billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Initiative can be useful anytime it matters who acts first, and it doesn't have to be just for combat.
What's the Problem with Save-or-Die?
- Thread starter Hassassin
- Start date
Initiative can be useful anytime it matters who acts first, and it doesn't have to be just for combat.
Hussar
Legend
Can you give an example?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Two characters want to take incompatible actions at the same time or one wants to stop another from doing something.
Suppose stubborn PC 1 heads to open an unexamined door and stubborn PC 2 decides it may be trapped. It could be useful for the DM to have them roll initiative to see if PC 1 gets to the door before PC 2 can or if PC 2 can stop PC 1 from opening the door.
You may also have two groups involved in a competition that isn't actually a fight, like participating in a party game at the local noble's ball.
Winning initiative also gives PCs a chance to determine the tenor of the encounter - deciding to parley right away before a fight starts, for example.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Or, there's the opposite scenario, where you're not in initiative but should still (at least potentially) be counted as "in a dangerous scenario" for terms of spells, as discussed above.
Consider a sentry on watch at the only gate to Castle Deathndoom. If he's just lazing around, then yeah, he's vulnerable. But if he's truly alert? Watching for trouble? The fact that he may not see the PCs shouldn't necessarily mean that he's not wary, psyched, and expecting danger. There are situations when he should be vulnerable, and situation where he shouldn't.
Consider a sentry on watch at the only gate to Castle Deathndoom. If he's just lazing around, then yeah, he's vulnerable. But if he's truly alert? Watching for trouble? The fact that he may not see the PCs shouldn't necessarily mean that he's not wary, psyched, and expecting danger. There are situations when he should be vulnerable, and situation where he shouldn't.
Hussar
Legend
Yeah, I'd buy that. Ok, fair enough. My initiative idea won't work. 
Then, maybe a sort of fuzzy "casting time" would be the way to go a la "a short rest". Give some decently explained parameters - kinda like how Take 10 is explained (but maybe a few more examples for the thick of reading) and leave it more or less in the DM's hands.
Then, maybe a sort of fuzzy "casting time" would be the way to go a la "a short rest". Give some decently explained parameters - kinda like how Take 10 is explained (but maybe a few more examples for the thick of reading) and leave it more or less in the DM's hands.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Save-or-die effects are not necessarily in and of themselves unacceptable. The problem has to do with how they are applied and how often. If you're going to reduce a characters entire fate down to one RANDOM die roll then you better be sure that having arrived at that fateful moment hasn't been an uncontrolled crapshoot. If PC's know they're going after, say, a Medusa then they accept that there is the threat of such random death and should be able to mitigate the dangers to some degree. There are a number of ways you can do that.
With, say, protective spells a medusa gaze might not be save-or-die but instead require three failed saves with graduated debilitations for each. With appropriate tactics the chance of failing the single save might be greatly reduced. With costly but readily manufactured cures those having been stoned can be re-animated.
Save-or-die attacks should not all be lumped into one category, one-size-fits-all methods of being handled. One such attack might require protective spells, another protective equipment, another appropriate tactics, and still another simply require curing or reversing after the fact. Insisting that they should all be handled just ONE way would be a stupid approach that abandons the possibility of making the game and certain spells and monsters more interesting in favor of the vastly over-valued "universal" mechanic.
And, of course, sometimes a characters luck should run out and they should finally and permanently die. It just shouldn't be from a random save roll brought on by a lucky attack made by a wandering monster that was just being used as filler before the party actually reaches the dungeon. Permanent character death MUST be a part of the game. Pretty much by definition that means it is an event that is out of the players hands to always prevent. It is similarly not always in the DM's control to prevent it.
Traditionally I have simply reminded my players as their DM that characters WILL die and it won't be because I'm trying to kill them, but because I must maintain the possibility of their deaths or else what's the point in even running combat? Then I try to be particularly judicious about what save-or-die monsters and spells I throw at them and how they come to be facing them. However, I think FAR greater strides can be made with mechanical changes than what has been done thus far with existing editions.
With, say, protective spells a medusa gaze might not be save-or-die but instead require three failed saves with graduated debilitations for each. With appropriate tactics the chance of failing the single save might be greatly reduced. With costly but readily manufactured cures those having been stoned can be re-animated.
Save-or-die attacks should not all be lumped into one category, one-size-fits-all methods of being handled. One such attack might require protective spells, another protective equipment, another appropriate tactics, and still another simply require curing or reversing after the fact. Insisting that they should all be handled just ONE way would be a stupid approach that abandons the possibility of making the game and certain spells and monsters more interesting in favor of the vastly over-valued "universal" mechanic.
And, of course, sometimes a characters luck should run out and they should finally and permanently die. It just shouldn't be from a random save roll brought on by a lucky attack made by a wandering monster that was just being used as filler before the party actually reaches the dungeon. Permanent character death MUST be a part of the game. Pretty much by definition that means it is an event that is out of the players hands to always prevent. It is similarly not always in the DM's control to prevent it.
Traditionally I have simply reminded my players as their DM that characters WILL die and it won't be because I'm trying to kill them, but because I must maintain the possibility of their deaths or else what's the point in even running combat? Then I try to be particularly judicious about what save-or-die monsters and spells I throw at them and how they come to be facing them. However, I think FAR greater strides can be made with mechanical changes than what has been done thus far with existing editions.
