Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[billd91]

And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree. Maybe football should go to one down? After all, that would be more exciting. Soccer should go to sudden death rules? One strike baseball would be incredibly boring. Much, much faster, but, snore. The whole point of tension is you need periods of build up. A little foreplay goes a long way towards a better climax.

One strike baseball may be boring but it's hardly because the tension mounts all that much in the course of one at-bat. It spikes when the batter is facing that third strike and it does so precisely because he failed to capitalize on previous opportunities (at least 2 other pitches in his strike zone).
Similarly, the save or die mechanic causes tension in a game to spike, usually because you failed to take opportunities to avoid the encounter or hedge against it.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like save or die effects. But why on earth should we assume that things against your preferences are bad design? They're not to your taste, but I think you'll have to acknowledge that your tastes do not define what is and is not good design.

 

[Wicht]

But, that's exactly how a 1 hit die creature with a save or die effect is built. Of course the +25 damage is broken. That's the point. But, why is a 1 HD creature that can instantly kill you, regardless of your level or hit points not broken, but adding +25 to damage is?

Do you have an example of a 1HD monster in 3e/PFRPG with a save or die effect? If not, the argument is something of a strawman. Even if we are talking about increasing the poison lethality of a creature, doing so should increase the CR by anywhere from 1-3 depending on how lethal you make the poison. And I've really yet to see a 3e/PFRPG poison that is truly save or die. Most of them just make you weaker.

Technically, even a medusa isn't save or die. She is save or petrify. A stone to flesh will undo this (level 6 spell). Regardless a medusa is CR 7. She's hardly something you would throw at a 1st level party.

One other thought, a 1HD orc with a +25 to damage is really just silly. Nevertheless, a 1 HD orc does typically have what might be considered a save or die mechanic. They are armed with a greatax, which on a confirmed critical (assuming a +3 strength bonus, 14 str) will do between 12 and 45 points of damage. Enough to kill any first level character. My players have never complained about this. They in fact enjoy the lethality of the greatax. This despite the fact that the orc, with a +3 attack bonus vs an AC of 15 has something like a 1 in 40 chance of killing them dead with a single blow.

 

[Imaro]

But, what about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to turn encounters into autokills? What about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to always have to set them up in EXACTLY the same way every time? ((going back to the statuary fetish that medusa's apparently ALL have))

SSSoD does not mean that the creatures are no longer lethal. It means that the math of the game lines up the encounter with expectations of the level of lethality of the creature.

Wicht above mentions that our 1 HD orc with +25 damage is now a CR 6 monster. But, it's not. It can't hit anything at EL 6 - it only has a +3 (or 4?) attack bonus. By 6th level, most PC's are running in the low 20's for AC's. Now, it's an insignificant speedbump and not even a threat.

That's why I call SoD bad design. Because it doesn't work. It's entirely unpredictable. How much xp should that orc be worth? How much xp should a creature that can kill you instantly be worth compared to a monster that can beat you to death?

These mechanics don't exist in a vacuum. They have effect all the way along.

And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree. Maybe football should go to one down? After all, that would be more exciting. Soccer should go to sudden death rules? One strike baseball would be incredibly boring. Much, much faster, but, snore. The whole point of tension is you need periods of build up. A little foreplay goes a long way towards a better climax.

Ok, I'm going to answer your post in a frank manner... if you want to use an iconic creature (whose iconic abilities are SoD) but not use SoD in your game... you can easily choose not to use the SoD ability... you can reskin another creature to be the "iconic" one you wanted... give the PC's more chances to avoid it... or various other ways in which you basically remove SoD from the game.

One of the things I've never really understood about complaints as far as SoD goes is that in almost any case there is a way to bring the character back... even from death... so what is the real issue? SoD isn't really all that lethal in the context of the entire game. If anything it's a major as opposed to a minor setback for most heroes of a certain level and IMO, that's a good thing... it is a reminder that even the demi-god like heroes of D&D can be taken down if they are not clever, cautious and careful.

Side Note: I see arguments of math and proper CR but honestly I would rather have to engage some DM judgement in order to use a more diverse and interesting set of tools than to just have the tools removed totally because it has been deemed that they don't coincide with some peoples idea of fun. I'm also curious how, in 4e, this is in anyway different. There are no guidelines for how much adding a SSSoD ability raises a monsters level or experience point value?

