Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

Gotta call shenanigans. The CR system is a considerable improvement over the 10 levels of monsters in 1e.

That's a very questionable statement, IMHO. The AD&D 1e power curve is flatter, so that there is less of a difference between what can challenge a character party from level to level. With the steep curve of 3e, it isn't enough to "offer a more targeted estimate of the challenge it offers to a basic party of 4" to exceed the usefulness of the 1e ML system.

In the final analysis, my experience is that CR is no better than ML. This isn't a fault of the CR System. It is a fault of the 3e power curve.

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

Thanks.

I'd XP you, but I gotta spread it around first.

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.

Again, RC would, in fact, make sure that the campaign milieu contained appropriate "footprints" for both encounters.

Nor does RC believe that it is necessary (or even advisable) for a party to have a guarantee of advance warning of Save or Die effects. RC merely believes that the possibility of warning must be present, should the PCs choose to avail themselves of it. Not only in the case of SoD encounters, but in the case of just about any encounter.

No matter what encounter you have, I think that the players should be able to look back at what came before (with 20/20 hindsight) and say, "Yeah, we coulda/shoulda seen that coming." The degree to which this is true increases in proportion to the "footprint" of the creature(s) encountered.

And expecting that level of common sense, IMHO, doesn't put too great a burden on the GM.....Although it should, perhaps, be made explicit in the GM's advice.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

My point with narrative control is more that it is a meaningless connection to draw.

Not at all. It is not like saying "The sun is hot because it has a high temperature."

When one says that one doesn't like X because it interferes with his desired sense of narrative control, we can begin to examine what level of narrative control that person desires. If you don't like X, you might therefore also not like Y or Z.

Moreover, you might be able to suggest house rules for systems with X that can restore the factor that X removes.

Finally, by demonstrating that something like "desire for a given degree of narrative control" is common to all rpg gamers (even if the actual degree is not), you can also demonstrate that not liking or liking X has nothing to do with "real" gaming or etc. or whatever or yadda.



RC

 

[MrMyth]

No matter what encounter you have, I think that the players should be able to look back at what came before (with 20/20 hindsight) and say, "Yeah, we coulda/shoulda seen that coming." The degree to which this is true increases in proportion to the "footprint" of the creature(s) encountered.

And expecting that level of common sense, IMHO, doesn't put too great a burden on the GM.....Although it should, perhaps, be made explicit in the GM's advice.

But I don't know if that approach is common to all campaigns. I think many will have encounters in which the PC might know outright what they are facing, encounters in which they have clues to figure it out, and encounters that contain surprises.

The statement that seems to be offered in this thread is that the DM needs to make sure none of the encounters with 'surprises' include any Save or Die effects. Which may be reasonable in some cases, but not all - and there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently. These spells and abilities, despite what CR may tell you, requier special treatment.'

 

[billd91]

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 don't think the rules need to specify that there needs to be foreshadowing for save or die or any other specific deadly effect. At some point, it really needs to be up to the DM to determine if his players are up to the challenge of the individual monster and whether said monster or another one of the same CR really are functionally equivalent or not within the milieu of the adventure and campaign. Given the breath of potential, I really don't see the value in sticking in caveat after caveat that many DMs probably won't even read (and, if a lot of popular conceptions about encounter design over the last 10 years are any evidence, a lot of people don't pay any attention to the advice that is there).

 

[Ariosto]

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.

We start to get into playing the game. It is not a problem for those of us who enjoy playing it.

Taking precautions is the game. Strategies for managing risk and reward, for minimizing chance factors even though they cannot be eliminated, are where the game is.

Save-or-die effects don't make much difference to a 1st-level character -- and the difference may be a lesser chance of getting killed! (In OD&D, a 1st-level cleric has a 25% chance of making two death ray / poison saves in a row, versus an average between 2% and 9% of surviving two dice of damage.)

On the other hand, they become increasingly significant to higher-level characters. A fifth-level lightning bolt simply won't kill a character that has over 30 hit points. IIRC, no monster in the original set hits for more than 18 points per round (barring spells or magic items). An SOD effect, though, might kill 1 in 4 on average.

Even with monsters' damage output upped in Supp. I and later editions, there is a very notable qualitative difference! There is a dramatic increase in randomness, and hence of risk -- much riding on a single toss of the dice.

Note that this is just the opposite of the effect of higher average hit points with the accumulation of hit dice. Increasing hit points reduce randomness progressively as one plays a character longer.

That low-level magic-users die in droves means that replacing a full-fledged wizard is not trivial. Besides the resurrection survival chance, AD&D limits number of times raised to the character's original constitution score.

You've spent a year or more building up this character, and there's a risk of losing it altogether, and that's -- according to some folks -- "not scary"??!

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno
A slow death is drastically scarier then a sudden one.


I guess so, and if Grand Guignol is your thing, then suit yourself. As for me, losing the character is quite enough!

 

[Reynard]

The statement that seems to be offered in this thread is that the DM needs to make sure none of the encounters with 'surprises' include any Save or Die effects. Which may be reasonable in some cases, but not all - and there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently. These spells and abilities, despite what CR may tell you, requier special treatment.'

No one is saying this. What people are saying is that there are ways to mitigate SoD, including PCs being prepared for the eventuality (either because they know there's a bodak in the dungeon, or because they have heard tell bodaks sometimes inhabit dungeons). The only one that is suggesting that SoD can only occur if the DM has completely briefed the players beforehand is you.

It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.

 

[Reynard]

Thanks.

I'd XP you, but I gotta spread it around first.

Gotcha covered.

 

[Ariosto]

[double post]

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The statement that seems to be offered in this thread is that the DM needs to make sure none of the encounters with 'surprises' include any Save or Die effects.

Actually, it looks to me like everyone is in agreement that SoDs do need some sort of mitigation, either mechanical (eg, revert to SSSoDs, use APs, etc) or by circumstantial qualifiers (eg, framing the encounter). SoDs generally shouldn't be used as punitive "gotchas", unless that's the point of the game.

Which may be reasonable in some cases, but not all - and there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently. These spells and abilities, despite what CR may tell you, requier special treatment.'

Yup, the rules aren't perfect, SoD (and other) advice is lacking, CR is a blunt instrument at best, etc.

Indeed, "there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently'". However, there's also nothing in the rules that prevents a DM from asking for advice and learning how to build encounters his players will enjoy.

 

[Gimby]

It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.

If we're talking 3.5, then you can't make potions of death ward. Potions only go up to 3rd level spells and death ward is 4/5. You could make scrolls of it instead, but you are still looking at 350g+28 xp at minimum each. This protection only lasts 9 minutes, so if you are going to be spending a significant time in a dungeon you'll need several of them - thats going to add up quickly.

Its also worth noting that Bodaks are CR 8. You don't actually get access to Death Ward as a caster until level 9.

Personally, I've found this sort of defensive buff contributes to the "15 minute adventuring day". If you think you may be facing a SoD enemy then you are going to be needing to spend resources (spells or consumables) in most encounters. When you run out, then you face being one-shotted in any encounter - is pressing on without your layered protections in place recklessness or bravery?