Balancing Save-or-Die

[Ahnehnois]

That said, I think the GM has to be careful to make sure the combats are still "fun" for the players.

A strange angle to me. It seems to me like "fun" is served by ending the battle as quickly as possible and getting on with the game.

Or, do we want multiple classes to have ways of defeating the BBEG is a single, anti-climactic attack?

Yes, definitely. If you sneak up on someone while they're sleeping, anyone should be able to stab them in the neck with a pretty decent chance of killing them. Also, a barbarian should behead an opponent in one swing every now and then, just as a witch should sometimes turn one into a frog with a gesture.

Single attacks are not inherently anticlimactic, though they can be if misused. There's no inherent requirement, for balance or any other purpose, that a combat lasts multiple rounds or even includes multiple rolls. It all depends on the situation. Your typical combat with two equal opponents that are aware of each other and start some distance away should generally be complex and time consuming, but if the odds are stacked by circumstance, or if one party just gets lucky, then this is not necessarily true.

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.

There's only two things that can kill a PC: a DM, and a player. If a TPK happens, we can either conclude that it is the responsibility of a DM (who creates an extremely difficult challenge) or the players (who make poor decisions). It is not the job of someone writing a rulebook to prevent those things from happening. There's an element of luck, but it's always a DM's call as to how to interpret a dice roll, and typically most TPK situations are primarily attributable to the DM.

Then again, a TPK is part of the game. Not a big part for most, but it's in play.

Save or die failed its save and died.

Like every BBEG, I think it has access to True Resurrection.

 

[Kingreaper]

A strange angle to me. It seems to me like "fun" is served by ending the battle as quickly as possible and getting on with the game.

D&D has always been built with the assumption that combat was a significant part of the game.

So saying "end the battle as quickly as possible and get on with the game" is like saying "end the spaghetti carbonara as quickly as possible and get on with the meal"

(just FYI: I'm a big fan of spaghetti carbonara, and like to savour it, but I don't want it to be the only thing I eat )

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D has always been built with the assumption that combat was a significant part of the game.

So saying "end the battle as quickly as possible and get on with the game" is like saying "end the spaghetti carbonara as quickly as possible and get on with the meal"

(just FYI: I'm a big fan of spaghetti carbonara, and like to savour it, but I don't want it to be the only thing I eat )

I'm not saying it isn't. The faster you can finish one battle, the faster you can do whatever else it is that's on the slate, including more battles. Having individual battles drag on too long, was a complaint before 4e, and I don't think 4e exactly fixed that issue. Making combat faster, but still interesting, and not arbitrary, is a major design challenge for D&D.

 

[Kingreaper]

I'm not saying it isn't. The faster you can finish one battle, the faster you can do whatever else it is that's on the slate, including more battles. Having individual battles drag on too long, was a complaint before 4e, and I don't think 4e exactly fixed that issue. Making combat faster, but still interesting, and not arbitrary, is a major design challenge for D&D.

Ah, I think I misunderstood your thrust. Am I correct to surmise that you're not actually looking for "as quickly as possible" but rather "quickly enough to avoid it getting boring"?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ah, I think I misunderstood your thrust. Am I correct to surmise that you're not actually looking for "as quickly as possible" but rather "quickly enough to avoid it getting boring"?

I enjoy long battles, on occasion.

I'm kind of looking for D&D to be like tennis. The way tennis is scored, if one player is wiping the court with the other, the match is over fast. If two players are tightly competitive, the match goes on longer. Every once in a while, a player withdraws for health reasons or is disqualified, ending a match prematurely. Maybe once in your lifetime, you see John Isner play Nicholas Mahut at Wimbledon and go "wow, that was epic, but I'm sure glad it doesn't happen often". That's the kind of dynamic I'm talking about. A D&D combat should last as long as it needs to.

 

[Grydan]

The more I think on it the less I think a save or die effect models the assassin well, and the more i think only 3 things are needed:
1. The assassin can make a coup de grace when undetected and/or target is surprised.
2. The assassin receives bonus damage on coup de grace attacks slightly better than a thief's sneak attack, but must do legwork/prep to earn bonus damage.
3. The assassin maintains the 4e Essentials Executioner's "Death Attack" (when you drop an enemy to 10 HP or less you may kill it outright."

Using a 4th edition example, say our 3rd level assassin sneaks up on a Hobgoblin Spear Soldier (level 3 skirmisher with 48 HP) after staking it the fortress with the party's ranger. He hits and since it's a coup de grace it becomes a critical hit, for 26 damage (weapon 1d8+1 maximized, magic item crit +d8, ability modifier +4, focus feat +1, attack finesse class feature +d8 maximized). He gains 13 extra damage for preparing (+3d8). So he deals roughly 39 damage. But combined with his Death Attack feature the attack kills the clueless hobgoblin where it stands.

