Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[MrMyth]

If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.

Except, with random encounters, you've typically got a large list of possibilities. If you enter a region infested with undead, sure, you might know that you will run into undead. Does that mean you will realize that you will run into a Bodak? Does the DM instead drop signs of every single possible creature they might run into? Does the party have a cleric who can recognize some of those signs belong to a Bodak? What if he fails his check?

And once the players know, what preparations are they going to take? Sure, if they have a cleric, and he is high-enough level, he can prep the right spells to save they day. What if they don't have one? Just keep their eyes closed all day to ensure they don't see a Bodak?

And this doesn't help with the presence of Save or Die spells. I asked you before a few questions regarding a situation with a wizard, and how you might handle it, but didn't see any answers.

Part of the problem I'm seeing with some of these answers, such as "be prepared for anything you could possibly fight" or "always carry antitoxin" or the like, is that we start to get into an arms-race between the DM and the players.

If a Save or Die effect exists as part of a rare and unique encounter that the party can prepare for, they can figure out creative solutions that get around it.

If these effects are prevalent throughout the game, it instead becomes a battle of system mastery. Are the players aware of all the possible dangers that can end them in one shot? Have they loaded up their characters with a very specific list of spells to counter certain dangers? Have they invested in the most ideal feats and items to give them rerolls and immunities and bonuses?

And sure, that is one style of play. But it isn't necessarily for everyone.

AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking.

Again, putting too much burden on the DM. Saying that the DM is as fault for using a monster or spell as it is presented in the rules means the problem is with the game, not the person running with it.

Assassins randomly targeting people walking on the street is poor DMing. Usually, if there is an assassin after the PCs, there is a reason for it. And usually the PCs are aware of the reason.

The PCs might know that they have earned the emnity of King Spiteful. Does that mean they know exactly what form of retribution he might take?

Ok, perhaps they do - perhaps they have spent time researching it and asking questions so as to be prepared (and hopefully don't have other quests distracting them from doing so). What if an assassin wasn't his first choice? What if he instead likes to consort with warlocks and demons, and the PCs figure this out, and thus demolish every summoned monster he sends against them. What if eventually he diverts from his usual approach and hires an assassin, hoping it will be more successful?

Are the PCs at fault because their enemy was creative?

Again, you seem to be saying that in your games, the players never fight an enemy without knowing exactly what it is capable of, well in advance. I can see that style working, sure, but I don't think that is the default for the game. Most games tend to have it go both ways - some fights the players might be well-prepared for, others might have surprises.

I am curious where you get "the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves.....is to kill the PCs" from, though. Can you quote that?

"In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly."

It is a mechanic that causes PCs to die. That is what it does. If a medusa had a special section with detailed rules on reflecting its gaze back upon itself, and ideas for helping PCs prepare for such a thing, I might feel there was more to it than that.

But as it is, the effects of these abilities are to kill PCs. For someone reading the rules and running the game as it presents itself, there is no reason to assume that the goal of a Finger of Death spell is to encourage all PCs to walk around with a bag filled with Death Ward bucklers. No, the purpose of Finger of Death is to show that this wizard is a complete badass, and he can kill someone by pointing at them!

Which is an awesome image, sure, and I can see why people like having that sort of thing in the game. I can also see why others don't.

And I still don't buy the argument that Save or Die effects are fine because the game assumes that PCs will never actually run into them and risk dying unless either the players have screwed up, or they have a bad DM.

Save or Die effects are in the rules because the game assumes that, sometimes, PCs will have to Save, or they will Die!

 

[Herschel]

If you fall in lava, you die (no save).

This is an immutable law.

However, there should be multiple chances to not actually fall IN TO the lava. If you're being pushed off a ledge, a save to not go over, then as you're desperately grabbing for handholds after your feet go over (for example).

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

[edit: effectively ninja'd by RC... but his is northern N.America, mine's desert s.w. ]

A random encounter table generally simply states what is encountered. Rarely does it put conditions on that encounter. When I go hiking in the desert, I know the "random encounter table" has things like rattle snake, coyote, buzzard, hawk, horny toad, cactus, javelina, etc on it. I also know that most of them are not immediately hostile encounters; the javelina might charge on sight, but the coyotes and buzzards will probably be wary, and the hawk will almost certainly ignore me. The one "SoD" on the list-- the rattler-- will usually rattle first, at which point I make a Knowledge check, maybe a spot check to see where it's hiding, and back off-- all without ever even dealing with the SoD effect save vs poison.

So when I roll basilisk in a dungeon, why can't the circumstances start similarly, with a warning, or indifference, or fleeing, or etc? The thing certainly has some chance of being uninterested (feeding, hunting or mating) or wary (the party outnumbers it 5:1), as it has of being hostile (guarding its young or stalking the scrawny party wizard). Maybe it's simply smart enough to just hang back in the shadows, so as not to incur the wrath of the 3 or 4 out of 5 PCs it knows it probably won't TTS on the first round.

There's nothing wrong with contextualizing an encounter (planned or random; SoD, SSSoD, or otherwise) in a way other than "charge into combat, roll saves!" or "it jumps up and goes RAWR, roll saves!". Suppose the medusa doesn't want to fight because she's just looking for something. Suppose the poisonous snake just scurries off without striking, like any other animal would. Suppose the bodak is distracted because he's looking at girlie mags.

