Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Well, it's not the norm in FFZ's default set-up, either. There's more than one dude out there like that, but it's not common (per level: 1 boss, 1-5 elites depending, and about 40-50 "normal monsters" means that there's almost a 10:1 relationship). Essentially, the BBEG of each adventure (and maybe a henchman or two) is in that class. Most of the 50+ monsters a PC fights in a given level are not elites or bosses.

It's not really much different from a 4e world where certain dragons and fiends and gods and such are solos.

It's just that, to solve the anticlimax problem, 4e says "we remove Save or Die effects, so no one can kill anyone outright," and FFZ says "Sure, you can kill a goblin outright, just don't expect that to also work when you're fighting the Terrasque -- they're entirely different classes of monsters, as different from each other as your Dark Knight is from some dirt farmer." FFZ's position is a little more nuanced, because it values what Save or Die brings to the table, but 4e's solution is certainly simpler.

 

[Verdande]

Lemme give a quick bit of fact:

If you're rolling a save or die, that's a generosity on the part of the DM. You're lucky to even get a chance to live, that's how bad you messed up. You should be dead, but maybe luck will give you a bit of leeway.

Examples:
If you're fighting a Medusa straight on, and it looks at you, you effed up and get to die.
If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Distintegrate on you, you messed up and deserve to die.
If you kick down a door, and poison gas starts to flood the room, you messed up (again!) and should probably die.

Those DMs who are against save or die: If a player jumps into a volcano, do you let him live?
If so, do you let him live if he jumps into the gullet of a dragon?
If so, do you let him live if he gets stomped by a dragon?

 

[Roadkill101]

I think the poll needed a "sometimes" type of response.
As a GM and Player, I don't like save or die effects. With exception to an effect where chances of encountering such tend to be a rarity.
I prefer the following saving throw types.
Save to end some disadvantageous effect.
Save to avoid some effect (typically for something with an overall weak effect to begin).
Save to reduce some effect (such as taking only 1/2 damage from a fireball upon a succesful save).

 

[Dykstrav]

I'm of mixed attitudes regarding "save-or-die" effects.

As a DM, I'm sort of lukewarm about them. Using a save-or-die monster like a medusa doesn't necessarily indicate that you're a bad DM--adventuring is a dangerous business. If any farmboy that grabs a longsword and a suit of armor can shrug off the petrifying gaze of a medusa, I think that reduces the coolness factor of the PCs. If the player characters are never in incredible danger, their exploits are correspondingly less exceptional. It's sort of like Achilles addressing the messenger boy in the opening scenes of the 2004 movie Troy... The boy says, "I wouldn't want to fight him," to which Achilles replies, "That's why no one will remember your name." As both a player and a DM, anything that ratchets up the tension of the game is usually a good thing.

I don't think that how 4E handles the issue by requiring multiple checks over successive rounds is necessarily any better than how previous editions handled it. I haven't heard a player claim that they've had more fun when their character dies from failing three checks instead of dying from failing one check.

As a player, I feel that most save-or-die effects are insanely useful. Even at low levels, spells such as sleep and color spray can turn the tide of a battle. Disintegrate can be extremely handy, many players forget that you can disintegrate matter as well as monsters. Are you facing a 54-HD iron golem marching across a bridge? Not if you have disintegrate--all the spell resistance and/or damage reduction in the world doesn't help you if the bridge beneath your feet disappears and you have no means of flying.

All that being said, I have my own theories as to why some players despise save-or-die effects.

I've noticed that players high-five each other and cheer when they drop a high-CR monster with a disintegrate or finger of death, but act like the DM is lacking in skill or is deliberately being a jerk when monsters use save-or-dies. Some players only like something when it benefits their character, and protest loudly and vehemently when bad things happen to their characters (often citing personal issues with the DM or "balance" issues with the game). I'm not saying that everyone who dislikes save-or-dies is like this... But enough are that it no longer surprises me when I see it at a table.

The other side of the coin rests solely upon bad DMs. Unfortunately, there are also many rotten apples out there who either like to bring personal issues into the game (singling out one character for all the monsters to attack, using only fire-resistant monsters when the wizard just got access to fireball, et cetera) that killing characters has become associated with these personality types. DMs can always "win" against a party of characters when they decide to get smarmy with a group, and save-or-die effects are a convenient way for bad DMs like this to murder characters with impunity and claim a flimsy pretense of impartiality.

 

[Hussar]

Haven't read the thread yet, but I checked the results first.

Of the 49 Yes's (DM) only 29 names appear.

Of the 60 No's (DM) 57 names appear.

Hrm, looks like someone's got a major case of sour grapes. Would be nice if people would stop ballot box stuffing just because their favorite pet project happens to not be as popular as they think.

