Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[BryonD]

What's D&D simulating, in this 'simulationist' version of yours? It's not medusa, or there'd be no saving throw involved. You either know the secret or you die.

First, in D&D worlds the secret is generally known. Perseus knew.

Second, I always interpret making the save as having not seen. If you DO see, you turn to stone.

 

[BryonD]

Bingo.

Perseus never had a saving throw. There was no math. There was no gaming system. He knew the trick and killed the medusa with ease.

Already forgot the lesson, eh?

Three things. Three.

1) Tactical Games
2) Stories
3) "SAEs"

You are still demanding that everything fall under item #1 or item #2

That's how SoD works. You know the trick and the monster isn't scary, or you don't know the trick and the monster still isn't scary, the dice are.

To you, perhaps. But, since by your own words you don't get the way others do it, that really says nothing to our experience.

Sorry, I don't see the huge and amazing story behind "Sorry you rolled a 5, you die.

Because you are looking behind the "rolled a 5" and it isn't there. Your bad.

Incidentally, calculus can be mathematically proven. Go on and prove the "simulationist vs gamist" divide.

Heh, man, you don't even understand that point I made there either. Whether or not they can be proven the same is in no remote way related to the point.


Seriously, are you going to just keep repeating the same irrelevant disconnections? Or are you going to try to say something that shows you understand the conversation?

 

[BryonD]

If you're basing your version of Medusa on Clash of the Titans rather than the original Greek myths, I'm not surprised I, doing the opposite, don't agree with you. The original story is just a bit different to the film.

Do you use SSSoD? Can you quote a basis from the original story?

 

[BryonD]

I'll agree I don't think it should have been a Fort save, I think it should have been a Ref save myself to represent the involuntary flinching away, blinking, etc. that might allow one to survive contact with Medusa. But I still think SoD models it more towards the stories and movies featuring medusa than SSSoD does in the game.

To me it is a will save, even reflexes are too slow.

But it is funny that with 4E being loaded with make up the narrative to fit the result by definition, that modeling a made save as meaning you didn't look is suddenly some wild stretch.

 

[Imaro]

To me it is a will save, even reflexes are too slow.

But it is funny that with 4E being loaded with make up the narrative to fit the result by definition, that modeling a made save as meaning you didn't look is suddenly some wild stretch.

Yeah. For some reason, for some people the ability to reskin seems limited to 4e... go figure...

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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.

In 1e and 2e there are several - snakes and spiders come to mind.

The point isn't the hit dice. The point is, the SoD mechanic is just as broken as adding +100 to a monster's damage. That's my point with the troll. Medusa is also not the specific point really. Basilisk and Bodak work exactly the same way.

You're right, it's all about the math. Being okay with 1 in 2 doesn't make the mechanics well designed. If a creature has a 1 in 2 chance of instantly killing a PC in D&D, that's a poorly designed monster. It's binary. There's no middle ground. No tactics. Nothing. You're either alive or dead. No build up of tension.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Actually, 3e doesn't have both. 3e has SoD, but it doesn't have SSSoD. What's the difference? Why should you win and I lose? Why is it better for the game to only have SoD instead of SSSoD when SSSoD is in better keeping with the mechanics of the game?

After all, in all other aspects of combat, you don't have instant kills. As was agreed on, adding +100 to the damage of a monster is bad design. But, it's suddenly good design that a creature can completely bypass all standard combat mechanics - AC, hit points - and instantly kill a PC?

/edit - oops my bad for responding before reading the rest of the thread. BryonD already admitted that the 3e mechanics fail to simulate his version of Medusa, so, I guess my work here is done.

 

[Imaro]

In 1e and 2e there are several - snakes and spiders come to mind.

The point isn't the hit dice. The point is, the SoD mechanic is just as broken as adding +100 to a monster's damage. That's my point with the troll. Medusa is also not the specific point really. Basilisk and Bodak work exactly the same way.

You're right, it's all about the math. Being okay with 1 in 2 doesn't make the mechanics well designed. If a creature has a 1 in 2 chance of instantly killing a PC in D&D, that's a poorly designed monster. It's binary. There's no middle ground. No tactics. Nothing. You're either alive or dead. No build up of tension.

Sometimes an all or nothing tension is better since it actually...you, know...guarantees some type of tension.

See the thing is... if you make the first saving throw in SSSoD... there is no tension whatsoever. So now medusa really is a joke. In fact I would argue if the first or second save is made it kinda becomes a let down as far as tension goes as you never reach that point where it is do or die...seat of your pants...all or nothing tension. In fact I would say this mechanic promotes the probability of a let down in tension, far more than it does tension, IMO.

 

[Tuft]

Except in soap operas, where they can sometimes come back the next season anyway as part of the plot.

and comic books, where the same thing happens.

and Lord of the Rings. where Gandalf gets another chance.

and The Frighteners, where not only does the antagonist come back from the dead, but so does the protoganist (twice).

and the Godzilla franchise where Godzilla gets a ton of do-overs.

But other than that, yeah, when someone dies, they are normally dead.

Of course, in most of my games, when people die they are normally considered dead as well.

Recurring, familiar villains are often really cool: The Joker, professor Moriarty, The Dragon Lady, Shego, Callisto...

Unfortunately, the common RPG meme that all defeats must be kills precludes both recurring villains (unless they are just shadowy figures pulling strings and only confronted in the final fight - yawn...), and the opposite, equally cool situation: the heroes get defeated, captured, and then have to break out or earn your freedom... Hard to pull off convincingly if the default is that those defeated always get killed.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, 3e doesn't have both. 3e has SoD, but it doesn't have SSSoD. What's the difference? Why should you win and I lose? Why is it better for the game to only have SoD instead of SSSoD when SSSoD is in better keeping with the mechanics of the game?

What version of 3e do you play?

After all, in all other aspects of combat, you don't have instant kills. As was agreed on, adding +100 to the damage of a monster is bad design. But, it's suddenly good design that a creature can completely bypass all standard combat mechanics - AC, hit points - and instantly kill a PC?

Huh? When it fits, it fits, and when it doesn't, it doesn't.

Yes, when an effect should be instant kill it is a good thing that it is instant kill.

/edit - oops my bad for responding before reading the rest of the thread. BryonD already admitted that the 3e mechanics fail to simulate his version of Medusa, so, I guess my work here is done.

Not quite clear which version you are talking about here.

Just to be clear, 3E does an adequate job of modeling medusa. SSSoD is, to me, a disaster for this specific. I don't claim perfection anywhere, but the medusa which have appeared in my game are far from failure. Perhaps I was referencing something I didn't want, or maybe you misunderstood something. Either way, no big deal.