Poll: Do you want Save-Or-Die in 4th Edition

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Because some death spell use illusion or terror... Or just because magic is not about physical damage. It's about damage.

It seems to be more about death than damage, if we're talking about "Save or Die". Only disintegrate implements it via damage.

Yup. So, when the spell effect is based upon fort save and HP damage, the barbarian is advantaged twice. First because he has a better save, and then because he has more hit-points. This is not fun nor fair, IMHO.
As far as I know, when you are targeted by dominate spells, you have only one one will save : you don't have a buffer "will point" to protect you if you fail.

I don't really see this as a positive feature of the rules, though. I wouldn't mind "will points" in addition to "hit points". Or at least a "mental condition track" and a "physical condition track". Each failed will save brings you closer to your demise (which might be you going insane, being dominated or having your soul ripped from your body)...

We can agree that being great and strong means that you can support more physical punishment. It does not make you better at avoiding heart attack or resisting disease, however. This is why small women live longer than big men.

That's assuming that hit points or constitution score is actually related to size, or even if it is by the rules, that this is an accurate model of reality.

We could try testing this out - do small women survive more sword stabs than big men? Or... let's not do it. It would probably give roleplayers a bad rep... And to really have some useful data, we would also have to test if small women survive death effects / save or die effects better than big men, and so far, all my Harry Potter Reading didn't give me any spellcasting powers.

 

[taferial]

heres my opinion, not directed at anybody, just thoughts on the subject...

Save or die is a board game mechanic, like snakes and ladders, 1, 2, 3, 4... akk snake. it should have been chucked out years ago when dnd moved from being a (complex and highly interactive) dungeon game into a role playing game.

Death is currently a status effect. there are more ways to fix death than nausiated.

If a cure for death is easier than finding a bottle of peptobismol, wheres the fear?

Currently my friends and I get to about 7th level, then start creating back up characters, for when the inevitable 50/ 50 roll is going to let you down.

After my first failed save or die many years ago, and i realised exactly how arbitary death was in dnd, i stoped worrying about character development and dieing. These days i make more of an effort to form an attachment, but that initial betrayal has left a mark i still carry (chip on my shoulder would prolly be more accurate).

Save or almost certain death, i can get behind. fail disintergrate save and watch as your limbs turn to dust, (2 rounds say to find a fix, lop the arm off, etc) fail and a withering curse sets in leading to epic adventure looking for the cure. Some spotty oik with a couple of levels on you telling you to die does not make a player feel he had an honest chance.

The reverse of this is also true, get rid of most save and die effects, and dump most of the rez spells too. Resurections should be miricles of epic proportions, not popping down to BigPelor and ordering a big rez with extra cheese.

I voted no btw.

 

[Psion]

Bodaks, random death traps, no.

Creatures and effects suitable for use in climactic encounters, yes.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Save or almost certain death, i can get behind. fail disintergrate save and watch as your limbs turn to dust, (2 rounds say to find a fix, lop the arm off, etc) fail and a withering curse sets in leading to epic adventure looking for the cure. Some spotty oik with a couple of levels on you telling you to die does not make a player feel he had an honest chance.

The reverse of this is also true, get rid of most save and die effects, and dump most of the rez spells too. Resurections should be miricles of epic proportions, not popping down to BigPelor and ordering a big rez with extra cheese.

I agree with this. The other alternative I have played with is spells with a save-or-die result are not a standard action spell - there is time for someone to notice what the evil caster is up to and try to stop them. It is fun watching players, who always carefully plan their moves to not provoke AoOs, heedlessly running past opponents to reach the spellcaster before they can complete the spell.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I'm mostly against save-or-dies; especially because they, by their existence, create a need for things like death ward which renders undead and necromancers pointless as enemies.

I think it's a problem with absolute effects; a "finger of death" which causes cascading CON drain, representing you withering away as the spell eats your life, would be much better than the "dead / not dead" situation now.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm mostly against save-or-dies; especially because they, by their existence, create a need for things like death ward which renders undead and necromancers pointless as enemies.

Exactly. A spell that instantly kills you creates a need for a spell that creates a shield against spells that instantly kill you. A spell that instantly dominates you creates a need for a spell that creates a shield against spells that instantly dominate you. The whole thing creates a cascading effect of spell growth, with no real increase in fun.

It would work better if D&D had some sort of spell-duel mechanic, in which my spellcaster, noticing you casting Wail of the Banshee, could immediately respond with Silence, and follow up with Dominate Monster, to which you respond with Protection from Evil, etc, etc. But we haven't got that. Instead you have to mystically know which save-or-be-screwed spell is coming, and have already cast the proper "that spell doesn't work nyah nyah" spell in advance.

 

[Mercule]

Death is currently a status effect.

That nicely sums up one of my biggest problem with 3E. Resurrection is a world-shaking event -- at least it should be.

Don't dish out death like a status. Don't negate it like a status. Treat it like death.

There are a very, very few things that are so nasty that they warrant save or die and save or close-enough-to-dead (petrify, etc.). These are legendary effects and part of many, many of the stories we're trying to emulate with D&D. Those effects need to be present, in some form. If WotC can come up with a way to make save-or-die less of a fun killer, but still feel like something other than hp/stat ablation, that would be great. The story-line "feel" of "one glance from a catoblepas will kill a man" needs to remain, though.

I guess my answer depends on that feel. If it stays, I don't care about the mechanics. If it goes, I'll be sad.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

However, if you know what a Bodak looks like, at least then you know what to expect.

Considering that by the time you SEE the bodak you've made your first save...

I dislike buff routines. If save or die's are meant to be countered by death ward, lets just toss death ward AND save or die and save everyone some hassle. I feel the same way with pit traps that can be countered with a 10 foot pole.

I'd prefer a game where death effects and return from death efects are more rare than they are in the current edition.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yes, casue as a GM i use it judiciously.

Yes, because my players don't abuse it, for they know that if they began to abuse it, so would I, and thats a lose-lose scenario.

Doesnt the fact that everyone tip-toes around it give some indication that its a dangerous option?

Would "rocks fall, you die" be ok if it was used even more sparingly than save or die?

I'd rather the game was balanced where you as the DM could use the best options available to NPC's without metagaming that having them load up on save or die effects is "unfair".

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Bodaks, random death traps, no.

Creatures and effects suitable for use in climactic encounters, yes.

Why is a bodak not suitable for a climactic encounter at low levels?