Balancing Save-or-Die

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6677983][OMENRPG]Ben[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION] both made really good points.

Maybe player "save or die" abilities should look different than monster "save or die" abilities? Different in that the players version is more of the instant death variety, while monsters version is more graduated/granular.

The coup de grace rule example is a great one, and could arguably play out differently for PCs than monsters. The DM might be given the option to treat named NPCs as PCs - giving them "immunity" to one shot coup de grace (but not the associated damage of course).

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.

Hey, that assumes an assassin is fighting fair. I posted this up thread but it seems to have been lost. Assassins are about a play style that's all about setting up the kill, cheap shots, and anticlimactic deaths of bigwig NPCs. The assassin is all about not playing fair.

So I'd imagine the situation where an assassin needs to kill one monster separate from a group of monsters would be fairly common.

The sticky wicket is elite NPCs (since we're using 4e terminology). I don't want any PC to one-shot an elite NPC. Period. Ordinary monsters that's fine, your argument about 4e damage equivalency makes sense. But one of the things I really disliked about older editions (I'm thinking 2e and 3e) was the proliferation of SoD effects which then led to escalation of magic resistance, gamey references to "only effects creatures of 6 HD or less", and special lists of immunities that took up a paragraph.

If you are introducing a SoD effect, for players or monsters, then elite NPCs need protection from the SoD effect, and that protection should not be complex, arbitrary, or stand out as rules trumping story.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Just want to point out that killing a monster before it can even act (round zero, so to speak) is far more valuable than killing it in a later round. Being able to dish out 32 damage in a single round is significantly more useful than being able to do the same in two (or more) rounds. The two aren't equivalent, and that's something that should be taken into consideration.

Effectively, surprise round "assassination" would be one of the most effective action-denial abilities in the game (IMO).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Effectively, surprise round "assassination" would be one of the most effective action-denial abilities in the game (IMO).

It's interesting that when you zoom out from encounter-level strategery, and view the game in terms of the three pillars and adventure-level balance, action denial becomes much less of a big deal, especially when done to the DM.

 

[Kynn]

It's interesting that when you zoom out from encounter-level strategery, and view the game in terms of the three pillars and adventure-level balance, action denial becomes much less of a big deal, especially when done to the DM.

Can you explain that a little more? I am not following you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why would assassins in particular get "save or die" effects and other characters do not?

I'm at a loss as to why you are thinking of this regarding one particular class -- there's no thematic/fluff/conceptual reason that an assassin could kill someone with one hit and a rogue, wizard, or fighter couldn't do the same.

I can see a balance argument against it, but not a thematic one. Killing people in one hit is what assassins do. They specialize in getting the drop on folks and killing them in a moment of vulnerability. The one shot assassin kill is a common thing in movies, books, etc. So thematically it works, the question is whether people don't like the imbalance it creates.

I have an assassination mechanic in my mafia game, but it isn't classed based so anyone who wants it can take ranks in it. Personally I like it, but it isn't for everyone.

 

[Mattachine]

Thematically, and actually, the assassin can take out most targets with a single attack with surprise . . . most targets are not dragons, treants, highly-trained warriors, etc.

A sneak attack (or even just most attacks) is a one-shot kill for non-magical, non-heroic characters.

Have we forgotten that? Or, do we want multiple classes to have ways of defeating the BBEG is a single, anti-climactic attack? And do we want TPKs from monsters with SoD effects? Anyone else been in a mid-level party TPKed by low-level ghouls?

For me, that's we're discussing.

 

[Szatany]

The way I see it, the problem with save or dies is that they bypass HP mechanic. So one possible solution would be to make SoD dependant on HP, but of course they shouldn't just deal damage. If a damage dealing spell looks like this:
spell X
level 5
Deals 30 damage (reflex halves)

then a save or die spell should look like this:
spell Y
level 5
Kills target with currently 40 or less HP (will negates)

This solves two most glaring problems of SoDs. 1: Fights can no longer end on the first turn of combat because you need to reduce target's HP to some level before the target becomes susceptible to sods.
2: Solos are naturally resistant to sods because of their huge HP pools.

Plus it is still useful for dropping weak enemies.

