on shared genre conventions: that is why we know that in the D&D world a dragon or a giant wasp can fly but Icarus can't (without magic).

But I commonly see people on these boards speculating about monster biology in evoutionary terms. For me, that is just bizarre: evolutionary biology is no-wise part of the fantasy genre, and every D&D world I'm familiar with (i) posits that lifeforms were created, not evoloved, and (ii) that lifeforms, particularly intelligent ones, can interbreed in a way that bears no relationship to real-world biology. For me this is a clear case where notions of, or presumptions about the applicability of, scienctific explanation have no work to do, and it is very obviously genre logic all the way.

Because (as far as I can tell) more RPGers are educated in the natural than the social sciences, genre departures from sociological possibility seem to be remarked up on less often. But needless to say the political, economic and social set up of a typical D&D setting (whether Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Middle Earth) makes next-to-know sense in real-world terms. They are, literally speaking, impossible. We accept and work within them not because we have an alternative "physics enginge" (Traveller excepted, with its odd sociology and economics built into its world-generation and trading mechancis) but because we understand the logic of them as genre elements.



shidaku said:


> I suppose that's true for the vast majority of settings, which again I agree with Permeton, the DM needs to make their design decisions clear.  The problem with _expectations_, _assumptions_ and the like are that whoever holds them generally feels they don't need to be communicated, and for your generic LOTR-like setting, this is probably true.



I think your use of the word "generic" is telling - settings bring with them genre conventions, which we can then rely on for adjudication and resolution.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Once in a while, of course, the underlying mechanisms will become relevant. What to do then? Well, my experience is that trying to understand the matter by resorting to real world physics and chemistry is unhelpful.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Interesting observations.

The "strength of a giant" example makes me think of Atlas holding up the sky, and Hercules helping him out as one of the labours. In physical terms, the idea of being strong enough to hold up the sky (or the earth) makes no sense. But it's a classic fantasy motif. And in RPG terms, I don't need a physics engine to resolve it - I just need a resolution mechanic that allows the player to devote player-side resources (stats, buffs etc) to the effort, and tells me (eg via successful skill roll, or skill challenge, or whatever) whether or not they succeed.

In 3E terms, the Epic DCs for balancing and tumbling are a bit like that. I don't see them as establishing a "physics engine". I see them as setting DCs for certain genre-appropriate stuff.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 22, 2013)

For me I am more concerned about internal consistency and nothing jumping out at me right away as unbelievable. But in the case of the latter, so long as there an internal explanation it's fine by me. I am not interested in cracking the physics of the world after the fact. However is something as common sensual and obvious as cause and effect isn't there or if fire doesn't cause paper to burn, and there is no explanation, I am going to notice on the spot. Stuff that takes advanced degrees to even notice, or requires serious consideration after the fact, doesn't bother me. Also there are things that just won't match the real world because of setting assumptions (if you have gods of rather and fertility, agriculture and climate could function much differently than our world (arguably they ought to in that case).

also knowing what genre you are in, whether you are going for a more naturalistic regular world approach, etc is all important (most disagreements over stuff like this in D&D seem to arise out of groups approaching it from different genre angles).


----------



## N'raac (Jul 22, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Also, another IMC factor is that I use spontaneous divine casting, meaning that clerics actually have to select spells known. This makes finding a cleric or a scroll to actually cast the spell considerably more difficult.




Backing up a minute, this changes the dynamic previously suggested considerably.  We can flee the identified SoD monster, but we have no ability to swap out the cleric's spell load for appropriate protections.  I guess we can buy or commission scrolls, but that definitely adds time, so if we're under any time pressure, that may not be an option.  Alternatively, if the cleric has the protective spells on his spontaneous list, then we're in little danger if we can ID the monster.  One of the more effective Clerics I've seen in play had two combat-ready domains, and Domain Spontaneity twice.  He could swap out (up to his Turn Undead attempts) any spell for a combat spell (domain spell) or (unlimited) curative spell.  So he could load up with situational spells - if the situation looked like it would not come up, they got swapped.



Ahnehnois said:


> Even in a high-magic D&D world, I think trading a life for another is a pretty special case. I also don't know whether a good deity would allow these things. It isn't enumerated anywhere, but I think there's a good case to say that, if an unwilling sacrifice is used to power it, Raise Dead should acquire the Evil descriptor and be forbidden to some clerics.




