Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Hussar]

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.

Why not? Why is giving an orc +25 damage not a SOD creature? He hits you, you die. That's pretty close to any SOD creature that isn't required to hit you. A saving throw is not all that far off the chances of a creature hitting you in combat. I would argue that giving our orc +25 to damage is pretty much the exact same thing as having a 1 HD snake with a SOD poison attack. Actually, to be entirely fair, you'd probably have to give the orc a few penaties on his attack, since the snake has to hit. But, it's easily doable.

See, the problem is, how do you determine what is level appropriate for that creature or any SOD creature. In order to determine that the PC's were in over their heads, you have to know how tall they are.

I look at the evolution of SOD as just a continuation of what 3e did. 1e and 2e had a boatload of small creatures that would be a speed bump encounter, except they had SoD poison attacks - snakes, spiders, vermin of many forms.

3e did away with almost all of them. Instead, you have a debilitating poison attack that is nasty, just not immedietely fatal, usually. In other words, they reduced the lethality while at the same time retaining the threatening nature of the creature.

If there were no problems with SoD, if SoD was such good game design, why was it ejected from such a large swath of the game in 3e?

Looking beyond D&D, I'm struggling to think of many games that include SoD mechanics (not counting retro clones of course). I'm really having a hard time thinking of any game that has this. Lots of games are lethal as all get out, but, very few have this arbitrary death mechanic built in.

You'd think a well designed mechanic would feature more prominently in other games.

 

[billd91]

I look at the evolution of SOD as just a continuation of what 3e did. 1e and 2e had a boatload of small creatures that would be a speed bump encounter, except they had SoD poison attacks - snakes, spiders, vermin of many forms.

3e did away with almost all of them. Instead, you have a debilitating poison attack that is nasty, just not immedietely fatal, usually. In other words, they reduced the lethality while at the same time retaining the threatening nature of the creature.

If there were no problems with SoD, if SoD was such good game design, why was it ejected from such a large swath of the game in 3e?

Yet it was also retained for a substantial number of cases in 3e as well. So clearly the designers did not think it was absolutely badly designed. If you're using it's decreased frequency as evidence of it being a poor mechanic, you have to account for it being kept in so many cases as well.

I'd say that many of the changes of poison do a better job in 3e of projecting a plausible effect since so many of them are more debilitating rather than instantly lethal. I would also say that over-used is a far different issue than being poor design and I would be open to an argument that early editions of AD&D over used save or die effects. That doesn't mean that in the case of meeting a medusa's gaze I don't think a save or die mechanic is inappropriate. It would just mean I don't think it's appropriate for, say, a rattlesnake's or giant spider's bite.

 

[Wicht]

Why not? Why is giving an orc +25 damage not a SOD creature? He hits you, you die. That's pretty close to any SOD creature that isn't required to hit you. A saving throw is not all that far off the chances of a creature hitting you in combat. I would argue that giving our orc +25 to damage is pretty much the exact same thing as having a 1 HD snake with a SOD poison attack. Actually, to be entirely fair, you'd probably have to give the orc a few penaties on his attack, since the snake has to hit. But, it's easily doable.

In PFRPG, an Orc that does 25 damage on a hit is, assuming it is built right, going to be a CR 6 creature. If a level 1 party goes up against a CR 6 creature they are going to get creamed. (A CR 3 is pretty tough and a CR 4 is an epic struggle at level 1).

Likewise, raising the ability of a snake (or any venemous creature) to do you in with a single bite is going to raise the CR. The amount by which the CR is raised is going to be subject to some amount of a judgment call but a truly powerful poison shoul probably raise it by at least 2 or 3 CR, depending.

With that said, the question then becomes, should the PCs have to live in a world in which there are things that can kill them instantly. Or should all encounters always be level appropriate. It really comes down to a matter of gaming styles and personal preferences.

Personally, I have no problems with some snakes being more venemous than others. PCs should have a chance (via Knowledge [nature]) to identify that a certain snake is a red-banded crested throat-snuffler, and its bite can drop an elephant. Seeing as the real world contains rather nasty toxins which kill you quickly, I think my fantasy world can survive having these as well.

In the case of medusas, I want a gaze that can turn you to stone instantly, not slowly and over time (because this models the way I think it should happen). At the same time, I want diseases which kill you slowly and poisons which make you sick (instead of just dropping you dead.) Basically, I want a variety of lethality levels I can mix and match as appropriate.

 

[Bluenose]

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?

Perseus and Medusa are actually a very good example. There's no save. You die, or you know the trick which means you don't die and can walk up and cut her head off while she's asleep. Make yourself immune to your enemy, or the risk is too great to fight. That's epic heroism [/sarcasm]

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.

Of course, if you mess up it's easy enough to be raised afterwards. Which is another great way to remove tension from the game.

 

[Imaro]

Basically, I want a variety of lethality levels I can mix and match as appropriate.

This. I never understand why, just because SoD is in the game, a DM feels he has to use it. If you don'tlike that level of lethality, let your players know you won't use monsters (or you'll be modifying monsters) that have SoD abilities. What I don't like is it being removed from the game and not an option for those who do want to use it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

See, the problem is, how do you determine what is level appropriate for that creature or any SOD creature. In order to determine that the PC's were in over their heads, you have to know how tall they are.

You don't. The pcs determine when they're in over their heads. Otherwise, their choices are not really choices and everything is a reskinned orc.

 

[Coldwyn]

This. I never understand why, just because SoD is in the game, a DM feels he has to use it. If you don'tlike that level of lethality, let your players know you won't use monsters (or you'll be modifying monsters) that have SoD abilities. What I don't like is it being removed from the game and not an option for those who do want to use it.

Yes and no. For adding and removing something from the game, you should have the experience to see what the complete implications are. For example, removing resurresction spells and leaving SoD makes the game too deadly, doing it the other way round make it too simple and so on.
As 4E is geared for people new to the game and/or hobby, you can´t expect them to develop the needed system mastery fast enough to do these changes when the time comes up for them.

 

[Wicht]

As 4E is geared for people new to the game and/or hobby, you can´t expect them to develop the needed system mastery fast enough to do these changes when the time comes up for them.

Why can't you? We did.

 

[Coldwyn]

Why can't you? We did.

We sure did, back when we started and again with each new edition or system we went into.

The simple question is whether it was worth the time spent on fixing stuff and house-ruling other stuff when we simply could go RAW and spent an equal amount of time actually gaming and not tinkering with the rules.
Sure, tinkering can be a huge appeal for some people, but I still think that should be optional and not the norm.

 

[Imaro]

Yes and no. For adding and removing something from the game, you should have the experience to see what the complete implications are. For example, removing resurresction spells and leaving SoD makes the game too deadly, doing it the other way round make it too simple and so on.
As 4E is geared for people new to the game and/or hobby, you can´t expect them to develop the needed system mastery fast enough to do these changes when the time comes up for them.

The best teacher is actual experience, somehow for years DM's have had access to SoD and gained the experience and knowledge to decide whether (as well as how) they wanted to use them or not. Yeah, I don't think many if any other games have SoD, it's a D&Dism... and strangely enough some people who enjoy D&D, do actually enjoy SoD.

Quick question...How does removing SoD totally from the game ever give someone the experience and knowledge to use the tools properly for the type of game they want?