Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[pemerton]

if you never want anyone to sit out, then nobody can ever die. And yes, that is stupid.

Are you aware that their are RPGs in which players control - via metagame mechanics - the risk of death to their PC, ranging from d20 games (OGL Conan) to otherwise oldstyle games (HARP) to contemporary narrativist-oriented games (Dying Earth, HeroWars/Quest)? Assuming that you are, are you saying that those games are stupid? Or is there something peculiar about D&D that makes player control over the stakes for their PC stupid for it only?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think you completely missed his point.

I played through AoW, too, and if the dragon you're talking about is the one I think you're talking about, you didn't actually have to fight the dragon (i.e., drink the river of lava). You could have just avoided it.

Or tunnel under it, or fly over it, or teleport past it, or...

Possible. I think the DM is also at fault here in not presenting us any options where we could avoid him. I think he made quite a few mistakes.

But: The monster is still a monster characters are supposed to beat! The CR was not that much higher then our party level. And judging from his attack values and AC, it seems as if he would have been a serious threat even if we were a few levels higher!

But this is leading a little off-topic. We're not discussing Age of Worms or the quality of Challenge Ratings...

But again, if you never want anyone to sit out, then nobody can ever die.

You're not really adressing the issues at hand.
Sitting out happens too often, and too easy without any influence from the player if Save or Die or Save or Sit spells are around. You roll your save, and you are either allowed to go on, or you are not.

And aside from the fact that there is not actually a problem if the PCs can't die in a game, because there are other challenges to be considered: Death doesn't have to mean sitting out. If you die close in the middle or the end of an encounter, the time you have to sit out isn't that much - the party can resurrect you soon, or you roll up a new character.
In fact: If character creation in 3E was faster and easier, and there were no Raise Dead mechanics, a death in the first round of combat wouldn't be that bad, at least your busy creating your character. But if you're "forced" to wait on a raise dead spell or forced to wait until someone casts stone to flesh or something like that, that's when you really have to sit out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or tunnel under it, or fly over it, or teleport past it, or...

Antimagic Field.

 

[Shabe]

Sorry, I thought you were saying that there were effects that make you roll three saves, and if you fail all then you die. Misunderstood.

If you are knocked to minus hit points, then there should be more of a danger, as you are at 'death's door.' I was refering more to how long and how difficult it is now to get you to 'death's door.'

No you are right. 4e has effects that turn you to stone or kill you within 3 rounds of failed saving throws.
It also has a death count when you hit negative, saving throw every round if you fail 3 you are dead, if you get 10 - 19 you don't get worse, if you get 20 or higher you get to spend your second wind if available and go on to 1/4 your hp(if you don't have second wind you go to 0).
Also if you go to -50% of your hp you die.

To me this sounds like there is more opportunity to keeping yourself on your feet and healed than in previous editions. Some mention the overabundance of healing available in previous editions, and that 4ed limits that by limiting each individual to a certain number of healing surges, but I think that is all dependent upon your own view.

And staves of healing which heal 100 odd hit points? Although I do agree its just dependent on your own view and what you are used to. If you didn't have access to wands and staves of healing/curing then 4e will seem like it has tons, if you did then it won't.

So, from your point of view, you have seen characters reach 0 hit points more often in 4ed? I can see how this could alter your perception, but from what I have seen and heard, the experiences are opposite, especially with characters in 4ed starting with and gaining more hit points per level than I witnessed previously.

I DM Ginnel's game, we've had 4 seperate occasions where people have been dropped and we have played 8 Sessions and 11 fights (only 3 hour sessions, and the party take quite a while to reach decisions).
In the 3e game i ran I saw 9-10 deaths and probably a similar number of times the players reaching negative, thats over 10 levels and many many sessions.

Which is why I think people are feeling that 4ed is safer than previous editions. Sure the argument can come up that mentions that the books tried to tell you that an equivalent leveled encounter should take up to 25% of the parties resources, but that could be one character if the combat went that way. It doesn't seem to go that way in 4ed.

4e seems to be written to allow parties to keep going, the party got through 8 fights in one day, some were weaker than others but still depleted the parties resources (healing surges or dailies).
Its presumed that the parties are equally prepared for each encounter and that they have a trick or two to pull out when things get difficult (dailies or items).
This enables every encounter to be taxing and the players have options if its going badly (alternatively they blast every single encounter and rest up).
3e was apparently balanced around 4 encounters that each took "20%" of the resources and mainly its only when it gets to the end encounters of a day that the party are taxed. You needed your daily resources.

Well, a fight that takes a couple of swings to kill, or a spell or two to kill isn't necessarily too bad, in my opinion. It is when it takes round after round of, 'well I did another 15 points of damage. Where's he at?' 'Another 10% gone.' That can take a long time in our time, and the perception is that it would be a long time in game time.

I guess its all a preference, if you look at rounds being boring then yeah it will drag, but in 4e in each of those rounds you can do something different (no matter what class, perhaps not so apparent at 1st level), as opposed to a fight in 3e which would see melee charge/move and attack then the following rounds full attack and step to flank and the spellcasters throwing out their numerous spells.

I think that was my perception of the end of Star Wars Episode III when they were fighting their lightsabre duel for so long. It seemed ridiculous and boring after a bit, especially when one of them standing a little higher on the ground ended the combat immediately. That should've happened right at the beginning, and things would've been so much easier to watch.

-wally

It is all quite probably a matter of preference indeed

 

[BryonD]

Sitting out happens too often, and too easy without any influence from the player if Save or Die or Save or Sit spells are around. You roll your save, and you are either allowed to go on, or you are not.

