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

[Rechan]

You know that not only can the bad guys use save or die effects but the good guys can too.

I'm all too aware that Pcs can use save or dies - they used one in the second round of combat and killed the BBEG.

 

[Rechan]

Other than Mel in Braveheart, (save versus your inerds or die) you are not going to find a main character who dies. By their death they become cohorts.

I really feel that is a bad example on your part.

Mel didn't save or die - his HP were wittled down. (Or Coup de graced, one).

I can name several movies where the main characters die.

But that just proves my point even more - if the main characters never die, then why have insta-death?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

In my secret theoretical variant, the warning is ability damage. So a bodak might have a gaze attack that inflicts 2 points of Con damage each round (Fort negates).

Ability damage from a gaze attack is the sort of thing that would make my players go "OH SHI--", but would give even the weakest at least a round or two of warning.

Better yet, they play nice with other monsters. A mixed group of bodaks & ghasts is now a terrible threat, because you will want to get through the ghasts to kill the bodaks fast -- and yet the bodaks are reducing your Fort saves and reducing your HP, while the ghasts are sickening you and threatening paralysis in addition to reducing your HP through good old melee attacks.

Cheers, -- N

Or it could be "save or dying". You fail a save, you're reduced to zero HP or incapacitated. You fail again the next round, you advance down the condition track. Sort of like how the drowned works.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

what would the reason for their exclusion be?

Ease to differentiate play style.

To fully remove save-or-die stuff from the game it has to not be an option for both the DM and the players. This means that it should be listed on the house rules at the beginning of the campaign.

Okay... So what does "No Save-or-Die Spells" mean? Unless there is a classification along the lines of [GOOD] and [MIND-AFFECTING] it would require a list of spells. A list that would need to be updated as each new book came out.

I would have no problem with WotC making a book called something like Legacy of Lethality which included a buch of Save-or-Die spells, feats, abilities from substitution levels and craetures. Those who want Save-or-Die effects can add in the book and those who don't can say "No Legacy of Lethality" on the house rules document.

I'm a player and not a DM. I don't want Save-or-Die for two reasons:

1 - I have sat out of hour+ battles because I was taken out early. The ones that come to mind I can't be certain if it was because of SoD effects or because I got pounded on very early. I know of other players in our group that were taken out for long stretches of time because of SoD effects. It was boring (for me and I could tell that the other players were bored); very... very... boring.

Sure, other stuff could take me from full to dust in a single round; crits, high damage spells, 100 first-level wizards all casting Magic Missle at once targeting me and so on... If the DM wants to kill me in one shot the DM will be able to. There is no getting around that; but removing SoD will lower the chance of me being able to catch up on sleep in the middle of a session without missing anything.

2 - It is true that I'd rather not die from a SoD but I also don't want the BBEG to go down in one hit. That is boring as well. My PCs have been saved on a few occations by the Big Nasty Critter rolling a 1 on their Fort save. After the huge sigh of relief I always find myself thinking that it was actually a boring encounter. When I'm talking to the DM my favorite fights are the ones where we as PCs had to work for the victory - the exciting fights where it could have gone either way. If I've been twiddeling my thumbs for a half-hour the fight doesn't qualify. Call me odd but extreme bordom doesn't make a fight 'exciting' for me.

Contrary to the popular phrase, I don't play D&D to "kill things and take their stuff". I play D&D to "beat things down, kill them and take their stuff". Outright killing them skips that all important first step.

 

[Henry]

Or it could be "save or dying". You fail a save, you're reduced to zero HP or incapacitated. You fail again the next round, you advance down the condition track. Sort of like how the drowned works.

Truth be told, I could even go with that. You're effectively "dead", but there is a chance to get you back into the fight, not of your own volition. For me it works better than literally having to whittle ANY PC or NPC down a piece at the time if there is to be a takedown.

True, but if things are balanced correctly, there shouldn't be an attack that does so much damage that you die with no chance of survival. I think that is just as big a problem as save or die effects.

However, that's the part I don't like -- the part where players or DMs are forced to "whittle down" a combatant like winning a Magic; the Gathering duel. I'd rather have the occasional effect that can take out a combatant with a single roll, because it simulates the level of lethality I and other players are going for in games, and having that option removed entirely is something I'm not happy with as editions of D&D go on.

 

[hazel monday]

having that option removed entirely is something I'm not happy with as editions of D&D go on.

Agreed. I thought new age D&D was supposed to be about "options, not restrictions."At least, that's a common soundbyte that I keep hearing from the Hasbro staff.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Rick James is a lich?

