What's the Problem with Save-or-Die?

[Hassassin]

Based on the other thread about save-or-die, I think the poll options are the most common reasons people dislike SoD, as seen in previous editions.

Please choose any that apply and let me know any that I missed.

 

[delericho]

For me, the problems are threefold.

Firstly, there's the lethality aspect. They make it very easy to kill a character, which then either means hours sitting out of the game (creating a new character and having him written in, or a lengthy quest for resurrection), or they require that the game has easy resurrection, which I detest.

Secondly, they're just too damn swingy. It doesn't matter how well you were playing your character; lose initiative, miss a saving throw, and you're done.

Finally, on the caster's side, they tend to be very much all-or-nothing. The evil Wizard enters combat, cackles evilly, launches his most devastating death spell... and all the PCs make their saves, and come through with no effect. And in the worst case, that may prove to be the only attack that the Wizard gets to make before he gets minced.

So I think I'm leaning towards a model where SoDs become "if you hit you get a lesser effect; on a critical it becomes SoD" as my preference. That way, they're much less immediately lethal (since a true SoD becomes much more rare, while still being a real risk), they require two rolls to kill a character (or, even better, three if criticals require confirmation), and they cease to be all-or-nothing effects.

(Plus, that also has a nice symmetry with my notion that a Fighter, on a critical hit, could choose to forgo the extra damage and instead disarm/sunder.)

 

[avin]

PC vs NPC: Hold Person + Coup de Grace? Boring.... not to mention it gives casters a power no one else has and make no sense in narrative therms. Why a Wizard can cast Power Word Kill and a Rogue can't push a dagger into somebody's eyes?

NPC vs PC: it must be rare. Having to deal with ressurrections (which I generally ban from my games) because of just a bad save isn't nice. It has been said a zillion times... but a Medusa should petrify with his gaze... random ghouls using that is just not fine.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Other: They just don't make sense within the context of D&D. We have this nifty game resource to protect PCs from all the horrible deadly things they're expected to survive. (Hit points.) And then we go and write spells and traps that arbitrarily bypass this protective resource. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Save-or-die is stochastic, and any enemy that can pick you out and make you roll for your life is just annoying. Either there should be something you can do about it (you'll die in three rounds or you get other saves that you could boost) or it shouldn't be something the enemy (DM) can just choose to do (ie: it requires a critical).

 

[Minigiant]

One die roll.
Soda reverts the game back to level 1.

If Finger of Death was:
A melee touch attack to make contact
Then a Will/Wisdom save to bypass the target's soul defending itself against death magic
Then a Fortitude/Constitution save to kill the target's body

Then it'll be okay. That's three chances to save yourself, much like damage based combat.

 

[delericho]

not to mention it gives casters a power no one else has...

This has certainly traditionally been the case. However, there's no absolute reason SoD should be limited to casters. Perhaps the Fighter could learn the "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique", or other similarly devastating combat technique. Indeed, there's always been the Vorpal sword, which could easily be a SoD effect.

 

[Grydan]

Other: They just don't make sense within the context of D&D. We have this nifty game resource to protect PCs from all the horrible deadly things they're expected to survive. (Hit points.) And then we go and write spells and traps that arbitrarily bypass this protective resource. Doesn't make sense.

Pretty much what I was going to say.

Want an effect that can kill instantly?

Make it do enough damage to kill instantly.

∞ is not a valid damage expression.

 

[Hassassin]

Firstly, there's the lethality aspect. They make it very easy to kill a character, which then either means hours sitting out of the game (creating a new character and having him written in, or a lengthy quest for resurrection), or they require that the game has easy resurrection, which I detest.

You left out easy character creation.

Finally, on the caster's side, they tend to be very much all-or-nothing. The evil Wizard enters combat, cackles evilly, launches his most devastating death spell... and all the PCs make their saves, and come through with no effect. And in the worst case, that may prove to be the only attack that the Wizard gets to make before he gets minced.

In this case, I think it's easy to just select another spell if you don't like all or nothing.

So I think I'm leaning towards a model where SoDs become "if you hit you get a lesser effect; on a critical it becomes SoD" as my preference. That way, they're much less immediately lethal (since a true SoD becomes much more rare, while still being a real risk), they require two rolls to kill a character (or, even better, three if criticals require confirmation), and they cease to be all-or-nothing effects.

(Plus, that also has a nice symmetry with my notion that a Fighter, on a critical hit, could choose to forgo the extra damage and instead disarm/sunder.)

This is not a bad idea, although it doesn't work with all effects.

I would also give rogues a SoD on critical sneak attack.

 

[Hassassin]

Other: They just don't make sense within the context of D&D. We have this nifty game resource to protect PCs from all the horrible deadly things they're expected to survive. (Hit points.) And then we go and write spells and traps that arbitrarily bypass this protective resource. Doesn't make sense.

Oh, the "they bypass hp" argument. I figured there must be a reason behind not liking that (lethality?), but I suppose I should have included it.