Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[I'm A Banana]

Generally, I'm not really a fan of giving a monster blanket immunities just because it's "elite" or a "boss". Just seems lazy to me and frustrating to the players. I don't like telling a player "because I said so" if they try something and it doesn't work.

The question that you should ask yourself isn't "Why can't my Death spell work?" it is "Why is this monster or NPC an elite or a boss?" Elites and bosses are unique creatures in the game-world, legendary beings of power beyond that which mortals can gather. They are legendary and mighty, unique, with unique powers and qualities. Do you expect to be able to slay Achilles or Odysseus with the same ease that you can slaughter most of the unnamed Achaen masses? Do you think that Merlin should be as easy to kill as any minor hedge mage? The corpses of orcs may lay at your feet, but that doesn't mean that you can execute the Great Red Wyrm Thardintazl with the same ease.

Why should all monsters be equal? Certainly, that Thardintazl can slaughter entire villages of dirt farmers, but she probably can't oppose four stout heroes.

FFZ also has two specific things which reinforce this reasoning. The first is that it is explicitly narrative, so if it makes the story better to keep these creatures alive, they should stay alive, and that should be explained somehow. The second is that it's very in-genre. The FF games are filled with examples of "can't kill it in one hit, sorry!" I believe they do this for the same narrative reason: makes a bad story.

I originally shied away from putting those in, but genre brought be back, and story gave me a reason to keep them, and the logic of "heroic monsters vs. standard monsters" helped me wrap my mind around it so well, that I even would employ it in D&D. If a PC fighter is distinctly different from a random dirt farmer, I don't see why the Great Red Wyrm can't be distinctly different from a random orc.

The most frustrating thing for a DM is creating an important monster or NPC (especially if it will encounter the party by itself) and having the battle end quickly because of a bad roll. You can fudge the roll but how many times do you fudge it? If you keep fudging rolls, you might as well give it blanket immunities.

If a monster or NPC is important, it should be important because it's somehow narratively significant. It has done things that other adversaries of the PC's don't or can't do. Whatever that significance is, can also grant it all sorts of abilities to resist a quick slaughter.

This is another reason why I like Action Points, especially for monsters. As a DM, I can now spend an AP to boost or reroll a save. Voila. Instant survivability.

Trailblazer provides a very simple method for creating Solo creatures: multiple its hit points but the number of PCs and give it one AP per PC. Instant epic fight.

But even more importantly, it now provides another resource that the players need to "whittle down" before defeating the monster. Providing a counter for the wizard's SoD spells doesn't lessen the effectiveness of those spells. In fact, they are a great way to force the DM to spend his APs.

The same logic that gives those creatures boatloads of HP and APs is the same logic that can simply give them immunity.

Though I like the AP solution, too.

 

[Reynard]

For varying definitions of "stupid", perhaps. I mean, walking into a dungeon isn't exactly an activity you expect to increase your expected lifespan, so perhaps you can call adventuring at all "stupid".

But, once you accept that the characters are going into a dungeon (or whatever other adventuring-scenario) with anything less than an army and a corps of engineers as non-stupid, then I don't think your statement is true. Doubly so if you're not the sort that allows players to use knowledge of monsters and characters that the PCs would not have.

Poison traps and spellcasters and monsters you've never heard of can get the drop on you. In classic modules they were specifically designed to get the drop on you. Then, save or die isn't a matter of stupid.

I can buy your argument when the PCs have information, and don't use it wisely. But it doesn't hold for cases where they cannot be reasonably expected to avoid the incident.

While I wouldn't necessarily use the term "stupid", I do kind of agree with Technomancer's general point. Going into the dungeon *is* dangerous, and the players and PCs know it. More to the point, if the campaign is "typical D&D", there's a known risk of the presence of save or die effects: poisoned needs in door locks, giant falling blocks from the ceiling, basilisks and medusae (I think these count as save or die). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the players/PCs to work to avoid making those saves in the first place (by being careful, etc...)

BUT, the farther one moves away from that sort of old school, base line D&D presumption -- tomb raiders looking for fortune and glory in chaos infused labyrinths -- the less one can put the onus on the players/PCs for getting themselves into trouble. If the GM believes in the value added by using opponents with save or die (or energy drain) type effects, but also wants a campaign that is non standard, then it is the GM's job to make sure the players/PCs enderstand the threat exists.

I have two examples of failures on my part, as a DM that likes save or die, in imparting save or die effects in play. I learned a lot from these situation and maybe others can too without going through the consequences I had to go through (one of the following ended a campaign and my GMing for the group outright and the other almost did so).

1) I sometimes like "outsized" enemies in adventures to remind the players that the world is not appropriately challenged. I.e. just because you are 1st level doesn't mean the CR 20 baddies don't exist. In playing the 3E Dragonlance modules, I decided to use the MMII (I think) Banshee instead of the CR 7-ish groaing spirit in the Xak Tsaroth dungeon -- again, just to remind the players the world is full of powerful evils. I made sure to give the PCs a couple of rounds to run once the encounter started. they didn't run, even after the first PC died outright. They had it in their heads that any challenge in front of them was beatable, and a TPK ensued. My fault, entirely. It was a poor decision to put the banshee in front of them in the first place, and a worse decision to not tell them straight out that they could not win the fight.

