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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One could make the "Bloodied" condition and "total surprise" situations nastier by allowing save or die effects then. (Or maybe just "die" effects, actually?) If you're so unprepared, or so weakened, you can die by a single spell or a knife attack to the head. But if you're prepared and not too weakened, the enemies spell won't really hit you, and that knife might be aimed for your head, but won't hit it.

Generally, I think it may be good if the system allows "engineering" situations where you can kill someone instantly. Ambushes, whittling down someone's hit points so he's weakened enough. but it shouldn't be easy, and ultimately, it should require some level of work on the attacking side and some level of failure on the defending side (e.g. not forseeing the attack).

Theoretically, 4E D&D allows a single Intimidate check to take a bloodied NPC out of a fight by forcing him to retreat. It seems a mere technicality to also have some kind of arcane deaths spell that does something similar, except the enemy dies from it and doesn't merely retreat.

Also to keep in mind:

A monster like the Medusa in mythology is a special monster. There are no Medusa Archers, Medusa Spellslingers, Medusa Minions (4e speak), nor Medusa Fighters and Medusa Barbarians and Medusa Rogue/Assassin (3e speak). There is this one, unique monster that petrifies you if you encounter it. You won't encounter it by accident, because people fear it and know where it is, usually.

Such a special "story creature" can be allowed to do things that monsters that you meet by the dozen in random encounters. Just as the story as you use it will also offer some counters if the party is smart enough to figure them out.

If you put save or die abilities on spells, then such spells should be equally rare. A 15th level Wizard shouldn't slot 20 spells from which 6 can be save or die spells. Maybe he should be able to slot only 5 spells, and one of these is reputed to be a deadly spell, allowing him to kill a person just by pointing his finger at it.

 

[BryonD]

No need for the sarcasm.

You might want to go back and look at the dripping in sarcasm post from you I replied to before you stand by that....

This is not the "current edition" forum. This is the D&D Next discussion forum.

Of course. But the "current edition" provides an excellent object lesson for designing "D&D next". Why are you rejecting looking at history for lessons?

You may want to check out their design goals and see whether they match your own.

My goal is a much bigger fan base than 4E had. What is yours and do you think it aligns with WotC better than that?

I want for there to be options for SoD, but I also don't want someone else's style of gaming to trample and impede on mine.

Who said it had to?

How do they not have anything to do with gaming? These "absolutes" effectively form rules for how the game works. Your statement below, for example, basically dictates the rules for how the the rules for the medusa must operate along SoD, and if it's not SoD, then it's not a "true Medusa."

It takes more than just that to be a "true Medusa". But without that it may not be Medusa. If you can look at it and take some harm but not turn to stone the de facto it is not Medusa. It may be a cool fun monster but it is not Medusa.

Your game packed with "lesser Medusa's" may be awesome fun, but if you look at Medusa you turn to stone.

I would rather see monster abilities have lethality dial options for DMs, who may want appropriately adjust monsters as they see fit for their particular campaigns and settings.

Cool.
You can put a dial on Medusa and have an awesome fun game.
I endorse that as a great idea for next edition.

If you turn the "look at" dial off the pegged, the monster stops being Medusa. It may be a more fun monster than Medusa. It may be less fun. There is no merit to claiming either side of that is truth.

But it stops being Medusa.

 

[BryonD]

The Medusa was the daughter of gods who didn't hang around in dungeon complexes or on random encounter tabes.

This is a very valid point.

However the distinction between mechanical simulation and narrative role is important.

D&D has always simply declared that Medusa, Pegasus, Minotaur, etc.... are names of races rather than unique individuals as the myths endorse. But I could use 3E to run a world in which there is only one Medusa and tell an alternate version of the myth. The mechanical simulation of Medusa fits that.

4E does not lend itself to doing a quality job of providing that option.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I firmly believe that save or die should be optional.

I also don't agree with it for reasons of verisimilitude. A single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism.

You don't need magic to kill people; folks die in the real world all the time. I expect if you polled people on the streets, you'd find the idea of someone who can't be killed by any less than two strikes from a sword to be at least as absurd as a medusa who can't instantly turn you to stone, and probably more so.

The difference between save or die and dying from hp attrition is that one minor streak of (bad) luck typically won't cause you to die from damage, but will cost you with save or die. You only have to fail a search for traps once in order for a poison trap to cost your character's life. A bad roll during combat typically won't kill you outright; usually you have a chance to recover by playing well.

And I absolutely don't want to see a return to the good old days of tapping every tile with a 10' pole just in case. Sure it's smart play in a world filled with instant death, but it's also lame. You don't see navy seals engaging in such behavior, Conan didn't do it, and Indiana Jones didn't behave that way, so why do D&D characters?