An LG Cleric may well believe in "an eye for an eye; a life for a life".  Again, it's OK to kill the Orc to prevent him killing the farmer, but it's not OK to kill him to Raise the farmer he killed?  Either one results in a dead Orc and a live farmer.



Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know that being able to make moral judgements is a prerequisite of having a soul. This is mostly me talking about souls; the rules make it clear that they exist but don't exactly talk much about them. I would think that many humans with low mental ability scores might have a very limited ability to make moral judgments, but they still have souls.




I consider the ability to discern between right and wrong to be a key to "a soul".  In a D&D world, they are commodities for lower planar beings, who need to turn these soul to evil to "win".  How do they corrupt those who cannot make moral judgements?  Where do their souls go?



Ahnehnois said:


> Under the core rules, a scenario can unfold where an evil cleric tries to raise a good character to use him as a prisoner or something, the good character says no, and the 5000 gp diamond is wasted because the spell fails. I would carry the same principle forward.




But have we not established that the value of a life (to a good character) far outstrips that of a diamond?  



Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. If the character talked with an elder he trusts beforehand about the value of life and the elder decides that (as discussed in previous posts) the life of a young hero is worth more than his last years, maybe the good character is honored by the sacrifice and accepts it. Conversely, a charismatic hero might have fans willing to give their lives for him, and he might decide that using them that way is wrong (though as stated, said fan is likely dead either way). These examples are malleable though. In some interpretations, suicide might simply be evil under the "respect for life" definition, making raise dead a guaranteed evil spell.




That second example is scary - how many fans throw themselves on the sword hoping to be "the one" that his hero accepts.  Not a pro or a con to the structure, just an observation.

To that guaranteed evil - "respect for life" seems like it could easily have a different connotation when returning a fallen person is actually possible.



Ahnehnois said:


> Just warming up for my ethics conference this week. I'm guessing that raising the dead won't be on the agenda, but there will be some issues that require a lot of thought to reach no definitive answer.




One problem with ethics is that, even where there is a pretty easy answer in theory, the answer in practice is commonly a lot tougher to implement.  Business ethics classes, for example, always have me juxtaposing the ease of knowing one rejects the bribe, sacrifices their job/career, etc. to do the right thing, thus driving self and family into bankruptcy/poverty, on the exam.  Doing the right thing in real life tends to be a lot tougher, even when "the right thing" is comparatively easy to identify.  As you note, often even the theoretical answer is difficult to establish.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 22, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Backing up a minute, this changes the dynamic previously suggested considerably.  We can flee the identified SoD monster, but we have no ability to swap out the cleric's spell load for appropriate protections.  I guess we can buy or commission scrolls, but that definitely adds time, so if we're under any time pressure, that may not be an option.  Alternatively, if the cleric has the protective spells on his spontaneous list, then we're in little danger if we can ID the monster.  One of the more effective Clerics I've seen in play had two combat-ready domains, and Domain Spontaneity twice.  He could swap out (up to his Turn Undead attempts) any spell for a combat spell (domain spell) or (unlimited) curative spell.  So he could load up with situational spells - if the situation looked like it would not come up, they got swapped.



So, IMC, "retreat and look for the most useful spells in the spellbook and memorize them tomorrow and come back" is not really a viable tactic. However "retreat and cast whatever buff spells we do know (Death Ward included), then come back a minute or two later" works fine. "Retreat and buy a wand of Death Ward" is a last resort.

If the monster is simply wandering around open space, there is often not much reason to kill it anyway, so the party may just want to avoid taking on a Medusa if they're concerned about the risk. If the party wanted to get rid of the monster to prevent it from killing harmless innocents in the area, then they might come back. If there's time pressure, they might have to charge in. But at least they'll probably charge in knowing what the risk is and how to mitigate it (if possible). Again, most SoD monsters below CR 10 allow a character to avoid making a save completely if he so chooses. Another IMC houserule variable is action points. Simply knowing what your saving throw is against influences your decision to action point the save.



> An LG Cleric may well believe in "an eye for an eye; a life for a life".  Again, it's OK to kill the Orc to prevent him killing the farmer, but it's not OK to kill him to Raise the farmer he killed?  Either one results in a dead Orc and a live farmer.



