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

[mmadsen]

That sounds like it's simply taking damage equal to the difference between the attack roll and your defense +1, and that's certainly one way to go, though damage will likely be confined to a fairly limited range unless attack bonus scales while defenses don't.

The point is that such "damage" wouldn't be limited to wounds from physical threats that hit. If you fail a Ref save by a large margin, you have the option to spend a lot of plot-protection points to avoid ever getting hit, or you can accept the hit and then try to make your Fort save to avoid going down.

Most of a character's extra resilience would come in the form of higher saves. Plot-protection points would just make sure they fulfill their destiny -- or come closer.

I'm fine with metaphysical "plot" protection. Yes, a dagger will kill you as dead as a sword or a giant's club in realistic terms. But, assuming there are balancing measures, I don't have an issue with a sword dealing more damage than a dagger to keep things interesting.

A giant's club would still do more damage than a sword or dagger under such a system. It might not force a harder Ref save, but it would force a harder Fort save on a hit.

Almost caught a glance of the medusa (you were hit but didn't take enough damage from her gaze attack)? Death is nonetheless looming a little bit closer as a result.

Exactly. You're not hurt by barely avoiding Medusa's gaze, but you've used up a bit of your luck.

HP have never been very realistic, but they're both simple and exciting (at least when you're low) which makes them effective! I think part of that may be the absence of a death spiral.

I think the whole notion of a death spiral only came up because so many people were frustrated with the image of a high-level character shrugging off a half-dozen sword and spear hits -- that overcame his armor! -- and being no worse for wear.

There isn't much call for a death spiral when characters aren't getting hit and wounded repeatedly.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have not had a chance to read all the pages yet but I think they need to have save vs death in some form in the game. There should be a way to add it to the game for people who want it and tone it down for people who don't want it. the options could be right there in the spell description of effects.

Personally I don't understand the idea of it sucks because I came to play and now I don't get to because my character is dead. There are other ways to die in the game other spells can kill and weapons kill.

this is one of those things that can be handled my dials for lethality let the group decide how lethal they want their game to be.

 

[avin]

I think it would definately better if all classes could get in on save or die. I've never understood why "disintegrate" was save or die, but "knife to the head" wasn't.

Absolutely, yes. And fall from higher ground should kill. Down with the menthality where only magic is save or die.

I've never been a big fan of save or die, but I could live with it if its targeting was restricted to bloodied characters (with a lesser effect applying against non-bloodied).

Color me as a not big fan of this but, for certain monsters, it must exist. There's no such thing as a Medusa that does not petrify. It's like level draining monsters, I hate them, so I avoid them.

I don't see how the game can get along just fine with assassins, whose very job description is killing human beings quickly, without save or die, but monsters and mages can't. If assassins without save or die can exist in a game without the rules causing cognative dissonance, there is no reason a medusa has to instantly kill.

Agreed, so I think there must be save or die for all of them.

Stuff.

Can't spread more XP today

I'd like save or die to come back for some iconic monsters.

DMs who dislike them should avoid them, it worked for me.

Not only casters should have save or die stuff. A knife on the eye should kill as much as a Power Word Kill.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't consider it a no true Scotsman fallacy when someone says that the defining feature of Medusa is that she turns anyone who looks at her to stone.

You're free to do what you want, of course, but a "medusa" that doesn't petrify people doesn't seem like a medusa to most people. If you want something different from the iconic original, it's fine to go in a different direction, but that's an unusual goal.

It's more a matter of the attitude that "it's either Save-or-Die petrification or it's not a medusa" that I find the "true Scotsman." I find that attitude in line with what Mearls was talking about with how he felt that 4E was telling people that the only way to play guitar is thrash metal.

I have not had a chance to read all the pages yet but I think they need to have save vs death in some form in the game. There should be a way to add it to the game for people who want it and tone it down for people who don't want it. the options could be right there in the spell description of effects.
....
this is one of those things that can be handled my dials for lethality let the group decide how lethal they want their game to be.

This is entirely reasonable and what most reasonable people who understand the D&D Next design goals are asking for.

Personally I don't understand the idea of it sucks because I came to play and now I don't get to because my character is dead. There are other ways to die in the game other spells can kill and weapons kill.

For many people, it's the "one-unlucky-roll" aspect. There is dying through attrition in combat, and then there is dying a "red shirt death."

 

[Elf Witch]

For many people, it's the "one-unlucky-roll" aspect. There is dying through attrition in combat, and then there is dying a "red shirt death."

I can understand that. And why some people don't like it.

