Balancing Save-or-Die

[Fanaelialae]

I prefer the hp/damage approach myself. Save or die has some pretty significant limitations, being pass/fail. When it works, great! However, when it doesn't it often does nothing, which is extremely lame.

If a death attack simply deals high damage, then you have an attack that can one shot, but even if it doesn't it can still be very effective. It doesn't need special rules when targeting a solo.

I also like the idea of an assassin can capitalize on low hp.

SoD is one of my least favorite mechanics, and that's even after having played the 3e assassin prestige class. IME, it just doesn't work well. Even if you go back to 1e saves, all you end up with is an assassin who's largely ineffective against high level targets. Lame.

You also end up with weird situations. Perhaps the cleric has a spell to instantly shield you from the assassin's attack. However, because it is S0D, that shield spell has no effect. Despite that the assassin is making a physical attack against you.

IMO, damage is the way to go. Damage always contributes, whether it results in death or not. It results in consistency within the system.

 

[kitsune9]

Shucks...I really like save-or-die. There's something about working really hard to get high-level and running the risk in every fight or with a trap of going from Hero to Zero that brings a lot of tension, anxiety, but if you win, you feel elated and can breathe again....until the next encounter.

However, as a DM, I wouldn't use it often. Not every cleric or wizard is going to be armed with save-or-die spells, and not every trap is going to be save-or-die kill zones, but I would like to have at least 2-3 encounters (2 traps and 1 baddie) for high-level games out of a standard 13 encounters.

I know some posters would disagree with me, but that's okay. It's all about what suits you and your table, so it's all good if makes your game fun!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm more ready to accept powerful things that bypass the usual methods when they carry real risks. High chance that you get "nothing" is not very fun to me: "I'll cast this really nasty disintergrate spells which will either turn you into dust or .... you made the save ... well carry on then."

Consider in its place some kind of "demons got summoned; cosmic magic got unleased; someone is gonna get it" effect. A disintergrate that is saved against rebounds on the caster, who gets a +2 to his save to avoid it. If he makes it, he can maintain the spell for another round, forcing the target to try again, now at +2. (Or he can drop it.) If the target manages that, the caster must save versus the spell at +4. You can have different results for different spells, including targeting randem nearby creatures, spells that get harder to save against over time, secondary effects, and so on.

Oh, but the wizard doesn't find that fun because he might get blown up by his own "all or nothing" magic? Precisely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander--even a gander wearing a floppy hat.

 

[Sunseeker]

Shucks...I really like save-or-die. There's something about working really hard to get high-level and running the risk in every fight or with a trap of going from Hero to Zero that brings a lot of tension, anxiety, but if you win, you feel elated and can breathe again....until the next encounter.

However, as a DM, I wouldn't use it often. Not every cleric or wizard is going to be armed with save-or-die spells, and not every trap is going to be save-or-die kill zones, but I would like to have at least 2-3 encounters (2 traps and 1 baddie) for high-level games out of a standard 13 encounters.

I know some posters would disagree with me, but that's okay. It's all about what suits you and your table, so it's all good if makes your game fun!

That's about the same approach I would take, save-or-die should be rare and powerful. Making new characters can be fun, but killing characters too often gives them an annoying disposable feel. Nobody wants to be a throwaway character(well okay, maybe a few people).

 

[GSHamster]

From a gamist perspective, the major problem with save-or-die is that there is no interaction with the other character. The other character can't really take actions to prevent it.

Non-interactive mechanics are generally not fun. Think Magic: the Gathering. How much fun is it to get combo'd out on the first turn or second turn, before you really even have a chance to act?

I think there are ways to make save-or-die more interactive. For example, in the anime Bleach, one character has a save-or-die attack. She has to strike someone twice in the exact same spot. The first strike puts a warning butterfly mark on the enemy, the second strike kills instantly.

You could do something similar with the Assassin. The Assassin has to Mark For Death the target, and can only do the kill strike on the next round, and maybe the kill strike must be a crit. That gives the enemy at least one round to get away from the Assassin.

 

[CM]

In my old 3e high-level games my players most often faced SOD effects from undead. With a cleric in the party invariably the group was fully fortified against negative energy and had little to fear from them.

That aside, what I disliked most about SOD was its often binary nature. I would like to see these types of powers handled on a scale depending on your save result. I don't think it would slow down the game much and would give characters a fighting chance against some SOD effects.

