D&D 5E Should 5e have save or die?

[ferratus]

Should 5e have save or die spells or poisons?

I hate it. I think its terrible design for a table top game, and it would have to be an incredibly impressive system to overlook the fact that weeks of Sundays, Sundays I could be using for any number of activities, are rendered moot by a single bad roll. It is one of the things that would make me go back to 4e, no matter what I think 4e's flaws are.

But it is also D&D to many people. But if the disintegrate spell isn't save or die, is arguing about whether magic is Vancian or not really worthwhile? If there are no save or die spells, you've already broken with tradition anyway? Is there a way to make save or die modular? Is there any compromise on save or die effects that would satisfy both camps?

 

[Wormwood]

Is there a way to make save or die modular? Is there any compromise on save or die effects that would satisfy both camps?

Now that's the question, isn't it?

Character death is rare enough in my 4e game, and I'm not sure I want the default 5e to stray too far afield from that. But even if 5e characters are, by default, a bit more brittle, there's no way I would like to see a return to having a single die roll end a character's life.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yes. If there are no save or dies, there's no 5e for me and my group. Don't like them? Don't use them.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'd say make it modular.

Maybe certain abilities have two ways of ruling them "killer" version and "non killer" version.

I don't know, but I hate save or die. It sucks the fun out of a night for me. I realize some others disagree with that.

 

[nnms]

Save or Die needs to be directly tied with quick and rapid character generation. The amount of work that goes into a 3.x or 4E character makes save or die a pretty horrible prospect. It's a lot of work flushed down the toilet.

Now with some older versions of the game (and some slimmed down OGL games) you can make a character in a couple of minutes and be ready to get back into the game.

 

[ferratus]

Yes. If there are no save or dies, there's no 5e for me and my group. Don't like them? Don't use them.

See that's the thing. I can see having Vancian magic itself be optional more than I can see save or die being optional.

Having a wizard and sorcerer solves the Vancian magic problem quite well. I like Vancian magic so I play a wizard. Joe doesn't so he plays a sorcerer. Joe doesn't like me pushing to always rest at low levels, but we can generally get along.

But with save or die it seems that the system has to choose one option or the other. Unless of course you want to cut poisons or necromancy out of the game by "not using it", and trust me I don't.

 

[keterys]

I'd extend it further to "save or suck". So, one roll to petrify, paralyze, sleep, or whatever for the combat.

I'm _guessing_ we'll have it as a design option, and I'm also guessing the default won't have them - though that's not too surprising. I mean, you don't have them in any edition of D&D if you don't include certain monsters and spells. I've played plenty of tables that didn't, depending on who showed up, or what adventure we did. Now we just need to tag everything that divide falls on and have two versions of medusas, beholders, sleep spells, finger of death, etc.

That or they need something ingenious to satisfy folks. Like, I'd look at something that only triggered when some other stuff was wrong with you. Finger of Death that only kills the target if it's below a certain amount of hp? Fine with me - the problem isn't death, it's making it too trivial and creating an arms race of immunities and win buttons. So how do you spin that to make it usable for both camps equally? Maybe a Vulnerable tag that is group settable, so the pro save or die crew is always vulnerable, and the anti have vulnerable kick in at 50%, 25%, or 10% hp as they see fit?

 

[Ahnehnois]

It has to exist in some form. The glare of the basilisk. The touch of the lich. A pale green ray. All of these are classics. Even non-D&D players know that looking at a medusa turns you to stone. Some of these things really should not have a save at all. Hold person, sleep, and the rust monster also need to exist in a non-neutered form. Save-or-die is a sine qua non; D&D without Finger of Death isn't D&D.

There are two big questions that come off of it, though:

*One, is there and should there be some way of playing the game without it? Certainly, some people seem pretty vehemently opposed to it. There is a wide range of preferences regarding the lethality of the game as a whole, and this is a significant cause of lethality. If you'e going to please everyone, there may have to be an off-switch to meet certain tastes.

*Two, what other developments will be in the arms race? If a health system is adopted such that a fighter or rogue could realistically kill a powerful mage in one hit, then the sense of fairness for everyone increases.

***

Don't like them? Don't use them.

A simple but important point. There are few enough of them that if you think they're a problem it's easy to ignore them. Now, if the DM likes save-or-die and the player's don't, that's not the rules' fault.

 

[kmdietri]

I hope it's there, I love save or die. My hope is that every class can have in on the fun though.

 

[keterys]

The other problem with the save or die equivalent - whether it's a fighter beheading an enemy, a mage's finger of death, cleric's blasphemy, or whatever - is that it also creates the rocket tag problem.

Roll initiative? Who went first? Okay, you win. Next.

It's a tricky balancing problem - I _think_ most people would prefer a version of D&D that wasn't as abruptly resolved in one round.

Even if you keep pure save or dies, you can also temper them by saying that, for instance, you only die right away on a 1, but suffer some lesser effect on a failed save, and nothing at all on a successful save. Gives you some middle ground.

Edit: It's worth note that save or die was very different depending on edition for almost exactly that reason - I didn't mind it as much (though I still had problems with it) in our 1/2e games because I might have to roll a 1 or 2 to fail the save. In 3e, I might need to roll a _20_ to succeed on the save in some cases, so I grew to really despise it.