I lost a favorite character to a troll who ripped her apart in one round I was at full hit points then I was dead no save involved. So I see that possibility of being killed like that as part of the game.

It is why I really want to see a way to adapt the game to different levels sometimes I want a real down and dirty gritty game and other times I don't I really want it hard for the PCs to die.

 

[Aldarc]

I can understand that. And why some people don't like it.

I lost a favorite character to a troll who ripped her apart in one round I was at full hit points then I was dead no save involved. So I see that possibility of being killed like that as part of the game.

It is why I really want to see a way to adapt the game to different levels sometimes I want a real down and dirty gritty game and other times I don't I really want it hard for the PCs to die.

I think we are on the same page. WotC claims that the lessons from the OGL and GSL have not gone unnoticed. If WotC wants to minimize the number of alternate system competitors in the market that provide non-Vancian systems, lack save-or-die, and allow players to run different styles of campaigns, then they will need to provide these various options within the game itself and not be exclusionary with certain hardline aspects.

 

[Lanefan]

How do you all feel about save-or-die when both you-as-player and you-as-character know it's (potentially) coming, as opposed to a random surprise event?

Last night's game is a fine example. We've been told we're up against a huge ancient Red Dragon (and have for some reason contractually obligated ourselves to kill it), we've taken all kinds of precautions, and into its lair we go. And on our way in it breathes on all of us for enough damage that a failed save would insta-kill every party member (and we're a huge party!) except one. Normally, that's save-or-die all round; however our precautions - e.g. fire resistance for all - mitigated this enough that in most cases a failed save only hurt a whole lot....which is a good thing as our rolls were awful.

Is this acceptable? Also, would it be acceptable to unleash hell if the party had failed to heed the warnings? [my answer is yes to both, by the way]

Oh, and to finish the story: my guy still died in this one: he made his save vs. the breath but then had the dragon - all ten-or-so tons of it - crash land on him when the party shot it down. I finished at -74.

Lan-"another one bites the dust"-efan

 

[ferratus]

I have a lot less problems with save or die if it isn't a matter of random spell selection or a random monster.

If the monster is a legendary creature like Orcus, who you know can destroy you in a single act, then I don't have a problem with it. Especially since you are fighting him at a time when the campaign is either going to be over anyway, or you are so powerful that death has lost a lot of its sting.

Otherwise if a creature can kill you with a single action, it should be rare, feared and famous enough that its reputation of its deadliness spreads far and wide. Any creature that spreads death with a thought, touch or look should be thought of as close to the gods as far as I'm concerned.

If players have it, I mostly don't like save or die when it comes to climactic battles and set pieces. On shlub monsters below the character's level I don't mind so much.

In fact, this might be a solution to the minion problem. If monster HD is 5-10 levels below you, a save or die effect upon a hit would be an excellent way to speed up combat without the problems of monsters having 1 hp. Certainly if a monster is 10 levels below you in D&D 1e-3e you are probably nearly 1 shot killing them anyway. With save or die, there would just be less book keeping.

 

[Stormonu]

How do you all feel about save-or-die when both you-as-player and you-as-character know it's (potentially) coming, as opposed to a random surprise event?

Knowing whether its coming or not, for me, isn't the issue. For me, the issue is it happens.

I'd rather not let one bad roll, whether I knew the effect was coming or not, kill a PC/NPC. It's harder to stop when it's just accrued damage > hp, but it's certainly too easy when it's one failed roll = death. Mitigating it to multiple checks helps with the latter, but there's currently no way to deal with former.

It's sort of the reason I like bennies in the Savage World game. You can use bennies (hero points, luck points, whatever you want to call them) to keep your character or for the DM to legally keep NPCs in the game for longer - or to help them get off their special abilities so they don't look such a wimp when it fails and they get canned.

I don't think hero points should be a Core D&D rule, but I definitely think it should be an option presented in Core. In this way, you could have a save-or-suck system as default and at least one option to opt-out.

However, my preference would be for there to be a 3-saves-and-your-out save-or-die system in core, with an option noted that if you want a deadlier game you can switch it to one-save-to-terminal-effect, and if you want to soften it, throw in the option of hero points.

 

[GSHamster]

5E needs Alternate Win Conditions. But they need to be a lot more playable than Save or Die. There should be gameplay aspects in trying to avoid the oncoming doom.

For example, instead of a straight save-or-die Power Word: Death spell, maybe the spell summons a Grim Reaper who can move 10 or 20 feet round towards the target. If the Reaper catches the target, the target is slain.

This spell avoids hitpoints, it can kill a PC who's at full health. But the PC can avoid her death through gameplay. Avoiding her death might cause other problems, but that's the fun.