The main thing, IMO, that differentiates TTRPG from CRPG's and MMORPG's is the ability of the DM to make judgement calls for his particular game... and I for one look at more tools as a good thing that create a more inclusive game.

 

[Hussar]

One strike baseball may be boring but it's hardly because the tension mounts all that much in the course of one at-bat. It spikes when the batter is facing that third strike and it does so precisely because he failed to capitalize on previous opportunities (at least 2 other pitches in his strike zone).
Similarly, the save or die mechanic causes tension in a game to spike, usually because you failed to take opportunities to avoid the encounter or hedge against it.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like save or die effects. But why on earth should we assume that things against your preferences are bad design? They're not to your taste, but I think you'll have to acknowledge that your tastes do not define what is and is not good design.

Umm, for all the reasons I stated above? Because the SoD mechanics are exactly like an Orc with a +25 damage bonus? If the orc with +25 damage is broken, then why isn't a SoD 1 HD monster? (1e and 2e are chock full of them)

Do you have an example of a 1HD monster in 3e/PFRPG with a save or die effect? If not, the argument is something of a strawman. Even if we are talking about increasing the poison lethality of a creature, doing so should increase the CR by anywhere from 1-3 depending on how lethal you make the poison. And I've really yet to see a 3e/PFRPG poison that is truly save or die. Most of them just make you weaker.

Technically, even a medusa isn't save or die. She is save or petrify. A stone to flesh will undo this (level 6 spell). Regardless a medusa is CR 7. She's hardly something you would throw at a 1st level party.

One other thought, a 1HD orc with a +25 to damage is really just silly. Nevertheless, a 1 HD orc does typically have what might be considered a save or die mechanic. They are armed with a greatax, which on a confirmed critical (assuming a +3 strength bonus, 14 str) will do between 12 and 45 points of damage. Enough to kill any first level character. My players have never complained about this. They in fact enjoy the lethality of the greatax. This despite the fact that the orc, with a +3 attack bonus vs an AC of 15 has something like a 1 in 40 chance of killing them dead with a single blow.

Considering that Raise Dead is a 5th level spell, I would point out that Petrify is actually MORE lethal than something that kills you.

Unless Pathfinder changed it back, there's a reason that 3.5 changed greataxe to falchion from 3.0.

Don't get too wrapped up in the specific example. You want something better? Ok, how's this.

Medusa is a CR 7 creature. Let's take a slightly smaller monster, a Troll, CR 5 (in 3.5 edition). Now, we add a +100 damage bonus to each of the troll's attack. Now he operates EXACTLY like a medusa. Just about the exact same chances of killing a PC.

Is he a CR 7 creature?

I totally agree that the orc or the troll are ridiculous creatures. Totally agree. But, why are they ridiculous when the medusa isn't? If granting super damage bonuses makes a monster ridiculous, why is it suddenly good design that a creature has an ability that deals instant death regardless of the strength of the target?

See, your bit about the 1 in 40 chance for the orc is exactly my point. It's exciting to know that the possibility is there that you're going to get smoked by that really lucky roll. Even if that chance will almost never come up. The possibility is what makes it exciting.

Now, change the chance from one in 40 to one in four or one in two and see how excited your players are.

-----

Let's be clear here. It's not that I don't like SoD therefore its bad design. It's bad design because IT'S BAD DESIGN. If it's good design to have monsters bypass hit points, then it should always be good design. It's not though. The idea of a +100 damage troll is ludicrous. No one would put that in a game because it's badly, badly broken.

But, for some reason, a medusa has effectively a +infinity damage bonus and that's good design?

 

[Aldern Foxglove]

Medusas are fun and cool, them turning a PC to stone does not kill the PC and offers an interesting scenario where with options and many possible memorable scenarios for returning the PC. +25 damage does nothing save make something more lethal.

Your arguments are invalid because you are ignoring the rules and making up scenarios - 1hd monsters with save or dies - that simply don't exist. If you deliberately ignore the rules and use silly examples things tend not to work - shocking!

 

[Wicht]

In game terms, being petrified is not the same as being dead. There are different consequences. I'm afraid your constant harping on the medusa is starting to wear a little thin. She's a CR 7 with a powerful gaze attack and by the time the PCs encounter her they are going to have some tricks of their own. The troll is a CR 5 and if you suddenly gave him new powers then yes, his CR would likely need to go up. So what exactly is the point of bringing in a troll?

