Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[MrMyth]

Sorry? I am uncertain whether you done here, or did you want an answer?

Just to clarify - I still think there are some things worth discussing in this thread, and those I'm still going to try and resolve.

What I am done with was the thread that grew out of trying to give my reasons for preferring not having Save or Die. You don't seem willing to recognize any differences between SSSoD and SoD, nor do you find it acceptable if I prefer having informed decision points in combat vs uninformed information gathering outside of combat. You feel that preferring certain types of challenges over others is playing in a 'padded game'. Fair enough.

It is clear I am not going to convince you otherwise, hence, it seems worth bowing out of that part of the discussion with you, and focusing on other things.

 

[The Shaman]

All I'm saying is that it just seems kind of natural to me that a player (especially a frustrated player) would look at his 18 INT and wonder why it has no relevance towards helping Presto the Perspicacious escape the DM's "Ye Olde Merry Riddle Trappe" that's about to fry him...

It is relevant, in that the 18 INT plays affects what skills a character posesses, and how skillful the character is in using them. It's up to the player to apply those skills, however.

Your combat example falls flat because you're equating unlike things. You don't need to know how to use a lock pick set, but you do need to decide when your character attempts to pick a lock, and the attempt - the actual picking of the lock - is resolved by a die roll. Combat is the same - you decide when and where and how and with what, and the result is determined by die roll.

Riddles and puzzles may involve the application of skills and class abilities - in fantasy games various sorts of divination spells are useful, for example - but sometimes riddles and puzzles are included simply to challenge and entertain the players as part of playing a game together.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've never viewed it as having some sort of requirement that you need to have it recognize your presence in order for the Gaze to work. Everything that D&D has presented it as is that all it requires is that you "look at the creature’s eyes".

Now, if one feels that in order for a gaze attack to work, it requires both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other... well, I don't see any indication of that in the rules, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable house rule.

You seem fixated on the idea that your interpretations are the rules, and others are house rules.

Let's read the first line of Gaze Attacks in the 3e DMG, shall we?

The medusa looks around, throwing dangerous glances everywhere, and focusing its eyes on specific victims.​

If you don't see "any indication...in the rules" that "it requires both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other" you are simply failing to read the rules.

Lidda closes her eyes and tries to aim her arrows by ear. Jozan averts his eyes but tries to watch the creature with peripheral vision so he knows where to project his searing light spell. Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye as he swings his mighty axe. Magic washes through him and he shrugs it off. Jozan, however, accidently catches the thing's eye, and he's not strong enough to resist. His body hardens and turns to stone.​

So, according to the book, when are the characters potentially affected? When Tordek looks the thing in the eye; when Jozan accidently catches the thing's eye.

I.e., their eyes meet.

What is the medusa doing? Looking around and focusing its gaze on specific victims.

I.e., she is trying to make thier eyes meet.

How does this apply to our bodak discussion?

Well, if one believes that you can meet the eyes of someone you don't know is there, it doesn't. On the other hand, I don't think its the only interpretation - you can houserule if you like.

I would argue that this would be a pretty weird discussion:

RC: Watch out for that assassin!

MM: What assassin?

RC: What do you mean what assassin! You're staring right into his eyes!

MM: Sorry, I don't see any assassin!​

Anyway, my big objection was with RC who was trying to present his position as being backed up by the rules themselves.

Pleased to provide quotes for you.

RCs claim that you cannot physically see someone's eyes while you are hidden from them? Yeah, I don't see any truth to that.

Making eye contact, IMHO and IME, is pretty much the end of any successful attempt to hide. If you can focus on me as a particular victim, you can see my eyes, and you are looking me in the eye, any interpretation that also includes I am successfully hiding from you is .... well, pretty strange from my point of view.

I have to ask, are you claiming to have ever, or to know of anyone who has ever, successfully hidden from someone while making eye contact with them? Is there anyone here who would make such a claim?

You don't seem willing to recognize any differences between SSSoD and SoD

I pointed differences out upthread.

nor do you find it acceptable if I prefer having informed decision points in combat vs uninformed information gathering outside of combat.

Sure I do.

I even wrote quite a bit about the same over the course of the thread.

You feel that preferring certain types of challenges over others is playing in a 'padded game'.