Life for a life = No. That does not, in my view, fall within the LG alignment. LN neutral character perhaps. And yes, one might question how different the two orc scenarios are, but the same thing comes up in real "value of life" debates. For example, some people draw a strong line between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, while others say that both are absolutely wrong and others say that both are justifiable. Legally, we draw lines between murder, manslaughter, and homicide in self-defense, as well as numerous subdivisions, and we have capital punishment. Context matters, to some people some of the time at least.



> I consider the ability to discern between right and wrong to be a key to "a soul".  In a D&D world, they are commodities for lower planar beings, who need to turn these soul to evil to "win".  How do they corrupt those who cannot make moral judgements?  Where do their souls go?



I would say that such souls go wherever your cosmology dictates. Many souls die without having ever made a moral decision. What's the infant mortality rate in D&D? To me, the D&D "soul" concept is pretty broad.



> But have we not established that the value of a life (to a good character) far outstrips that of a diamond?



Of course. I'm merely identifying a mechanical precedent for how my houseruled spell works.



> That second example is scary - how many fans throw themselves on the sword hoping to be "the one" that his hero accepts.  Not a pro or a con to the structure, just an observation.



People are that way. "Fan" is derivative of "fanatic". The implications _are_ scary. If one of our modern heroes was in a severe accident and needed an organ transplant...



> To that guaranteed evil - "respect for life" seems like it could easily have a different connotation when returning a fallen person is actually possible.



Valid enough. We all have sociocultural influences on our own moral views. It's hard to dissociate from those when talking about D&D morality. If you're running a game in pre-Columbian Central America (or Maztica, perhaps?), sacrifices and trading of lives are probably accepted without a second thought.



> One problem with ethics is that, even where there is a pretty easy answer in theory, the answer in practice is commonly a lot tougher to implement.



The kinds of ethics I typically deal with are either in biomedical/psychological research or clinical medicine. Modern medicine (like magic, almost) often gives us scenarios where it is difficult to even intellectualize right and wrong, let alone implement it.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 22, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Even in a high-magic D&D world, I think trading a life for another is a pretty special case. I also don't know whether a good deity would allow these things. It isn't enumerated anywhere, but I think there's a good case to say that, if an unwilling sacrifice is used to power it, Raise Dead should acquire the Evil descriptor and be forbidden to some clerics.




I suspect if Raising is an Evil (or even morally questionable) act, the Clone spell becomes a lot more popular.  But that has its own issues.



Ahnehnois said:


> So, IMC, "retreat and look for the most useful spells in the spellbook and memorize them tomorrow and come back" is not really a viable tactic. However "retreat and cast whatever buff spells we do know (Death Ward included), then come back a minute or two later" works fine. "Retreat and buy a wand of Death Ward" is a last resort.




Wand or scroll...  Spellbook is still OK, if you have a wizard, but the cleric has many of the very situational protective spells that mitigate or remove the SoD risk.  Fall back certainly works, if the spells are available, but I can`t see a lot of clerics selecting very situational spells (unless you provide them a lot more breadth than Sorcerers in spells known).



Ahnehnois said:


> If the monster is simply wandering around open space, there is often not much reason to kill it anyway, so the party may just want to avoid taking on a Medusa if they're concerned about the risk. If the party wanted to get rid of the monster to prevent it from killing harmless innocents in the area, then they might come back. If there's time pressure, they might have to charge in. But at least they'll probably charge in knowing what the risk is and how to mitigate it (if possible). Again, most SoD monsters below CR 10 allow a character to avoid making a save completely if he so chooses. Another IMC houserule variable is action points. Simply knowing what your saving throw is against influences your decision to action point the save.






Ahnehnois said:


> Seems like a lot of your dismissal of problems with SoD effects are based on your house rules, rather than the RAW.  As to the first point, if the monster is simply wandering around open space minding its own business, why are the adventurers attacking it if they have that respect for life.  Oh, I`d never kill it to restore a fallen comrade, but killing it for its loot is fine!
> 
> Life for a life = No. That does not, in my view, fall within the LG alignment.




I`d see it within LG more so than within NG or CG.  But then, my view is that NG would have the greatest respect for life, its devotion to Good being constrained by  neither adherence to Law nor Chaos.  I don`t see the corners of the alignment square as the pure alignments, but the sides, which are devoted to only a single ideal.