Even without Death Attack or your hypothetical prep bonus, in 4E that example would be an instant death.

Part of the 4E coup de grâce mechanic is "Slaying the Target Outright: If you deal damage greater than or equal to the target’s bloodied value, the target dies."

 

[Quickleaf]

Even without Death Attack or your hypothetical prep bonus, in 4E that example would be an instant death.

Part of the 4E coup de grâce mechanic is "Slaying the Target Outright: If you deal damage greater than or equal to the target’s bloodied value, the target dies."

Wow, and that shows you just how much of a softy DM I am!

It seems to me if you take [MENTION=36754]Kynn[/MENTION] ' s idea and allow coup de grace during surprise for an assassin you provide a one-shot kill option that doesn't require save or die. Elegantly solved.

 

[Quickleaf]

There is also the special case of AD&D spells such as Power Word Kill, Death Spell, etc. that didn't even offer a saving throw. These spells were limited by hp or HD, so they wouldn't affect the 10k hp creature (although Harm would affect the 10k hp creature).

The one that jumps out at me is Finger of Death, which really was save or die (in 3e it was a Fortitude save).

Interestingly, Pathfinder changed it to a flat 10 damage per caster level (meaning at least 130 damage as a 7th level wizard spell with no damage cap). Power Word Kill, however, was kept the same.

 

[Mattachine]

There's only two things that can kill a PC: a DM, and a player. If a TPK happens, we can either conclude that it is the responsibility of a DM (who creates an extremely difficult challenge) or the players (who make poor decisions). It is not the job of someone writing a rulebook to prevent those things from happening. There's an element of luck, but it's always a DM's call as to how to interpret a dice roll, and typically most TPK situations are primarily attributable to the DM.

In my opinion, it is absolutely the job of a game writer/designer to consider the abilities of monsters, classes, and spells. A creature designed to fight level 2-5 characters in groups probably shouldn't have a save-or-die effect (similar, like paralyzing touch of a ghoul) on every attack. Of course, the counter was to have a cleric attack the ghouls with his own save-or-die effect (turning).

I don't have a good solution for balancing such effects, to be honest. I'm not a fan of them, and haven't been since I started playing and DMing back in the 80's. I prefer gradual effects, effects based on damage, and effects based on multiple failed rolls.

If D&D is going to return to SoD effects, then I propose these balancing factors:

1. Not the exclusive province of casters and assassins
2. Limit the effect such that it has a hp or HD cap, and simply causes damage when over the cap
3. Devastating attacks (e.g. wail of the banshee), if kept, need a penalty or high cost on the user
4. Avoid glass cannon monsters with SoD attacks; no more 1e cockatrices
5. Monsters with at-will SoD effects need to be clearly high level creatures

 

[Brainwatch]

How about the assassin gets something like this:

Death Strike: One per encounter if the assassin attacks from advantage and deals damage equal to over half the target's current hit points the assassin may activate this ability and instatly kill the target. If the assassin chooses not to activate this ability against a target the assassin may not use this ability against that target during the remainder of the encounter.

So for example, Rob the assassin attacks Bob the bad guy. Bob currently has 20 hp. Rob attacks with advantage and deals 11 hp in damage, he may now activate Death Strike and instantly kill Bob. If he chooses not to activate Death Strike, he cannot use Death Strike against Bob for the rest of the encounter.


A low level assassin may not be killing the king in one blow, but a higher level assassin, with powers and abilities designed to give spike damage may just be doing that. Higher level assassins may also be able to trigger Death Strike more than once per encounter.


Some other possible powers could be:

Sniper Strike: If the assassin does not engage in melee or take damage for 2 rounds on his next attack he may treat his damage as x4 for the purposes of triggering Death Strike. The assassin must maintain line of sight with his intended target during the tho rounds preceding the attack.

So, after spending 2 rounds watching Bob, Rob attacks and does 11 points of damage, but he using Sniper Strike, he treats it as if he'd done 44 points of damage to see if he triggered Death Strike.



First Strike: If the assassin attacks during a surprise round, he may treat his target as having half its normal hit points for the purposes of triggering Death Strike for this attack.

So on the first round of combat Rob with surprise against Bob. Bob has 100 hp, and Rob would normally have to do 51 points of damage to trigger Death Strike. But by using the First Strike power, he can treat Bob has only having 50 hp, thereby setting the threshold for triggering Death Strike at 26 points of damage for that attack.