But the point is moot. You acknowledge a slight chance of getting killed is fun. Therefore we are just left arguing percentages. It becomes a simple matter of opinion. You think 1 in 40 is fine, I might be comfortable with 1 in 10 and someone else with 1 in 2. For you to attack some one else's opinion as bad is unecessarily antagonistic.

And, Hussar, you avoided the question: Is there a 1 HD monster out there with a save or die effect you would like us to actually discuss? If not, please quit bringing it up as I don't think they exist.

 

[BryonD]

And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree. Maybe football should go to one down? After all, that would be more exciting.

I think you actually frame the real problem here. One size does not fit all. There are most certainly cases where One Strike (SoD) is best and cases in which step by step changes (SSSSoD) are best.

3E has both. 4E says, no SoD.

Three strikes works great in baseball and modeling that in a dice game with a SoD type mechanic would be weak.

But being an advocate of SoD in no way remotely means all things should be SoD.

But the 4E defenders are stuck trying to frame the debate as A vs. B.
It really is a question of should we have A AND B, or should A be banned.

I vote for A and B. Apply each where fitting.

 

[BryonD]

But, for some reason, a medusa has effectively a +infinity damage bonus and that's good design?

Can you define "good design"?
I don't think you and I have the same definitions here.

Its the old "gamist vs. simulationist" divide.

If you want a mathematically pure tactics game then +infinity is TERRIBLE design. But if you want a mathematically pure tactics game then you CAN'T HAVE Medusa. You just can't. You can have a snake haired woman. And you can give her your SSSoD mechanic. And you can hang a sign around her neck that says "medusa".

But go ask a random person on the street what happens when you look at medusa. When you look at medusa you are done. There is no tactical or balance issues once you get to that point. And I understand and respect that from a mini battle tactics point of view, that sucks. If you prime goal is great tactical balance, you are going to hate medusa. You might really want to SAY you have medusa in your game, but you are going to HATE the classical idea of medusa.

There are different views here.

And for me the quote that got me going again on this (admittedly quoted by someone else and several months old at that point) was:

Nobody likes save or dies. WotC doesn't need to comment that humans need oxygen anymore then they need to claim "Well our customers claimed people don't like saving throw kills." It's a fact of life.

"nobody" like "oxygen" "fact of life"

A football fan who hates baseball may as well make the same stupid comments about hitting a ball with a stick. It may be true to him, but declaring it universal is beyond absurd.

To me the mechanics of the game are to be as far in the background as possible. Yes, there are going to be a lot of compromises along the way. But that should always be the goal. FOR ME. I don't have any problem with a lot of people disagreeing. But a lot of people also agree.

Medusa should work the way it happens in the stories. Balance be damned. I don't care about the math or the tactical matters. I want the story. I want the PCs to overcome (or fail trying) the threat of a one look and you are gone foe.

It does put some demand on the DM. There isn't a safety net and some thoughfulness and skill is presumed. And it is ok if a new DM screws up, learns and moves on.

But that is a different game style.
It exists whether those who don't like it admit it or not.

Good design gets the story right. And, when needed, +infinite damage is awesome design.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Medusa should work the way it happens in the stories. Balance be damned.

Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.

See, that's the thing about stories. There is no balance or math. It's a story. There's no game mechanics behind it. If you want things to be "like the stories" then you never roll a single die.

The medusa was described as someone who could petrify, but shown as someone who dies like a chump as soon as the protagonist shows up.

There is no gamist vs simulationist divide. The terms are utterly meaningless.

 

[Imaro]

Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.

See, that's the thing about stories. There is no balance or math. It's a story. There's no game mechanics behind it. If you want things to be "like the stories" then you never roll a single die.

The medusa was described as someone who could petrify, but shown as someone who dies like a chump as soon as the protagonist shows up.

There is no gamist vs simulationist divide. The terms are utterly meaningless.

See I think your biggest probblem, and probably a divide between players of D&D is the old... "destined to be a hero" vs. "the chance to be a hero." You see the only person who killed medusa in the story was Perseus... the hero.

Now if you assume that the PC's are all Perseus then yes they shouldn't be killed by medusa, and if this is taken to the extreme...anything else for that matter (which is kind of absurd IMO).

However if you're of the mindset that all being a PC does is guarantee you the chance to become a hero (by overcoming and defeating challenges) then medusa and everything else should have a chance to defeat you in ways appropriate to their mythology... and if you do kill her then and only then are you a hero... otherwise you're one of the numerous warriors that went into medusa's layer in Clash of the Titans and never came out.