Ahnehnois said:


> And yes, one might question how different the two orc scenarios are, but the same thing comes up in real "value of life" debates. For example, some people draw a strong line between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, while others say that both are absolutely wrong and others say that both are justifiable. Legally, we draw lines between murder, manslaughter, and homicide in self-defense, as well as numerous subdivisions, and we have capital punishment. Context matters, to some people some of the time at least.




All true - however, the fact we have spent thousands of years grappling with these issues, to come to no truly definitive conclusions, makes it tough to see how an entire alignment would agree absolutely with a single interpretation.  I would expect that various LG worldviews could value the Justice of victim restoration over the Good of respect for the criminal's life (especially when respect for the life of the fallen supports the assertion that trading one life for the other makes that aspect break even).  There are nine alignments, but hundreds or thousands of applications of those alignments, and I would  not expect all Lawful Good, or even all Good, beings to concur on what approach is most appropriate.  [ASIDE:  Funny how we view all those Good people generally agreeing on most issues and working together, despite the variance between Law and Chaos, but we don't envision Lawful characters of various Good and Evil gradations working together against the common foe of Chaos, nor the opposite).



Ahnehnois said:


> Valid enough. We all have sociocultural influences on our own moral views. It's hard to dissociate from those when talking about D&D morality. If you're running a game in pre-Columbian Central America (or Maztica, perhaps?), sacrifices and trading of lives are probably accepted without a second thought.




Very true - and I think the interpretations of "good" and "evil" commonly need to be evaluated in light of the specific culture the game works to portray.  The typical D&D game accepts that "violence as a solution" is not wholly inconsistent with Good alignment.  An Aztec game would have to accept human sacrifice, which would be tough for our modern sensibilities to accept.



Ahnehnois said:


> The kinds of ethics I typically deal with are either in biomedical/psychological research or clinical medicine. Modern medicine (like magic, almost) often gives us scenarios where it is difficult to even intellectualize right and wrong, let alone implement it.




Very true.  In fact, with transplants, the question of trading one life for another becomes more and more real.  I worked with a lady who gave up a kidney for a relative - not guaranteed lethal, but not without risk either.  We would accept that,  but I doubt we would permit a surgeon to transplant her heart into a sick child.  We have problems with voluntary donations motivated by financial reward as well.  Similar issues seem just as relevant in the "life for a life" ability to raise the dead.

Personally, I play the game as an escape from my real-life issues, but I think we all struggle with accepting certain things in-game that we know don't work in the "real world".  Our ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 22, 2013)

N'raac said:


> I suspect if Raising is an Evil (or even morally questionable) act, the Clone spell becomes a lot more popular.  But that has its own issues.



And more weird real life parallels.



> Wand or scroll...  Spellbook is still OK, if you have a wizard, but the cleric has many of the very situational protective spells that mitigate or remove the SoD risk.  Fall back certainly works, if the spells are available, but I can`t see a lot of clerics selecting very situational spells (unless you provide them a lot more breadth than Sorcerers in spells known).



Wizards can do this, yes, but they don't know their entire spell list, so cherry-picking spells is not as easy.

As far as how clerics work, they don't have a ton of spells, but they tend to take some niche spells because, unlike arcane casters, magic is not the only useful thing they can do. The increased rarity of these spells  overall is appealing, however.



> I`d see it within LG more so than within NG or CG.  But then, my view is that NG would have the greatest respect for life, its devotion to Good being constrained by  neither adherence to Law nor Chaos.  I don`t see the corners of the alignment square as the pure alignments, but the sides, which are devoted to only a single ideal.



To me, alignments are cumulative, which makes LG a small niche. That is, to be Lawful Good, one has to be Good enough to be Neutral Good and Lawful enough to be Lawful Neutral. I can diagram my conceptualization of this in a way that makes it clearer, but can't really post that (ENW telestrator?). Of course, that's just my interpretation.



> All true - however, the fact we have spent thousands of years grappling with these issues, to come to no truly definitive conclusions, makes it tough to see how an entire alignment would agree absolutely with a single interpretation.



That is difficult. The moral absolutism that is to some extent explicit in the rules does not work if you think too much about it. And those of us that play games of imagination do tend to think a lot. That's why I prefer an approach like d20 Modern's allegiances where each individual defines what he or she stands for.