Again, we clearly have vastly different ideas of what is fun, the relative value of character activity vs. player involvement, creating a world vs. staying in the battle game, etc...

I think it is a shame to claim that having your character out of the action means you are simply just sitting.
And I think it is a shame to think that making threats function the way they should, should be discarded on the altar of keeping the character fighting.

I'm certain I could have a fun evening playing out a battle game with this mentality. I have and will again. But if you tell me that I am supposed be "in character" rather than just playing a battle, then I'm going to strongly prefer a game that is built with that as a higher priority. And being as that game exists (quite a few incarnations actually), I'm going to be less that satisfied with settling for 14th best.

You are defining how often something should happen by the effect on players in the battle game.
I am defining how often something should happen by the demands of the events and story.
These are fundamentally different expectations and different game systems are appropriate to meet them.
It is all a matter of prefer and what is more important to you.
To me, the statement that it happens "too often" in 3E is just completely off base.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, we clearly have vastly different ideas of what is fun, the relative value of character activity vs. player involvement, creating a world vs. staying in the battle game, etc...

I think it is a shame to claim that having your character out of the action means you are simply just sitting.
And I think it is a shame to think that making threats function the way they should, should be discarded on the altar of keeping the character fighting.

Well, I am not ashamed.

I'm certain I could have a fun evening playing out a battle game with this mentality. I have and will again. But if you tell me that I am supposed be "in character" rather than just playing a battle, then I'm going to strongly prefer a game that is built with that as a higher priority. And being as that game exists (quite a few incarnations actually), I'm going to be less that satisfied with settling for 14th best.

I don't really get what you are talking about here.

You are defining how often something should happen by the effect on players in the battle game.
I am defining how often something should happen by the demands of the events and story.
These are fundamentally different expectations and different game systems are appropriate to meet them.
It is all a matter of prefer and what is more important to you.
To me, the statement that it happens "too often" in 3E is just completely off base.

And how good is it for the story to have protagonists die randomly in combat? And possibly have them resurrected on a regular basis? Doesn't sound like the typical stories I read, but admittedly, I'm not such a big fantasy reader. Death in Terry Prattchett's Discworld novels is a nice guy, but most people still stay dead there. Secondary characters die, and stay dead, too.
In Buffy, the main character technically died two times in 7 seasons, and her coming back from the Death was a major story point, not a throw-away line.
In Battlestar Galactica, many people die, but they are not protagonists, just "side-kicks" and allies. And they stay dead, too. Exception of course are the Cylons, who have a handy resurrection technology - and that again is a major plot point.

Okay, but that is only death. There are other "save or sit" effects.
How many stories do you know where the PCs are overcome by magical effects and can't act for a major part of the time?

Heck, even the story of Medusa (I just read the "cliff notes" on Wikipedia) hasn't the protagonist turn into stone. In fact, he is helped by several allies to ensure he can avoid looking at her and turning to stone.
In the mythology of the Medusa, there was only one, not dozens or hundreds of them that you might meet if you go around the wrong corner.

Now, if you tell me you use all those Save or Die effects the same way - as a major plot point, with enough possibilities for the PCs to prepare themselves against it (at least if they try), then SoD effects are okay. They don't actually happen to the PCs, but they could if they were too incompetent. That's a little like those doomsday scenarios that PCs have to avoid - the evil cultists won't destroy the sun if the PCs do their job.

 

[WizarDru]

AI think it is a shame to claim that having your character out of the action means you are simply just sitting.

Good point. He could be standing. Or maybe walking to the fridge or going upstairs and playing Rock Band on the 360.

 

[Toras]

Honestly, we have never found Save or Dies all that effective. If only because by the time most casters we come across are packing them, we have Deathwards and Mindblanks as such in case. Add to that Revify, and so long as the cleric doesn't fail (me) I can any of them back up. And that is assuming that Counterspelling/Spell Turning doesn't have that spell hurtling backward towards them like a returned serve. (We generally have more casters than they do, making magic much more of a boon than a burden).

Honestly, we are way more likely to be gutted by a horror from beyond than have a problem snapping an enemy wizard in half.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Good point. He could be standing. Or maybe walking to the fridge or going upstairs and playing Rock Band on the 360.

Sometimes I go downstairs to the toilet.
Or I lie down on the floor and silently weep myself to sleep...

 

[Hussar]

This topic always revolves around the same basic point. That somehow removing Save or Die means that you are removing death from the table. That's simply not true. You are removing ONE method of death, sure, but, death is still very much on the table.

Take it a different route for a second. I'll create a creature that does PC HP's+11 every time it hits. It gets one attack per PC every round. I don't think anyone would consider this to be a well designed creature. It's ridiculous and it wouldn't be any fun to use or face. Poof, you die. Wiff, you live.

But, that's exactly what save or die is, only the player rolls his save rather than the DM rolling an attack. Heck, my creature would be less dangerous to the fighter types than most SoD creatures. At least you could bump your AC up and make it virtually impossible to be hit.

The monster would still suck. Because it completely breaks how monsters are designed in D&D. That's not how monsters work. We don't want monsters that are that lethal in the game, it's too hard to use them.

That's why I hate SoD monsters. It's not really Save or Die. It's just die. SOMEONE is going to fail a saving throw. Doesn't matter how careful you are, doesn't matter how tactical you are, doesn't matter what preparations you make. You just die. All because of a bad roll.

And this is fun?

I always thought fun was actually playing the game. Yeah, PC's die. But, it shouldn't be because I rolled one bad roll and then get to sit on my hands for the next hour or so.