2) In a different campaign, I had the PCs enter a small town where there were rumors of an evil sleeping in the old town well. To make a long story short, I tried to transfer information to the players all "in character" regarding the threat posed to them. At the time, for whatever reason, I felt that I had done my job correctly and if they didn't take it seriously, it was their heads. And they didn't, and so it was, and it turned into a giant mess. (Those of you that also frequent rpg.net may recall the Great Ninja Bodak thread.) I failed here by not confirming that the players knew they were in real trouble, and by punishing them for my inability to give clear clues.

So, my point: save or die is good, and it can improves games, but it hands a great deal of power to the DM and therefore requires a great deal of care in its use. If you're running an old school dungeon crawl in a standard D&D universe with experienced players, I say let the encounter charts rule and the saves fall where they may. But if your doing something else, take care in how you include and apply these kinds of opponents and affects in the game.

 

[Oryan77]

It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:

But unless it's really a duck, then it's still not a duck. It doesn't matter if someone else calls it a duck, it doesn't make it a duck.

When you use a Stone to Flesh spell, you don't lose a level once you are no longer petrified. Your hitpoints never went -10, you didn't die by massive damage, your ability scores never reached 0, and spells like raise dead or resurrection have no effect on you. Also, your soul doesn't end up on any particular plane when petrified, and you also don't look like a duck (unless you're Howard).

If you want to call it a save or die effect, that's your choice. But it doesn't make it so. If your adventuring party can't figure out that rather than hauling your heavy butt back to town, it might be easier to leave you there, go to town & buy a scroll, and then come back and fix you; that's their fault. Maybe your adventuring group is a save-or-die effect, not the petrifying spell.

It might be a hassle & take you out of the game, but I'd rather be petrified than outright killed.

And of course, Stone to Flesh forces a true save or die, though there's still Break Enchantment.

But that doesn't make the petrification a save-or-die. It makes it a save-save-or-die, and that isn't what we're talking about.

 

[malraux]

snip

But it shares almost all the qualities of what makes Save or Die such an unpopular option. You have to sit out of the game for a long period of time, the flow of the game itself is broken because priority one is getting the party back to town, etc. The only difference is the lost level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I expected:

I am a DM is the clear favourite here

 

[GlassJaw]

Elites and bosses are unique creatures in the game-world, legendary beings of power beyond that which mortals can gather. They are legendary and mighty, unique, with unique powers and qualities. Do you expect to be able to slay Achilles or Odysseus with the same ease that you can slaughter most of the unnamed Achaen masses? Do you think that Merlin should be as easy to kill as any minor hedge mage? The corpses of orcs may lay at your feet, but that doesn't mean that you can execute the Great Red Wyrm Thardintazl with the same ease.

This is all well and good but you are basically entering tarrasque territory. That's fine but for the campaigns I like to run, this type of creature design should be reserved for the ultimate BBEG of the campaign and not the norm.

 

[Fifth Element]

The only meaning I can find in this poll is this, and something we already knew: on ENWorld, the DMs outnumber the players by a huge margin.

 

[billd91]

The only meaning I can find in this poll is this, and something we already knew: on ENWorld, the DMs outnumber the players by a huge margin.

It's kind of a loaded comparison, though. I play and I DM. But I only had the choice to answer as a DM or a player. Since I DM more often than I play, I answered as a DM, particularly since that's the context I'm in when dealing with most save or die (or sit) effects.

 

[Oryan77]

But it shares almost all the qualities of what makes Save or Die such an unpopular option. You have to sit out of the game for a long period of time, the flow of the game itself is broken because priority one is getting the party back to town, etc. The only difference is the lost level.

Yeah, and that does suck when it happens. But this is two separate issues we're talking about.

Assuming that in both cases, the PC is able to get help. One is a permanent penalty to your PC (lost level) along with the fact that you have to sit out of the action for a bit. The other holds no penalty, but you still have to sit out of the action for a bit. I don't find being inconvenienced to be the same thing as save-or-die. I would much rather sit on the sidelines for a bit than die and lose a level.

Also, sitting out of the game is only an issue to a certain type of player. I personally don't mind if I am temporarily out of the action. The game is still entertaining to me, sort of like watching a movie and waiting to see what happens next. But then a lot of players seem to be high maintenance and get bent out of shape if they have to be a cheerleader for a portion of a game every so often. But this still does not mean that it's the same thing as a save-or-die effect. They are both annoying, but it's just not the same thing.

If the game gets to the point where I even have to make sure I'm not even annoying players with save-or-be-a-cheerleader-for-30-minutes effects, then I'd rather play with some more easy going players that can deal with some kind of upsetting effect without acting like a diva.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

You know, I would have voted "No save-or-die" as both player and DM . . . because I am both right now in two different campaigns.