Scribble
First Post
I agree with @[Man in the Funny Hat]
I don't HATE save or die, but they should only be there for reallllly meaningful reasons. Not just random gotcha moments.
I also think the majority of foes that use SoD in the older systems would have been better off with the 4e style.
It's not a polarized either or thing in my opinion. There is room for different styles.
I ALSO think though that it shouldn't just be another spell on the PCs lists. Save or Die spells should be meaningful., Hard to obtain, and expensive to cast (and not just in gold there should be heavy consequences).
I don't HATE save or die, but they should only be there for reallllly meaningful reasons. Not just random gotcha moments.
I also think the majority of foes that use SoD in the older systems would have been better off with the 4e style.
It's not a polarized either or thing in my opinion. There is room for different styles.
I ALSO think though that it shouldn't just be another spell on the PCs lists. Save or Die spells should be meaningful., Hard to obtain, and expensive to cast (and not just in gold there should be heavy consequences).
Crazy Jerome
First Post
As I understand the original conception of saving throws, they were misused almost from the very beginning. Namely, they get used as the only (frequently poor) way out, instead of a nice, last-ditch chance to get out of what has developed into a nasty situation.
That is, you should have plenty of decision points and chances to deal with whatever the main problem is. If in the course of that, your luck goes totally sour or you make a string of bad decisions, then the game will give you one chance to "save" the situation. It's supposed to be a benefit, not a punishment!
It didn't help any that the "half damage" part got applied early, which watered down this idea. That is, there wasn't a whole lot you could do to stop a dragon breathing on you. How to provide more decision points over the whole set of such situations is the problem, of course.
I do know that the idea that shorter combats and quicker character generation is some kind of answer is totally missing the key elements. That's like saying that the only thing stopping frequent and random house burning from being a problem is lack of fire departments and insurance coverage. Or you can shoot people as long as you take them to the hospital or morgue when done. Sure, we'd like to have better ways to cope when the game has thrown that kind of monkey wrench into the works, but that doesn't make having a barrel of monkeys going ape in a hardware store suddenly a wonderful thing.
That is, you should have plenty of decision points and chances to deal with whatever the main problem is. If in the course of that, your luck goes totally sour or you make a string of bad decisions, then the game will give you one chance to "save" the situation. It's supposed to be a benefit, not a punishment!
It didn't help any that the "half damage" part got applied early, which watered down this idea. That is, there wasn't a whole lot you could do to stop a dragon breathing on you. How to provide more decision points over the whole set of such situations is the problem, of course.
I do know that the idea that shorter combats and quicker character generation is some kind of answer is totally missing the key elements. That's like saying that the only thing stopping frequent and random house burning from being a problem is lack of fire departments and insurance coverage. Or you can shoot people as long as you take them to the hospital or morgue when done. Sure, we'd like to have better ways to cope when the game has thrown that kind of monkey wrench into the works, but that doesn't make having a barrel of monkeys going ape in a hardware store suddenly a wonderful thing.
Doug McCrae
Legend
I voted both like and dislike. Like because it's a big thrill for the player when their character's life depends on a single die roll - that's one damn exciting roll - dislike for the many reasons already given.
This is an excellent point, also, one I've not seen raised before -
The argument that save-or-die is necessary to simulate the fiction seems wrong to me. In the fiction there is no save. You see medusa, you turn to stone. Either you have a magical mirror shield given to you by Athena, in which case you're fine. Or you don't, in which case you're stone.
This is an excellent point, also, one I've not seen raised before -
The argument that save-or-die is necessary to simulate the fiction seems wrong to me. In the fiction there is no save. You see medusa, you turn to stone. Either you have a magical mirror shield given to you by Athena, in which case you're fine. Or you don't, in which case you're stone.
This I don't agree with. It's not a good test of player skill because the player doesn't get an opportunity to make a decision. Decision-making points, opportunities to make the right or wrong choice, the more the better, are precisely what you want for gamist (ie player skill testing) play. In the 1e DMG, Gary argues against critical hits for precisely this reason. Imo any argument against critical hits applies equally to SoD.
Mattachine
Adventurer
[MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION]
Ah--I meant player skill in the sense of avoiding the situation entirely--the Tomb of Horrors would be the iconic example of such play. Mind you, I am not generally in favor of SoD effects.
[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]
I don't think shorter combats addresses the random lethality of SoD. I do think, though, it resolves the problem of a player who has to sit out for the better part of an hour of real world time because of a bad roll. When I say SoD, I am referring to the whole gamut of effects from Paralysis to Death to Petrification, etc.
Ah--I meant player skill in the sense of avoiding the situation entirely--the Tomb of Horrors would be the iconic example of such play. Mind you, I am not generally in favor of SoD effects.
[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]
I don't think shorter combats addresses the random lethality of SoD. I do think, though, it resolves the problem of a player who has to sit out for the better part of an hour of real world time because of a bad roll. When I say SoD, I am referring to the whole gamut of effects from Paralysis to Death to Petrification, etc.