> [ASIDE:  Funny how we view all those Good people generally agreeing on most issues and working together, despite the variance between Law and Chaos, but we don't envision Lawful characters of various Good and Evil gradations working together against the common foe of Chaos, nor the opposite).



I sometimes do the latter. Good vs Evil is more classic and is repeated in many cultures throughout history, while Order vs Chaos feels more modern to me. Some of my players sometimes take law vs chaos pretty seriously.



> Personally, I play the game as an escape from my real-life issues, but I think we all struggle with accepting certain things in-game that we know don't work in the "real world".  Our ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.



That's a perfectly good and probably very common philosophy of gaming: escapism. It's not mine though.

When I'm running games in modern settings, I typically engage real life issues. For example, my last two CoC games were set in the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Even my D&D games take on some real world issues; for example drug use and the fantasy version of the drug war has played a part in several of my games. I'm quite enamored with fiction that engages us on real world issues without reducing them to the level of polemic or allegory (as was Tolkien, among many others).  I find it rewarding, if draining and sometimes difficult.


----------



## N'raac (Jul 22, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> And more weird real life parallels.






Ahnehnois said:


> As far as how clerics work, they don't have a ton of spells, but they tend to take some niche spells because, unlike arcane casters, magic is not the only useful thing they can do. The increased rarity of these spells  overall is appealing, however.




Also makes them less useful as item crafters.  The extent to which I'd expect to see niche spells depends on the number of spells available.  If it's like Sorcerers, I'd be reluctant to take a spell that would rarely be used - certainly not as the only spell of that level, or even one of two.



Ahnehnois said:


> To me, alignments are cumulative, which makes LG a small niche. That is, to be Lawful Good, one has to be Good enough to be Neutral Good and Lawful enough to be Lawful Neutral. I can diagram my conceptualization of this in a way that makes it clearer, but can't really post that (ENW telestrator?). Of course, that's just my interpretation.




We still get into "very Lawful; slightly Good" and "very Good; slightly Lawful" under that model, but one can always envision the spectrum as a huge Neutral circle in the middle and only a small fringe of other alignments.



Ahnehnois said:


> That is difficult. The moral absolutism that is to some extent explicit in the rules does not work if you think too much about it. And those of us that play games of imagination do tend to think a lot. That's why I prefer an approach like d20 Modern's allegiances where each individual defines what he or she stands for.




 Nothing in the rules suggest everyone of the same alignment always agrees.  In fact, I'd expect clerics of different deities with the same alignment may well disagree a lot.



Ahnehnois said:


> I sometimes do the latter. Good vs Evil is more classic and is repeated in many cultures throughout history, while Order vs Chaos feels more modern to me. Some of my players sometimes take law vs chaos pretty seriously.




It's interesting to note the game started with only Law and Chaos, the Good/Evil axis being grafted on later, and LN/NG/NE/CN added after that (IIRC - Basic lacked them but AD&D had them).


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 23, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Of course they don't, its just fantasy worlds have lots of different atomic particles ... "mu-ons"




Definitely interacting via the strong interaction while "f-ons" interact via the weak interaction


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 23, 2013)

> Nothing in the rules suggest everyone of the same alignment always agrees. In fact, I'd expect clerics of different deities with the same alignment may well disagree a lot.




In fact, there was an article back in the 1Ed or 2Ed days of Dragon Magazine that discussed how two Paladins might come to blows, with each on one side or another of a holy war/crusade.

If two paragons of LG can try to gut each other...


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 23, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In fact, there was an article back in the 1Ed or 2Ed days of Dragon Magazine that discussed how two Paladins might come to blows, with each on one side or another of a holy war/crusade.
> 
> If two paragons of LG can try to gut each other...



I had two Paladin NPCs almost bring two different nations to war in a feud with one another. Both NPCs were very respected by the PCs/players. One Paladin barely walked the Paladin line, but never fell, while the other was very committed to the Code, but had fallen (briefly) earlier in order to protect the nation and serve the "greater good", but had redeemed himself and was a Paladin again. Both had strong influence in different nations, and when a feud began, the people backed the NPCs and voluntarily formed armies. The thing that probably stopped the war was the large neighboring elven nation between the two threatening to attack either force that attempted to cross through it without permission.

Good times. So many fun game memories...


----------

