Alternatives to Save or Die

[FireLance]

Let's say that save or die doesn't make it to 4e, but there are elements of save or die that you want to retain. What would these elements be, and how would you go about implementing them? For example:

1. Escalating the Level of Threat
It's exciting for the PCs to occasionally encounter a creature that could kill them in a single round, and for them to scramble to fight defensively, use Combat Expertise, get behind cover, avert or close their eyes to avoid gaze attacks, set up magical defences, etc. to minimize the chances or the effects of the creature hitting, or a saving throw failing. I think it would be possible to achieve the same effect by replacing an outright death effect by sufficient damage to kill almost any PC of whatever level the creature is supposed to be a challenge for. As a side effect of this, such creatures will be less of a threat to higher-level PCs, who have more hit points, which would be an additional advantage for some.

2. Changing the Party Dynamic
Characters in a party normally have defined roles and this seems likely to be even more true in 4e. By disabling one party member, the other PCs face the additional challenge of covering his role, or doing without it. Instead of simply using save or die, this can also be achieved through petrification or paralysis, or by simply negating the party member's key advantage (e.g. an anti-magic zone for spellcasters).

3. Rewarding Reconnaissance and Preparation
Characters should gain some advantage for taking the trouble to find out about the creatures they are going to face. In particular, if the creature has a dangerous attack, they might be able to prepare a specific counter to it. Instead of the dangerous attack automatically meaning death, it could deal major damage (see point 1, above), disable (see point 2, above), or impose some other significant penalty such as a -4 to all d20 rolls.

What others can you think of?

 

[Exen Trik]

My favorite alternatives to save or die:

Save or take infinity damage
Save or age by 30,000 years
Save or you never existed
You die - no save

 

[Aldarc]

Save or buy?
Save or invest?

 

[Lanefan]

1. Escalating the Level of Threat
It's exciting for the PCs to occasionally encounter a creature that could kill them in a single round, and for them to scramble to fight defensively, use Combat Expertise, get behind cover, avert or close their eyes to avoid gaze attacks, set up magical defences, etc. to minimize the chances or the effects of the creature hitting, or a saving throw failing. I think it would be possible to achieve the same effect by replacing an outright death effect by sufficient damage to kill almost any PC of whatever level the creature is supposed to be a challenge for. As a side effect of this, such creatures will be less of a threat to higher-level PCs, who have more hit points, which would be an additional advantage for some.

The whole point of save-or-die, or save-or-disable, or save-or-wake-up-on-a-desert-island, is that it *ignores* lots of hit points. If everything ends up reduced to simple hit point damage then Con. becomes by far the most important stat regardless of race, class, or anything else...and I don't see this as a Good Thing.

2. Changing the Party Dynamic
Characters in a party normally have defined roles and this seems likely to be even more true in 4e. By disabling one party member, the other PCs face the additional challenge of covering his role, or doing without it. Instead of simply using save or die, this can also be achieved through petrification or paralysis, or by simply negating the party member's key advantage (e.g. an anti-magic zone for spellcasters).

The "I want to be playing all the time" crew* will argue this is just as bad as full save-or-die, as a failed save still represents downtime. Me, I have no problem with it.

* - except for the *very* few who are wise enough to play 2 or more PCs at a time so when one's down the other still gives something to do...

3. Rewarding Reconnaissance and Preparation
Characters should gain some advantage for taking the trouble to find out about the creatures they are going to face. In particular, if the creature has a dangerous attack, they might be able to prepare a specific counter to it. Instead of the dangerous attack automatically meaning death, it could deal major damage (see point 1, above), disable (see point 2, above), or impose some other significant penalty such as a -4 to all d20 rolls.

Agreed, though research is neither foolproof nor always possible. But yes, a prepared party should obviously have a better chance than an unprepared one...if they know their foe has a killing gaze attack, for example, they can avert their eyes or put on blindfolds...if they have enough advance warning, they can even take Blind Fight as a feat! But though the amount of preparation should certainly affect the save chance somehow, it should never change the actual attack form or its results.

Other alternatives to outright save-or-die:

One I've used now and then in the past is save-or-teleport...sometimes to a very long way away, other times to an inaccessible and-or dangerous point within the same adventure complex. If the party has no long-range communication e.g. telepathy, be warned this *can* be a major headache for all involved.

And there's the old standby save-or-turn dominate-type effects. The advantage here is the victim still gets to play...except you're now playing against your party rather than with them.

Lanefan

 

[KingCrab]

Instead of simply using save or die, this can also be achieved through petrification or paralysis, or by simply negating the party member's key advantage (e.g. an anti-magic zone for spellcasters).

I assumed that save or petrification would automatically be gone too.

Does anyone know what WotC meant when they said they were moving away from save or die? I assumed they meant moving away from non hit point based attacks. They might have meant only removing the save or die and leaving in the save or be held, charmed, comatose, turned to stone etc.

 

[Branduil]

They'll probably make save-or-die effects things that move you down the condition track, rather than killing you instantly.

 

[FireLance]

The whole point of save-or-die, or save-or-disable, or save-or-wake-up-on-a-desert-island, is that it *ignores* lots of hit points. If everything ends up reduced to simple hit point damage then Con. becomes by far the most important stat regardless of race, class, or anything else...and I don't see this as a Good Thing.

I guess it depends on how often you encounter save or major damage effects. If they are still relatively rare, the additional advantage to having a high Constitution will still not be very significant. In any case, the more general point is that you don't need save or die to increase the level of threat.

The "I want to be playing all the time" crew* will argue this is just as bad as full save-or-die, as a failed save still represents downtime. Me, I have no problem with it.

Agreed, they probably won't want to have save or disable, but save or be less effective is another way of messing with the party dynamic without taking a player completely out of the fight.

I guess the point of this thread is: it looks like they're going to sell us a toolbox without tool X, so let's figure out what we've used tool X for in the past, and see if we can achieve the same results with tools A, B, and C instead.

 

[FireLance]

Does anyone know what WotC meant when they said they were moving away from save or die? I assumed they meant moving away from non hit point based attacks. They might have meant only removing the save or die and leaving in the save or be held, charmed, comatose, turned to stone etc.

For what my opinion is worth, I don't think that WotC is moving away from non-hp based attacks. What they might be moving towards is a ruleset that increases the number of chances you have to react before your character dies. This could mean that there will be effects that cause your character to "die" over a number of rounds (possibly inflicting Constitution damage/drain until death occurs) so that your or your other party members have one or more chances to remove or negate the effect. It could mean effects that move you down the condition track, so that it is impossible or highly unlikely to go from completely healthy to fully dead in one round, or which only cause actual death if you are already "bloodied" or "almost dead" or whatever.

 

[Gloombunny]

I thought they said something indicating that some save-or-die effects would only work on bloodied targets. That would seem to preserve some of the sudden-death aspect of save-or-dies while still giving the players a chance to affect their fates.

(Of course, if it's common to do enough damage to drop someone from half hp to none, then this becomes a much less interesting kind of ability.)

 

[Rvdvelden]

The whole point of save-or-die, or save-or-disable, or save-or-wake-up-on-a-desert-island, is that it *ignores* lots of hit points. If everything ends up reduced to simple hit point damage then Con. becomes by far the most important stat regardless of race, class, or anything else...and I don't see this as a Good Thing.

The only defense against Save-or-die is.... Fort Save, which relates to.... Con!!!
So it bypasses hitpoints (which are based on Con), but still requires a high Con as the major defense against it.

*something smells cheesy here*