As for whoever said that players would not want to sacrifice save-or-die so that the DM is denied it? Patently false, at least in the case of my group. We used save or die once, on a boss, and realized that it was so anti-climactic that we had no taste for it. This was back in the 3e days, and the DM had spent literally hours putting together this monstrosity; it rolled a natural 1 on it's save and an epic fight was reduced to nothing. After that, we boycotted save-or-die, even if the DM didn't. For us, it doesn't add anything to the game; it just reduces the fun for everyone.

We're not looking to be coddled. Our favorite DM, although impartial, takes great pride in killing characters. But there's nothing to take pride in when death is totally random, as is the case with save-or-die. To put it another way, there's nothing inherently skilled about playing an FPS wherein everyone just uses one-shot-one-kill rocket launchers.

I guess you can attribute my biggest qualm with save-or-die to that there's never a sense of accomplishment with it, regardless of the outcome.

IMO, of course.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a very valid point.

However the distinction between mechanical simulation and narrative role is important.

D&D has always simply declared that Medusa, Pegasus, Minotaur, etc.... are names of races rather than unique individuals as the myths endorse. But I could use 3E to run a world in which there is only one Medusa and tell an alternate version of the myth. The mechanical simulation of Medusa fits that.

4E does not lend itself to doing a quality job of providing that option.

I think you could do both equally good in either edition.

The thing is - there is ton of stuff happening in the game world that the rules don't try to simulate by default. From going to the toilet to how the evil arch wizard can actually destroy the entire plane in his pursuit for power (which the PCs are trying to stop).

But maybe we should have better mechanical support for some of this. Maybe there should be a rule that allows us to make Medusas as a race, and have The Medusa as unique monster. But we should't just mix them. In my opinion, for "The Medusa", there doesn't even have to be a save. No one that ever looked the mythological Medusa in the eye got just a chance to petrify. It happened, the end. You needed to be prepared with special magical items. but you wouldn't really meet her accidentally when walking around a corner. (Unless you really missed all the clues with status of armed guys in various state of surprise, the rumors and the stories in the surrounding cities and villages, you missed your historical creatures exam in Wizard School and all of that). But a Medusa as a race that just insta-petrifies everyone - that doesn't really work. It's silly, even. For the race Medusa which allows hundreds or thousands of individuals of them, the petrificatio thing must be more myth than reality - based on a kernel of truth, sure, maybe some mythological "uber Medusa", or the ability to petrify weakened or dead individuals, or just the habit of creating stone statues of fallen foes as a warning to others.

Save or Die or even "just Die" effects may have a place in any game, but it must be a special place. It can't just be something on the random encounter list or on a regular spell list.

 

[mmadsen]

I firmly believe that save or die should be optional.

I also don't agree with it for reasons of verisimilitude. A single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism.

You don't need magic to kill people; folks die in the real world all the time. I expect if you polled people on the streets, you'd find the idea of someone who can't be killed by any less than two strikes from a sword to be at least as absurd as a medusa who can't instantly turn you to stone, and probably more so.

The difference between save or die and dying from hp attrition is that one minor streak of (bad) luck typically won't cause you to die from damage, but will cost you with save or die. You only have to fail a search for traps once in order for a poison trap to cost your character's life. A bad roll during combat typically won't kill you outright; usually you have a chance to recover by playing well.

As you note, a single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism; it should be save-or-die.

But it's not, because high-level characters -- who aren't minions -- lose their plot-protection points instead.

So why can't they use these plot-protection points against threats that aren't swords and arrows? Why don't they have the same buffer against poison and petrification that they have against fireballs and claws?

 

[Fanaelialae]

As you note, a single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism; it should be save-or-die.

But it's not, because high-level characters -- who aren't minions -- lose their plot-protection points instead.

So why can't they use these plot-protection points against threats that aren't swords and arrows? Why don't they have the same buffer against poison and petrification that they have against fireballs and claws?

I believe it should work that way (that hp protect you from poison and petrification as well as swords). Although, as I stated, I have no problem with a save-or-die option existing, for those that prefer that sort of thing.

 

[keterys]

True, at that point you could actually extend it a lot further.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True, at that point you could actually extend it a lot further.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.

Well, I would, in game terms, do it the other way around.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're at 0 hit points, save or be disintegrated.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're at 0 hit points, save or lose a limb and become dying.

Only difference is that the mage is slightly more deadly, but to be frank - if you just lost your arm, you may, if you're lucky, survive, but you still have one arm less and will be out for days or weeks. Probably not able to fight about as long as a guy reduced to ashes in a world of raise dead.

 

[mmadsen]

True, at that point you could actually extend it a lot further.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.

I'd rather see it go the other way. Failed your Ref save? Use your not-really-hit points to boost it. The disintegration ray never hit you. Just missed your Fort save? Use your not-really-hit points to boost it. The ax deflected off your armor.