Save or Die, would it bother you as a player if

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa.

So something I was thinking about is how far can this be pushed. I thought I would start with save or die. Of course the DM can rule save or die in or out of the game for all players. But what if the rules were set so that if the DM doesn't particularly care, then individual players could select.

An example, drawing from another thread, for the medusa.
Option 1 (save or die not selected by a player): Make a constitution save. If you fail your save, you are blind for one round (you managed to close your eyes just in time) and you loose X hit points. If your hit points are reduced below 0 you are petrified.
Option 2 (save or die selected by a player): Make a constitution save at +5. If you fail, you are petrified.


Assuming that the average level of danger is comparable (those who elect save or die have a larger penalty but it is less likely to occur), if you like save or die, would it bother you that other players can choose not to be subject to it? If you do not like save or die, would it bother you that other players can choose to be subject to it?

 

[Lanefan]

At any given table the rules should as far as possible be the same for all at that table. Otherwise you're sliding down the slippery slope to Calvinball.

Lanefan

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm not wasting character resources on protecting a throw-away minion, and I'm not interested in a roleplaying game where investing in my character is foolhardy.

 

[Raith5]

Interesting question. But I m with Lanefan: rules like this should be consistent around the table. I think I can understand PC details varying but rules about surges/hp, saves/ death effects, combat interrupts should be commonly agreed rules about how you want to your collective experience and story to proceed.

 

[cyphus5]

I'm not wasting character resources on protecting a throw-away minion, and I'm not interested in a roleplaying game where investing in my character is foolhardy.

I'm the opposite. Save or die affects are something I wish would come back. Keep in mind though, that nothing in D&D is truly save or die, because you can resurrect and stone to flesh for example. So, in D&D, I dont get the save or die gripes...

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm the opposite. Save or die affects are something I wish would come back. Keep in mind though, that nothing in D&D is truly save or die, because you can resurrect and stone to flesh for example. So, in D&D, I dont get the save or die gripes...

Constantly resurrecting people makes for a terrible terrible story. I don't want to be using what amounts to a Final Fantasy phoenix down or a one-up all the bloody time. That's not even getting into how boring it is when you die from the first action in the encounter.

 

[trancejeremy]

I'm the opposite. Save or die affects are something I wish would come back. Keep in mind though, that nothing in D&D is truly save or die, because you can resurrect and stone to flesh for example. So, in D&D, I dont get the save or die gripes...

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

Because the same people who complain about this also complain about raising the dead (and usually wizards being too powerful as well)

 

[jbear]

If Save or Die were to return, even if only as an option, the DM can't apply that to one PC and not another. Regardless of the players preference, the DM has to decide his/her preference and that is what s/he runs. It has to be the same deal for all players, whether they like their DM's preference or not.

 

[Raith5]

I'm the opposite. Save or die affects are something I wish would come back. Keep in mind though, that nothing in D&D is truly save or die, because you can resurrect and stone to flesh for example. So, in D&D, I dont get the save or die gripes...

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

I find it way more dynamic and fun to attempt to fend of the monsters and save a party member during the fight that to pull out the scroll of raise dead after the fight. But YMMV.

 

[Argyle King]

It would bother me as a player -even if I were the player who were able to benefit from it. I'd prefer that all players at the table be given equal footing and equal opportunity to succeed and/or fail.

It would bother me even more as a GM; for most of the same reasons.


Most of what I said here about this idea... http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...ke-see-individual-difficulty-settings-5e.html

...also applies here with some minor tweaks. The short version: I don't care for the concept.


If the different settings were proposed as group settings which the entire group could choose or a GM could present as being the chosen option for the campaign, I'm fine with that. However, I do not like the idea of some characters being given advantages (or disadvantages) due to ooc concepts of the game.