Imxp, that's not "bubble-wrapping" the encounter, it's just making it interesting.

 

[MrMyth]

No. Your 1, 2, and 3 are all valid.

It is your contention that they have nothing to do with narrative control that falls apart.

My point with narrative control is more that it is a meaningless connection to draw. It's the same thing as saying, "He doesn't like this element of the game." Which we knew to begin with - you can't use that as an explanation of the result!

Why don't I like Save or Die? Let's say cecause I find the deaths from them anticlimactic.

You can't then say, "Ah, but you find the deaths from them anticlimactic because it reduces your sense of narrative control." Why does it reduce your sense of narrative control? Because you don't want effects like Save or Die in the game you play.

And at that point, what you are actually saying is, "You don't like games with Save or Die because you don't find the deaths dramatic because you don't like games with Save or Die."

It's meaningless, whether true or not.

 

[billd91]

(Shudder)

Anyone who says that the CR system is an improvement over the 1e Monster Level system simply isn't paying attention!

Gotta call shenanigans. The CR system is a considerable improvement over the 10 levels of monsters in 1e. There's no question that it offers a more targeted estimate of the challenge it offers to a basic party of 4. The fact that people have read way more into the system than is there is not the fault of the CR system.

AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking.

This is still true even if the CR system was an improvement over the 1e monster level system.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I can assume that you are playing soccer all I want, there is no way I am going to show you the merits of a corner kick to your game of baseball.

You obviously didn't see the St Louis vs Cincinatti game last night....

 

[Abraxas]

Let's hope that the actual book description (i.e., whatever wasn't included in the SRD) is a bit better written. Because, if the SRD is all that there is, I agree that this is a bit sparse, esp. for the rules-lawyer nature of that edition.

There's more info in the description of Gaze Attacks in the section on Special Abilities

From the SRD "An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface."

This suggests that you do have to meet the creatures gaze to be effected.

Continuing from the SRD "Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains concealment relative to the opponent. An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent."

The following describes how a creature could force a save - but it also shows that you can take measures to avoid the gaze.

"A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action. The creature simply chooses a target within range, and that opponent must attempt a saving throw. If the target has chosen to defend against the gaze as discussed above, the opponent gets a chance to avoid the saving throw (either 50% chance for averting eyes or 100% chance for shutting eyes). It is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before its own action and once during the creature’s action.

 

[Ariosto]

A normal poisonous snake that achieves surprise is likely to use it to get away from humans. A giant snake might consider men prey, but is probably plenty deadly -- certainly to normal men! -- without poison. A purple worm randomly gulps down victims whole (leaving so many rounds to rescue them).


Getting surprised can be as hard on PCs as it is on monsters when players surprise them. In old D&D, it offers an outlier possibility of sudden TPK. That is part of the game by design, along with other probabilities. The game was not set up from the perspective that, as the 3.5 DMG puts it, "each individual encounter is like its own game". It was not set up from the perspective of each character being "the hero of a story", or anything like that.

It was set up from the perspective of the game as a sum of histories, like many popular board, card and dice games. Especially, it was designed by and for players of wargames (miniatures and hex-and-counter).

That factors into a lot of things, and characters getting killed is definitely one of them!

It is not the outcome for a given character that matters, but the sum of those outcomes for a given player.

 

[billd91]

Again, putting too much burden on the DM. Saying that the DM is as fault for using a monster or spell as it is presented in the rules means the problem is with the game, not the person running with it.

I'm really not getting this. How is relying on the DM to come up with reasonably sensible encounters for his game putting too much burden on the DM? The alternative puts too much burden on the game designers to account for every possible game - or I suppose it leads to the breadth of the game's options being substantially narrowed. And, frankly, I really can't support that in my non-licensed RPGs - hell, I don't like it much in my licensed IP ones either though I would be more willing to accept it as part and parcel of the IP's tone and content.

 

[MrMyth]

I'm really not getting this. How is relying on the DM to come up with reasonably sensible encounters for his game putting too much burden on the DM? The alternative puts too much burden on the game designers to account for every possible game - or I suppose it leads to the breadth of the game's options being substantially narrowed.

Well, except the requirement that has been placed isn't for "reasonably sensible encounter".

In this case, I said that the system tells a DM that a Bodak and a Stone Giant are both reasonable encounters. RC said that it is up to the DM to know that the Bodak encounter requires special preparation and advance warning for the PCs, rather than being able to take the rulebook at face value.

I think you can have plenty of perfectly reasonable encounters in which there is no guaranteed a party will have advance warning of Save or Die effects. The rules certainly don't indicate that a DM is supposed to specifically make sure the party has prepared for this one specific monster or spell ability.

I just don't think you can simultaneously say that "Save or Die" effects are perfectly ok and an important part of the game (whether for purposes of challenge, tension, drama, whatever)... while also saying that a DM is doing it wrong when he uses these effects by the book, and doesn't take extra special precautions in designing encounters with them to ensure PCs are well-prepared for the SoD effect.