Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Hussar]

Odhanan, you can get huffy all you like, but, it doesn't change the fact that this is bad design. The reason that SoD got reduced in power is exactly the same as the reason permanent level drain got stripped down in 3e. It's too powerful as it was originally conceived.

A single hit from a level draining monster could drop you 1-3 levels. That was huge. And the reward for facing this monster was pretty insignificant in relation to the risk. So, level draining got reduced in power, not removed entirely, just dropped down, in keeping with the power of other abilities.

SSSoD retains the threat without making it an instant kill.

You've explained how to use a SoD monster in an encounter. Fine. But, the exact same thing applies to SSSoD without the inherent overpowered mechanics.

Whenever this topic comes up I always ask the same question and never get an answer, so, I'll try again.

If I designed a monster that, on a hit, did the target's hit points plus 11, would that be a well designed monster? Is that a good power to give to a creature? Now, if it's not a good power to give to a monster, how is it different than a creature with a SoD effect?

 

[billd91]

Odhanan, you can get huffy all you like, but, it doesn't change the fact that this is bad design. The reason that SoD got reduced in power is exactly the same as the reason permanent level drain got stripped down in 3e. It's too powerful as it was originally conceived.

Bad design? I don't think so nor do I think that's any objectively provable fact. Expectations have changed some over time for a lot of players and that means Save or Die may not be as good a fit for those expectations as it did for expectations in the earlier days of D&D. That doesn't, however, make it bad design for expectations that fit it better, such as expectations that the game intends to model very dangerous creatures that have powers capable of killing you without battering you like a regular fight.

If I designed a monster that, on a hit, did the target's hit points plus 11, would that be a well designed monster? Is that a good power to give to a creature? Now, if it's not a good power to give to a monster, how is it different than a creature with a SoD effect?

I would not call that a well designed monster because it's doing damage to an abstract pool that varies from character to character based on the size of the pool and not based on the nature of the attack. It's a sloppy mechanic because it doesn't fit that mechanic's reason for existence - to provide a way to ablate down a character's resistance. Think of it this way: in a game with SSSOD being the normative design, suppose I came up with a creature that short-circuited 2 of those saves and went right to SOD. Would that be a well-designed monster? No. Because it's abusing a particular mechanic that is designed to work in a different way and under different assumptions. It would be even worse if every character got a different number of saves before hitting the SOD and my creature short circuited all of them no matter how many there were.... like doing character's current hit points+11.
Now, if that monster were designed to do an average of 21 points of damage on a hit because of the nature of its attack and its strength and characters with 10 hit points on average encountered it and didn't run like hell, then the monster would be appropriately designed even if it did cause a TPK.

 

[Hussar]

See, Bill91, I don't think your 21 Damage monster is well designed at all. Let's say it's a CR 1 creature, so, it's supposed to be a reasonable encounter for a 1st level party. But, if it hits, it's almost always automatically killing the PC.

It's like giving an Orc a 55 strength in 3e. Would that be a good design decision? Or, just an arbitrary Orc Racial Abiliity - +25 damage. There, now we have a SoD combat orc. Would that make Orcs a better creature? More interesting?

There are other ways of modeling lethality without making the creature an arbitrary crap shoot.

 

[billd91]

See, Bill91, I don't think your 21 Damage monster is well designed at all. Let's say it's a CR 1 creature, so, it's supposed to be a reasonable encounter for a 1st level party. But, if it hits, it's almost always automatically killing the PC.

It's like giving an Orc a 55 strength in 3e. Would that be a good design decision? Or, just an arbitrary Orc Racial Abiliity - +25 damage. There, now we have a SoD combat orc. Would that make Orcs a better creature? More interesting?

There are other ways of modeling lethality without making the creature an arbitrary crap shoot.

Why would you expect it to be a CR 1 creature or that it was "level appropriate"? Maybe it was location appropriate and the PCs were in over their heads. You're assuming things that haven't been revealed. And no, giving an orc +25 damage isn't making him a SOD creature.