Now, that actually is true, depending upon what the "certain types of challenges" are.

As discussed waaaayyyyyy upthread, more danger doesn't necessarily make for a better game, nor does more randomness. There is a tension between levels of randomness/danger and narrative control, and everyone has their own sweet spot somewhere between absolute randomness (no context) and absolute narrative control (no consequence).

When I said, not far above

Yes, a lack of coherent self-reference can cause problems, and if you are playing a game without coherent self-reference the encounters themselves should probably have extra layers of padding, because neither the game world nor the adventure will provide it.​

you might have noted that it implies that the game world or adventure will provide a form of padding as well. I don't think that anyone wants to play in a (serious or semi-serious) game that has "wandering damage" charts, or anvils falling out of the sky on a 1 in 6 every round.

But, when you note a difference between "having informed decision points in combat vs uninformed information gathering outside of combat", I note that the discussion really seems to revolve more about "informed decision points" vs "uninformed information gathering".

Universally (or nearly so) folks have agreed here that it would be fair to introduce a SoD monster with informed decision points prior to the combat, so the "in combat" vs "outside of combat" seems to be a bit of a red herring.

And "informed decision points" vs "uninformed information gathering" are two different games. One is more padded than the other simply due to the shift in information-management responsibility. Playing a game with "uninformed information gathering" clearly requires a greater willingness to accept risk than playing a game where "informed decision points" must occur prior to any actual gamble being made.

And, for the manyth time in this thread alone, there is a tension between levels of randomness/danger and narrative control, and everyone has their own sweet spot somewhere between absolute randomness (no context) and absolute narrative control (no consequence).

Whatever floats your boat in terms of that tension is what you should seek out. Just don't try to tell me that you are not seeking out greater narrative control while doing so, or that what you are doing offers the same level of risk.

Embrace what you want in a game, and I will support your right to have the game you want. Just so long as, in order to do so, you are not trying to change the game I play into that thing, and just so long as you are honest about what you are doing.


RC

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

MrMyth has the correct rules interpretation.

Gaze Attacks
While the medusa's gaze is well known, gaze attacks can also charm, curse, or even kill. Gaze attacks not produced by a spell are supernatural.
Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn.
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. 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.
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.
Looking at the creature’s image (such as in a mirror or as part of an illusion) does not subject the viewer to a gaze attack.
A creature is immune to its own gaze attack.
If visibility is limited (by dim lighting, a fog, or the like) so that it results in concealment, there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won’t need to make a saving throw in a given round. This chance is not cumulative with the chance for averting your eyes, but is rolled separately. Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks. Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents.
Characters using darkvision in complete darkness are affected by a gaze attack normally.
Unless specified otherwise, a creature with a gaze attack can control its gaze attack and “turn it off ” when so desired. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature’s allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round.

All of the situations which permit an opponent to avoid a saving throw rely on the creature with the gaze attack having concealment from the opponent, e.g., the creature is invisible, the opponent closes his eyes or avoids looking at the creature, there is fog. Nothing indicates that a saving throw can be avoided by the opponent having concealment from the creature. In fact, the opposite is the case - the rules point out that gaze attacks can affect ethereal creatures and creatures with darkvision, i.e., situations where the opponent can see the creature but the creature may not be able to see the opponent.

RC: Watch out for that assassin!
MM: What assassin?
RC: What do you mean what assassin! You're staring right into his eyes!
MM: Sorry, I don't see any assassin!

The ethereal assassin who RC sees with detect invisibility but MM cannot must make a saving throw against MM's gaze attack.

 

[Raven Crowking]

MrMyth has the correct rules interpretation.

I think not.

You conveniently cut out

The medusa looks around, throwing dangerous glances everywhere, and focusing its eyes on specific victims. Lidda closes her eyes and tries to aim her arrows by ear. Jozan averts his eyes but tries to watch the creature with peripheral vision so he knows where to project his searing light spell. Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye as he swings his mighty axe. Magic washes through him and he shrugs it off. Jozan, however, accidently catches the thing's eye, and he's not strong enough to resist. His body hardens and turns to stone.​

There is a reason why the context comes first. Without the context, the rules may indeed seem like it is a mere proximity attack, but it is not. That is what the context is for.