 

[malkav666]

I don't really have an issue with SOD as they are already. I don't think they need wholesale balancing I do believe that SoD/SoS effects/spells should have a close look taken at them on an individual level to ensure they fit into whatever new saving throw system they seem to be working on.
But more than anything else I think they need a half to a full page in the dungeon masters guide on good pacing ideas for them, how to use them effectively and deal with the aftermath, and how to deal with players having them.

Out of all the replies in this thread I think Szatany's solution is the one I can get most behind. I think the idea of qualifiers for some abilities is elegant and leaves the SoD/S system largely in tact but puts some balancing requirements in that I think most players/DMs could deal with (of course it would be exception based so there is a chance of spells not having good reqs).

Finally as so to add something to the thread of my very own. Dealing with curses/hexes specifically; A great deal of those types of effect are very flavorful but should have qualifiers or a chance to backfire. Perhaps when cast in combat they would require the caster to use a part of their own actions to maintain the effect, then it would be a tax on the action economy of the caster to keep it up.

They could even add a new duration keyword to the game for effects: Lingering. This effect would persist until certain actions where taken by the caster or the effected. I think this would be a good way to make sure the SoS aren't piled on. For example you could state that one of the caster side end conditions for a Lingering spell is to cast a second spell with the same keyword (lingering). On the effected side it could be exception based dependent on the effect. It would add a little to the spell block and I know a lot of folks don't like bigger spell blocks, but it is what it is.


I would also like to see more freeform cursing/hexing be added to the rituals part of the game but with qualifiers or chance of backfire, and perhaps some really cool material components. I imagine a group of witches preparing a killing curse around a cauldron, dropping various strange components into it, their cackles riding on the night sky sending a sense of dread to all that hear them. I bet that would get a village to hire up some adventurers to go handle it. It might also make the group think twice about stopping to rest for the night after the first few battles if they know that their opponent has powerful ritual magic that could really hurt them or someone near and dear if they don't get it done.... right.... now.

sorry for grammar (no coffee yet)

love,

malkav

 

[I'm A Banana]

Can you explain that a little more? I am not following you.

Sure.

The idea is that in an encounter-based game like 3e or 4e, action denial is very powerful, because it swings the odds dramatically in favor of the party with more actions. More actions = more attacks = much faster victory. This is bad news, since it makes encounters -- the basic challenge of the game -- much easier.

But in a game with the focus zoomed out the adventure level, individual encounters matter significantly less individually. It matters more what the sum of them accomplish. Action denial might swing the calculus of a single encounter, but over the course of 10 encounters, it's not that big of a deal (assuming it doesn't happen in every encounter, which, requiring surprise, this hypothetical assassin death attack wouldn't). The challenge can remain consistent even if one encounter becomes easier.

A sneak attack (or even just most attacks) is a one-shot kill for non-magical, non-heroic characters.

Have we forgotten that? Or, do we want multiple classes to have ways of defeating the BBEG is a single, anti-climactic attack? And do we want TPKs from monsters with SoD effects? Anyone else been in a mid-level party TPKed by low-level ghouls?

I don't think the Assassin should be limited to killing things that anyone can one-shot. That's kind of saying "We shouldn't have an Assassin, they should all just be rogues!" But the archetype is pretty different.

IMO, A 1st-level assassin might be killing kings and barons. A 20th-level assassin might be killing pit fiends and planetars.

And the way most of us are talking about SoD, and translating it into damage, actually works well with solos and elites and the like. The assassin or the disintegrate spell deals enough damage to kill a normal enemy. Solos and elites have more HP, so they will just take large buckets of damage.

Like, the ghoul's paralyze. I personally wouldn't make that SoD at all (it's a good candidate for the save-every-round or end-of-next-turn design of many 4e effects), but if you DID, you'd make it so that it didn't bypass HP: only a character reduced to 0 hp by a ghoul's attack becomes paralyzed.

 

[the Jester]

Yes. I think they should stop. If 'killed' by paralyzation you are paralyzed. Same goes for sleep.

Well, if it's all about being reduced to 0 hps, why would you ever use sleep or charm or whatever? It's just as easy to kill your target with actual damage.