 

[Bluenose]

Bad design? I don't think so nor do I think that's any objectively provable fact. Expectations have changed some over time for a lot of players and that means Save or Die may not be as good a fit for those expectations as it did for expectations in the earlier days of D&D. That doesn't, however, make it bad design for expectations that fit it better, such as expectations that the game intends to model very dangerous creatures that have powers capable of killing you without battering you like a regular fight.

Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die? Do you object to hit points increasing so your character isn't in danger of dying from a single sword blow? Do you dislike easy access to resurrection magic? Because it's one thing to like having SoD in the game; but if you persistently act in a way to make sure that you don't have to actually make the Save, then it suggests what you actually like is showing off your cleverness rather than risking the death of your character due to a single die roll.

 

[Nagol]

Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die? Do you object to hit points increasing so your character isn't in danger of dying from a single sword blow? Do you dislike easy access to resurrection magic? Because it's one thing to like having SoD in the game; but if you persistently act in a way to make sure that you don't have to actually make the Save, then it suggests what you actually like is showing off your cleverness rather than risking the death of your character due to a single die roll.

That moves the focus from the tactical mini-game of "How can I remedy this onging effect during a combat encounter before it completes" to the strategic/investigative mini-game of "How can I discover and prevent exposure to detrimental effects in the environment?"

I like the second mini-game more both as a player and as a DM.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die? Do you object to hit points increasing so your character isn't in danger of dying from a single sword blow? Do you dislike easy access to resurrection magic? Because it's one thing to like having SoD in the game; but if you persistently act in a way to make sure that you don't have to actually make the Save, then it suggests what you actually like is showing off your cleverness rather than risking the death of your character due to a single die roll.

Wait? what!?!

If Perseus is going off to face a fricking Medusa and is told that her gaze is going to turn him to stone, you're implying that he shouldn't use the reflective shield to avoid this?

Just because, ESPECIALLY because, you know you're going into a dangerous save or die situation you SHOULDN'T prepare for it because if you do you really dont respect/like Save or Die?

I'm sorry but that seems petty.

We get it you guys dont like save or die. You think it's stupid. You think people who like it are stupid (even though people in this thread havent come right out and said that it's kinda implied).

I have a solution!! You go play your non-SoD game and well go play our SoD game and never the twain shall meet! Sounds Awesome? Great.
1-2-3- BREAK!

 

[Coldwyn]

Wait? what!?!

If Perseus is going off to face a fricking Medusa and is told that her gaze is going to turn him to stone, you're implying that he shouldn't use the reflective shield to avoid this?

Just because, ESPECIALLY because, you know you're going into a dangerous save or die situation you SHOULDN'T prepare for it because if you do you really dont respect/like Save or Die?

There´s a difference between being clever and thinking ahead and starting a virtual arms race.

Knowing that you´re gonna face a medusa and planing ahead is fine.

Getting up in the morning, having a hero´s feast, donning your cap of perma mind-blanc, slipping on your boots of anti-slipping and your cloak of anti-polymorphing, then going through the routine of buffs for the day simply boring.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

There´s a difference between being clever and thinking ahead and starting a virtual arms race.

Knowing that you´re gonna face a medusa and planing ahead is fine.

Getting up in the morning, having a hero´s feast, donning your cap of perma mind-blanc, slipping on your boots of anti-slipping and your cloak of anti-polymorphing, then going through the routine of buffs for the day simply boring.

That's not what he was saying though.

Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die?

He opens with that sentence which implies that you KNOW that you're going to be facing save or die.

So yeah, I agree with the second part of what YOURE saying, but that's not what Bluenose was saying.

 

[Coldwyn]

I think his question leads to a valid and important point, though.

If you know SoD is used in the game, you will ultimatelly adapt.I really don´t think the game will stay the same past the first SoD encounter the players have faced.
Which form that takes doesn´t really matter, that could range from the classic, with a rogue scouting ahead to gain intel, to the toolbox approach, by selecting the right mechanical solution (i.e. spells, items, feats) to the reviled 15 minutes working day.

This leads me to the simple conclusion that the tension is pretty much gone when the only remaining question is "Did I chose the right countermeasures", especially in 3E game where you can pretty much immunize yourself to anything.
In the end, it´s either system mastery or the wanton cruelty of tomb of horrors all over again.