"I'm Rick James, lich!"

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Back to the topic on hand: I do think it'd be pretty easy to implement save-or-die effects into the game. It'd probably go something like this:

1) pick the spells you want to be save-or-die
2) remove their hp damage
3) Wizard makes an attack roll against AC/Reflex/Fort/Will defense (whichever is appropriate). If it beats the defense the character dies, if it doesn't he character lives
4) tweak as necessary

or, if you'd prefer your players still have the option to save themselves by rolling, it will probably look something like:

1) take the appropriate defense score
2) roll a d20 + defense modifer - 10 vs. the spellcaster's attack roll
3) tweak as necessary

The tweaking part is what I think would really take some game testing. For instance, if your high-powered lich has a high spell attack modifier compared to your PC's defenses, you may have to adjust his modifier for specific save-or-die spells in order to avoid killing off all your PCs.

 

[Reynard]

"I'm Rick James, lich!"

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Back to the topic on hand: I do think it'd be pretty easy to implement save-or-die effects into the game. It'd probably go something like this:

1) pick the spells you want to be save-or-die
2) remove their hp damage
3) Wizard makes an attack roll against AC/Reflex/Fort/Will defense (whichever is appropriate). If it beats the defense the character dies, if it doesn't he character lives
4) tweak as necessary

or, if you'd prefer your players still have the option to save themselves by rolling, it will probably look something like:

1) take the appropriate defense score
2) roll a d20 + defense modifer - 10 vs. the spellcaster's attack roll
3) tweak as necessary

The tweaking part is what I think would really take some game testing. For instance, if your high-powered lich has a high spell attack modifier compared to your PC's defenses, you may have to adjust his modifier for specific save-or-die spells in order to avoid killing off all your PCs.

The point -- at least that Henry and I and others are making -- is that the DM shouldn't be reinstituting it as a house rules or waiting a year for DMG II to be out if their, and their players', playstyle includes save or die effects. Just put them in and be sure to note via sidebar or whatever that SoD has X impact on the game and to use with caution.

In fact, there's lots of thing that could do with a little insightful sidebar that will help players and DMs make decisions about what to include or not.

 

[Fifth Element]

The point -- at least that Henry and I and others are making -- is that the DM shouldn't be reinstituting it as a house rules or waiting a year for DMG II to be out if their, and their players', playstyle includes save or die effects. Just put them in and be sure to note via sidebar or whatever that SoD has X impact on the game and to use with caution.

In fact, there's lots of thing that could do with a little insightful sidebar that will help players and DMs make decisions about what to include or not.

Yes, but again that logic can be used to include everything you could possibly imagine, with notes included to use only what you want. Chain swords and light sabres? They're in the equipment chapter, just be sure to read the sidebar about the effect of allowing them in your game.

To a certain degree, you have to let the game designers design the game. There are all kinds of rules that could be included as optional, but a decision has to be made at some point. As such, arguing that something should be included just because it would provide another option is not a sufficient argument by itself, because that implies that anything and everything should be included. You need a reason why these rules in particular should be included as core.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

The point -- at least that Henry and I and others are making -- is that the DM shouldn't be reinstituting it as a house rules or waiting a year for DMG II to be out if their, and their players', playstyle includes save or die effects.

This seems to be a discussion of another sort, touching not just on save-or-die effects but all rules from previous editions that might or might not be omitted. Which is why I didn't really address it in my first post, but since the thread is oriented in that direction, why not?

If I may ask, what is the general hang-up with house rules? Is it just that they're not written by Wizards employees? That it wouldn't be RPGA sanctioned? Something else? I'm not trying to be snide here, I really don't understand the problem.

I personally prefer not to house-rule, but if there is a particular rule that I feel will make or break my play style, I'm going to do my best to work with the system to implement it. If I felt as strongly as some of you do, I'd do my best to implement the rule on my watch. I'm not an RPGA DM. I play with my friends. I won't speak for them, but I think they'd be happy to work it out with me, and if it wasn't working, they'd tell me.

I've been reading these boards for a while now, and I know people don't have a problem houseruling. What is it about this particular rule, or this particular edition, that some feel that implementing their own rules would be inappropriate? I seriously doubt Rule 0 is going out the window in this version.

Just put them in and be sure to note via sidebar or whatever that SoD has X impact on the game and to use with caution. In fact, there's lots of thing that could do with a little insightful sidebar that will help players and DMs make decisions about what to include or not.

To be fair, we don't know that there isn't some kind of sidebar about save-or-die spells. It's not the default mechanic, but it could be an optional rule of some kind, maybe in the DMG.