Save by 5 or more: half damage

Save by 4 or less: half damage and/or some other inconvenient condition that reflects the nature of the power: slowed (for a petrification effect), nauseated (for poison), dazed (death effects), etc.

Fail save: full damage plus the condition from above, and death/petrification/etc at the end of the attacker's next turn.

Fail save by 5 or more: instant petrification/death

I think this brings back the flavor of old SOD effects while tempering it a bit to reduce its swinginess.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

I think fundamentally the coup de gras mechanics need to be changed. Allow assassins to coup de gras more easily.

I would so something like:

Coup de gras: if a target is unaware or unable to defend itself, an attacker can make a coup de gras. The target of the coup de gras must make a d20 + Level + Con mod save or die. The DC of the save is equal to 10 (or maybe roll) + attacker level + cdg bonus.

So, a level 1 fighter could coup de gras some monster, say with an average roll would be 10(roll) + 1(level) + 1(cdg bonus [arbitrary]) = 12 save, pretty easy to beat. The monster is pretty tough, so it has a good Con mod, and it is a higher level, so that impacts the roll too. The monster rolls a 10(roll) + 3(level) + 4(con mod) = 17. The 17 easily beast the SoD roll, but damage is still applied normally for the attack.

An assassin could get a class feature that increases their coup de gras bonus, and make it easier to get into a coup de gras situation. Again, these numbers are arbitrary, but do it something like: Every level of Assassin the character is granted +1 cdg bonus, and gains an additional +2 when wielding an Assassin's weapon (such as a dagger).

So, the level 1 assassin wielding the dagger could attack the same monster with soemthing like this: 10(roll) + 1(level) + 1(assassin level) + 2(assassin weapon) = 14. Still not high enough to kill the level 3 monster in one hit. But, if that same Assassin took on the same monster at level 3, it would look like this: 10(roll) + 3(level) + 3(assassin level) + 2(assassin weapon) = 18. If the monster rolled the 17 as listed before, bam, dead.

This would even out, a high level wizard who is deathly ill and a really miserable con would be easier to kill than a lower level brute monster with a high con.

You could further give themes/feats to the assassin class specifically, saying that a cdg could be performed even in the surprise round, or that he could roll twice and take the better of the two.

By level 20, using the numbers above, the assassin could have a cdg bonus of >40. He should be able to assassinate just about anything other than giant evil monsters and asmodeus and the tarrasque.

Really rough and arbitrary, but I think I prefer the idea of everyone being able to possibly do a coup de gras, and possibly dealing a killing blow (ok, more than likely) but that assassins are just exceptionally good at getting into that situation.

 

[Savage Wombat]

From a gamist perspective, the major problem with save-or-die is that there is no interaction with the other character. The other character can't really take actions to prevent it.

Non-interactive mechanics are generally not fun. Think Magic: the Gathering. How much fun is it to get combo'd out on the first turn or second turn, before you really even have a chance to act?

The comparison to M:tG is extremely apt. Read the boards there; you will find lots of people complaining that WotC is trying to PREVENT them from comboing someone out on the first or second turn. They don't like being "forced" by the rules to engage in creature combat for a living.

So many people who want, say, a SoD assassin want it because it lets them triumph over powerful enemies, not out of a sense of "game balance" that they want the enemies to be able to do that to them.

And many people who hate SoD hate it because it affects their characters, not because they don't want to do it to enemies.

The designers have to consider both viewpoints.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The comparison to M:tG is extremely apt.

I'm not so sure.

M:tG is a competitive game. You win, someone else looses; the other dude wins, you loose.

For the Assassin (or disintegrate spell, or whatever) in D&D, the equation is quite different. You kill one monster, there's still four more where that came from. It doesn't end the fun early. Okay, the DM has one less monster on the field, but unless that monster is the only monster in the encounter (thus setting it up as a solo), that's not really a problem.

If one needs to compare that to M:tG it's more like removing an enemy's card from play in the first round or two. Which doesn't seem like such an extreme thing to be able to do.

 

[Grydan]

I think fundamentally the coup de gras mechanics need to be changed. Allow assassins to coup de gras more easily.

Not to pick on you, but coup de gras would be "blow of fat". I think you're looking for coup de grâce ("blow of mercy").