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

[Grog]

But my point is that if you provide for mechanics that allow this to occur in another way -- say, lots of damage -- the problem persists and it is purely a perception issue.

Things that do enough damage to kill a character with a single roll of the d20 are pretty rare IME, especially compared to how ubiquitous save-or-die effects become at high levels.

The DM should plan better, then. Seriously, as someone who prefers DMing by a long shot, if the PCs walk all over my BBEG like that, I give them a grudging nod of approval and work harder next time.

The problem is, not all encounters are created equal. Yes, if the PCs win a run-of-the-mill encounter in round 1 with a save-or-die, that's no big deal. You can just move on to the next encounter. But if it's a big, climactic battle with the BBEG that you've been building up to for months, and they win it in round 1 with a save-or-die, that's a problem, because you can't just whip up another big, climactic battle on the fly. Those kinds of things take time to build up to.

If the players are the ones responsible -- after all, it was a PC that prepared finger of death, for example -- they really have no one to blame but themselves for an "anti-clamactic" battle.

So then, the PCs should metagame and take less effective spells just to artificially prolong the fight past the point where they could have ended it? Because that's really the only alternative.

They should likely, in fact, be rather proud of themselves for getting the job done quick and done right.

Actually, it's more likely that their reaction will be something along the lines of "We spent three months building up to that??"

 

[Henry]

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.

Because I want them!

Seriously, the big question is whether or not enough gamers to make a difference want such an option, and apparently to the designers, the answer is "no."

 

[Reynard]

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.

You are being disingenuous. Chain swords and light sabers are not legacy elements that have always existed as a part of the game...

You need a reason why these rules in particular should be included as core.

... and SoD are, having helped to define certain groups' playstyles by the effect they have on adventures and encounters.

But the design goals of 4E don't seem to include keeping older players or bringing them back, as 3E's design goals did. SoD is just another legacy element that is happily getting excised, like Vancian casting, in favor of... what, exactly? While I am certain that some 3rd part publisher will reintroduce SoD spells, monsters and the like (I am looking at you, Necromancer) within days of 4E's release, that is not the point: the point is that it has always been a part of the game and the motivation for removing it isn't to make the game better or increase everyone's fun, it is to make a certain kind of game better and increase the fun of a particular kind of D&D player/DM. it is limiting and restrictive and suggests that the designers know not just what makes a better mechanic, but what makes a better adventure, better milieu and better game (in the at the table sense) than the player/DM.

 

[Grog]

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.

Fine. So let's have a monster with a power that kills the whole party in one round with no save. Options, not restrictions.

And let's also have a first level spell that creates 100,000 GP worth of permanent magic items per casting. Options, not restrictions.

And let's also have blaster pistols and lightsabers in the core rules. Options, not restrictions.

 

[Reynard]

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.

This isn't about hosue rules -- it is about the 4E design team making a decision that limits D&D's appeal across playstyles for a reason that amounts to "51% of people we polled don't like it." The other 49% buy books too, though, at least they'd like to unless the game goes so far from its roots as to be unrecognizable.

 

[Reynard]

Fine. So let's have a monster with a power that kills the whole party in one round with no save. Options, not restrictions.

And let's also have a first level spell that creates 100,000 GP worth of permanent magic items per casting. Options, not restrictions.

And let's also have blaster pistols and lightsabers in the core rules. Options, not restrictions.

You can repeat this kind of thing all day, but I think you know very well that you are being ridiculous, intentionally, in trying to suggest these things are "options" that are somehow viable.

 

[Reynard]

The problem is, not all encounters are created equal. Yes, if the PCs win a run-of-the-mill encounter in round 1 with a save-or-die, that's no big deal. You can just move on to the next encounter. But if it's a big, climactic battle with the BBEG that you've been building up to for months, and they win it in round 1 with a save-or-die, that's a problem, because you can't just whip up another big, climactic battle on the fly. Those kinds of things take time to build up to.


So then, the PCs should metagame and take less effective spells just to artificially prolong the fight past the point where they could have ended it? Because that's really the only alternative.


Actually, it's more likely that their reaction will be something along the lines of "We spent three months building up to that??"

But, see, none of those things are issues for me, because my playstyle doesn't make such occurances into a problem. They are just part of the ever evolving wierdness that is the lives of an adventuring group.

 

[Grog]

You can repeat this kind of thing all day, but I think you know very well that you are being ridiculous, intentionally, in trying to suggest these things are "options" that are somehow viable.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of chanting "options, not restrictions" over and over without giving any thought to what it actually means.

But, see, none of those things are issues for me, because my playstyle doesn't make such occurances into a problem. They are just part of the ever evolving wierdness that is the lives of an adventuring group.

I'm not going to tell you that your playstyle is wrong or anything - if it works for you, great - but I think that a fight that the group has been building up to for a long time being over in round 1 thanks to a save-or-die is going to be a major disappointment for most gaming groups.

 

[RangerWickett]

Necromancers don't finger of death you. They grip your skeleton and shatter your bones. They cause your arm to turn against you and tear itself out of its socket, then proceed to claw you in the face. They cause your heart to falter so your vision blurs and the zombie swarm you had been hewing through begins to grapple you and gnaw at your flesh.

Avada Kedavra is a boring spell.

If nothing else, save or die effects should be removed because you can come up with things that are just a lot more interesting. Sure, magic missile is neat, but wouldn't you much rather have a 1st level spell that sets someone on fire for a round (+1 round per 2 levels after 1st)? Magic is a lot more fun when it creates things you have to deal with, as opposed to simply killing you or ablating hit points.

 

[DandD]

This isn't about hosue rules -- it is about the 4E design team making a decision that limits D&D's appeal across playstyles for a reason that amounts to "51% of people we polled don't like it." The other 49% buy books too, though, at least they'd like to unless the game goes so far from its roots as to be unrecognizable.

You don't even really know if it's 51% in favor of omitting the instant-death-effects or not. It could be 75%, it could be 69%, or 99%.
Or perhaps, the Game Designers thought it wrong, and actually, 99% of the gaming community would rather retain the instant-death effect-thingies.

However, one thing is sure, you don't have correct numbers. I will believe that more than 2/3 either don't care or don't want any 'save-or-die'-effects, and that's good. It's also a guts-feeling, just like your 49%-numbers.