Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[DandD]

I quite frankly don't see the difference if you are going to take out death and leave in the maximized, crittable lightning bolt.

Perhaps you will still be able to survive the maximized, critical striked lightning bolt, just not a second one, but at least, you're still not dead, and you might have a chance to somehow stop the lightning bolt-caster.

And we don't even know how and if Metamagic Feats will still be incorporated...

 

[DandD]

Unequivocally? No.

Which rather means that their Challenge Rating was applied wrong by the game designers, a fault that they admitted to be ashamed of and trying to correct and improvise upon in 4th edition.

For an every day or random encounter? Certainly.

Yes. Which means no fun at all for everybody, unless you're a Game Master who enjoys winning against your players, or your players really don't mind having to recreate new player characters, therefor not having any sense of fear and awe in the first place.

 

[Grog]

A monster that instantly kills the party is not something many DMs would realistically want or need. You are being preposterous.

Actually, just going by some of the things I've read on this forum, there are at least some DMs out there who would want a monster exactly like that. They'd justify it by saying things like "Sometimes players just need to know when to run away," and "Players shouldn't be going into situations unprepared," and if anyone complained that such a monster was grossly unfair, they'd be accused of wanting to play a risk-free game and told to "suck it up and quit being such a baby - adventuring is supposed to be dangerous."

 

[Psion]

Which rather means that their Challenge Rating was applied wrong by the game designers, a fault that they admitted to be ashamed of and trying to correct and improvise upon in 4th edition.

How is this a reply to "no"?

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps you will still be able to survive the maximized, critical striked lightning bolt, just not a second one, but at least, you're still not dead, and you might have a chance to somehow stop the lightning bolt-caster.

The whole point of a save-or-die effect is that there is a save. But that fact seems to keep getting forgotten in these kinds of discussions. The default assumption seems to be that a player character -- or all of them -- is definitely doomed. It is a flase argument and serves no useful purpose other than to bolster an extreme viewpoint.

And we don't even know how and if Metamagic Feats will still be incorporated...

You and Bishmon are both missing the point. i don't care about the exact rules of metamagic. The assumption -- the one that Bishmon made that I was responding too -- was that a wizard is still dangerous without save-or-die effects, still has access to magic that can, through hit point damage or whatever, drop a PC with possibility as a save-or-die effect. If that is the case, there's no difference: we are still at a place where the Dm is making decisions about encounter design that will put the PCs in harms way, to possibly die in round 1 of a combat.

 

[Grog]

And this, of course, is exactly the ame thing as a medusa or finger of death.

I never said it was the same thing as a medusa or a finger of death. I was using it as an illustration that it's possible to take the "options, not restrictions" philosophy too far.

 

[Psion]

Actually, just going by some of the things I've read on this forum, there are at least some DMs out there who would want a monster exactly like that. They'd justify it by saying things like "Sometimes players just need to know when to run away," and "Players shouldn't be going into situations unprepared," and if anyone complained that such a monster was grossly unfair, they'd be accused of wanting to play a risk-free game and told to "suck it up and quit being such a baby - adventuring is supposed to be dangerous."

(Shrug) Minus the pejorative characterizations, fair enough. But then, while I feel there is a place for (as 3e calls them) status quo encounters, I don't feel they need special rules per se. For most character levels, it's simply a matter of a creature a bit beyond your abilities. And I don't particularly think stats for creatures that nobody can beat is too helpful.

 

[Reynard]

Actually, just going by some of the things I've read on this forum, there are at least some DMs out there who would want a monster exactly like that. They'd justify it by saying things like "Sometimes players just need to know when to run away," and "Players shouldn't be going into situations unprepared," and if anyone complained that such a monster was grossly unfair, they'd be accused of wanting to play a risk-free game and told to "suck it up and quit being such a baby - adventuring is supposed to be dangerous."

Well, isn't it?

More to the point, though, si this: save-or-die effects don't belong at every table, in every game or in every adventure. They do, however, belong in some of those. Removing them from the game is a limitation and restriction that doesn't need to be there: it serves no useful purpose and only serves to promote a singular playstyle that not everyone shares.

One of my big problems with 4E is that it seems that the designers have decided what is "unfun" for everyone, when such a declaration is patently impossible. There's as many playstyles as there are groups, players even. Removing certain playstyles from the core rules only manages to alienate a certain subset of your potential audience. Most people who don't like ave or die effects in the game have already -- as evidenced by many a post in this thread -- already removed them from the game, so where is the harm in keeping them in?

 

[hong]

Well, isn't it?

More to the point, though, si this: save-or-die effects don't belong at every table, in every game or in every adventure. They do, however, belong in some of those. Removing them from the game is a limitation and restriction that doesn't need to be there: it serves no useful purpose and only serves to promote a singular playstyle that not everyone shares.

One of my big problems with 4E is that it seems that the designers have decided what is "unfun" for everyone, when such a declaration is patently impossible. There's as many playstyles as there are groups, players even. Removing certain playstyles from the core rules only manages to alienate a certain subset of your potential audience. Most people who don't like ave or die effects in the game have already -- as evidenced by many a post in this thread -- already removed them from the game, so where is the harm in keeping them in?

If you want a save or die, you can just as easily put it back in. Where is the harm in taking them out?

 

[Psion]

I never said it was the same thing as a medusa or a finger of death. I was using it as an illustration that it's possible to take the "options, not restrictions" philosophy too far.

But it's not any such thing. I want the options to have a creature like a medusa in my game, or have a villain use a finger of death. If you don't care to have that sort of risk, then you are free not to use them. Those who want to use them, can.