The ethereal assassin who RC sees with detect invisibility but MM cannot must make a saving throw against MM's gaze attack.

That is an instance in which you could both meet someone's gaze and that person not know it. However, it is not applicable to the example given. A visible being whose gaze you meet is a being that you are going to be aware of. Can you example anything where that is untrue?

EDIT: Please recall that, in 3e, the rules are still intended to reflect something which is happening in the fictional gamespace. It is not until 4e that the rules take precedence over the context in which the action occurs. I.e., in all pre-4e D&D, the context determines the application of the rules. And, in this case, the context is clear. In 4e, the rules sometimes (perhaps even often, but not always) determine the application of the context.

 

[Umbran]

You conveniently cut out

You make it sound like it was intentional, so as to mislead. I think that's not fair. It looks more to me like RedShirtNo5 took the listing from the d20 SRD verbatim, which does not contain your passage of context.

 

[Scribble]

It should!

I know of at least one game that has a "Reasoning Save" that allows the player to gain additional clues from the GM. The player still has to figure out the riddle, but an intelligent PC (and esp. one that invests in Reasoning) does so with far more hints and clues than does Joe the Barbarian.

Thats usually what I do in situations like that where the players are stuck on a challenge that was set up outside of skills for fun.

It is relevant, in that the 18 INT plays affects what skills a character posesses, and how skillful the character is in using them. It's up to the player to apply those skills, however.

Yes... that's what I'm saying.

Your combat example falls flat because you're equating unlike things. You don't need to know how to use a lock pick set, but you do need to decide when your character attempts to pick a lock, and the attempt - the actual picking of the lock - is resolved by a die roll. Combat is the same - you decide when and where and how and with what, and the result is determined by die roll.

Yes... We agree.

Skills are good in a game because it lets the player that doesn't posses the same intellect and abilities do things he ordinarily wouldn't- just like combat.

Riddles and puzzles may involve the application of skills and class abilities - in fantasy games various sorts of divination spells are useful, for example - but sometimes riddles and puzzles are included simply to challenge and entertain the players as part of playing a game together.

I know this... Again I don't disagree. Not sure what you're countering here.

 

[billd91]

There is a reason why the context comes first. Without the context, the rules may indeed seem like it is a mere proximity attack, but it is not. That is what the context is for.

Well now, there's context and then there's context. The gaze attack's rules assume that you're really in an encounter with the creature - pretty much up close and personal. Within that context, it pretty much is a proximity attack barring the targets (the PCs) doing something to reduce their vulnerability.

With respect to the example of spying on a bodak through a window from upthread, I'd have a hard time calling that the same context as a close-up encounter. If the bodak is watching the door, I sure wouldn't impose the gaze attack. If the bodak's looking out the window, even if the rogue manages to hide successfully, I'd say that the gaze attack could occur - roll the save. That's the danger of a gaze attack, you can accidentally meet their gaze.

And I'd say that yes, a creature could make eye contact with a hidden PC and still not recognize it for what it is. Everyone's looked right at something and not really noticed it before, I'm sure.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

It's the entire text of the SRD about gaze attacks.

And I think the flavor text corresponds to it.

"The medusa looks around, throwing dangerous glances everywhere" = "Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw"

"and focusing its eyes on specific victims." = "A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action."

"Lidda closes her eyes and tries to aim her arrows by ear." = "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."

"Jozan averts his eyes but tries to watch the creature with peripheral vision so he knows where to project his searing light spell." = "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."

"Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye as he swings his mighty axe. Magic washes through him and he shrugs it off." = "a Fortitude or Will save"

"Jozan, however, accidently catches the thing's eye," = "Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw."

"and he's not strong enough to resist. His body hardens and turns to stone." = "a Fortitude or Will save"


But enough side tracking. As MrMyth said, General isn't the place for a rule debate. Post a rule question in the Legacy Discussion and we could continue the rule debate there.

 

[Sebastian1992]

Sometimes...

I think it can be a good thing, but it really depends on the group. If it's a mature group and the save is not something frivolous, like a random encounter, it can be a very nice tool.

If the group is immature, and there would be much qq, then it may not be such a good idea.