~ or that guests have been voting, which they are completely entitled to. It would be nice if you don't assume and accuse 'people' of ballot box stuffing just because you don't agree. That sounds more like sour grapes - Plane Sailing ~

 

[Hussar]

Lemme give a quick bit of fact:

If you're rolling a save or die, that's a generosity on the part of the DM. You're lucky to even get a chance to live, that's how bad you messed up. You should be dead, but maybe luck will give you a bit of leeway.

Examples:
If you're fighting a Medusa straight on, and it looks at you, you effed up and get to die.
If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Distintegrate on you, you messed up and deserve to die.
If you kick down a door, and poison gas starts to flood the room, you messed up (again!) and should probably die.

Those DMs who are against save or die: If a player jumps into a volcano, do you let him live?
If so, do you let him live if he jumps into the gullet of a dragon?
If so, do you let him live if he gets stomped by a dragon?

How about:

PC is walking through a forest, is surprised by a poisonous snake (AD&D) and bitten.

What stupid thing has he done?

Funny how everyone takes their examples to ridiculous extremes. Even the medusa example. How did I know there was a medusa nearby? Does every medusa need to be a mental cripple and leave evidence of her presence? Does every Bodak have to leave hordes of bodies with no marks on them around?

Jumping into lava and encountering a beholder are a bit different dontcha think?

I wonder how many people who have no problems with save or die would be perfectly comfortable with monsters whose every attack does your current HP +11? After all, what's the difference?

 

[Agamon]

The problem here, is that there are some people that enjoy a game where a PC can instantly and/or unexpectedly die, and there are some that don't enjoy it. I don't think there's any one right way to do it, just a preference. Or am I way off base here?

 

[Victim]

While it is a matter of preference, I think there's some essentially disjointed elements when there's basically plot armor for characters to create an expected level of durability, but then introduce significant instant death chances back in - especially when those become common. If you want a decent chance of death on common attacks, why bother with HP above 10?

At high levels, lots of characters can have several killing spells or just do more than 50 damage, so combat is as about death lotto as anything else.

As a player, I was perfectly fine living with save or die. It generally just meant that you need some buffs like Death Ward in your stack. And it produced some hilarious moments, like a powerful Death Slaad assassin taking a crit on an AoO and dying to massive damage or a buffed up silver dragon failing some pathetic DC Finger of Death from an item.

3e's combat tended to be strongly weighted towards offense anyway.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Lemme give a quick bit of fact:

If you're rolling a save or die, that's a generosity on the part of the DM. You're lucky to even get a chance to live, that's how bad you messed up. You should be dead, but maybe luck will give you a bit of leeway.

Examples:
If you're fighting a Medusa straight on, and it looks at you, you effed up and get to die.
If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Distintegrate on you, you messed up and deserve to die.
If you kick down a door, and poison gas starts to flood the room, you messed up (again!) and should probably die.

If you have no reason to expect a medusa and start to try fighting it straight on then you only know you effed up when other people turn to stone. The first PC to be hit did not eff up - he took the most sensible course of action available and was killed by a DM "Gotcha".

If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Disintegrate on you, that's par for the course. Anything else leads to either banning the disintegrate spell or the only effective characters being those that can disintegrate dragons - eggshells armed with sledgehammers playing russian roulette. (Or, come to think of it, adding a long casting time to Disintegrate - so if you don't dodge for 30 seconds you die).

If you kick down a door in a dungeon and poison gas starts to flood the room, that's damn poor dungeon design (poison gas + open room -> dispersed gas; and poison gas + dungeon -> gas throughout the dungeon slightly hurting every monster that breathes down there) and the architect should probably die.

Not one of those situations you mention is a necessary darwin award. Every single one of those situations is very possibly the result of a jackass DM.

Those DMs who are against save or die: If a player jumps into a volcano, do you let him live?
If so, do you let him live if he jumps into the gullet of a dragon?
If so, do you let him live if he gets stomped by a dragon?

If a player jumps into a volcano, that's something he chose. And if there's a reason for it I'd give him a chance of success (and massive damage and debilitating injuries). On the other hand, if someone is pushed into a volcano I'd definitely give them some sort of chance of clambering out taking a lot of damage each round as they do. It's not instant death on falling so much as almost inevitable death as they start to sink unless they are helped.

If he jumps into the gullet of a dragon, the dragon starts chewing. Crit bite the first round, breath weapon damage every later round at a minimum. Chance of survival: low.

If someone gets stomped by a dragon, that's normal attack and damage rolls. Not one shot of DM fiat.

 

[Reynard]

Haven't read the thread yet, but I checked the results first.

Of the 49 Yes's (DM) only 29 names appear.

Of the 60 No's (DM) 57 names appear.

Hrm, looks like someone's got a major case of sour grapes. Would be nice if people would stop ballot box stuffing just because their favorite pet project happens to not be as popular as they think.

I don't even know what this post means.