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

[Fifth Element]

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

I'm not being disingenuous - my entire point was that you want the inclusion of save-or-die because they have been included before. It's fine if you want them, but you need more of a reason than "more options are better". If options were all you were after, you would want the inclusion of chain swords and light sabres.

Many "legacy elements" of the game have disappeared over time. You shouldn't keep something just because it's already there. The designers' job is to design the best game they can, and it appears they believe the majority of players would have more fun without save-or-die effects.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I see no reason not to include save or die effects. It's a lot easier to not use them than it is to house rule them in. A dm who throws an old school disintegrate at a player and turns him to dust in a 4e game where disintegrate just does xdx damage will get tarred and feathered. A dm choosing not to use disintegrate will get buried in the game and likely never even noticed.

 

[hazel monday]

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.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

I agree.

@ Lurks, re: the "Letdown Factor":

I don't view my team hosing the BBEG in round 1 a "letdown" to begin with. Why not call it "an amazing victory"? Let's assume we're playing 1E, 2E or 3E, and the BBEG is about the right level, give or take, to challenge our party. We win initiative on round 1 and our spellcaster unloads a save-or-die. The BBEG rolls a 1 and snuffs it. Well, that's a matter for rejoicing. Since the BBEG was of appropriate stature to challenge us, we know that the DM isn't just spoon-feeding us victory: we earned it. We also know that we didn't walk into a trap or an ambush, we didn't use up any valuable resources and most of all nobody got killed! "Now it's mead time."

Now, are big, drawn-out, nail-biting battles fun? Yes. But completely hosing the enemy is also fun. To draw an analogy: not losing my character is fun. But it's fun precisely because I was in real danger of losing him. Likewise, because both a nail-biter and a turkey shoot (of either side A or side B) is possible, the possibility of any of those outcomes fuels the enjoyment of the particular outcome. Whereas, if the particular outcome was an inevitability, well then there's no surprise, is there?

It's the fairness of the rules, the complexity of the scenario, the employment of free will as players and the resulting surprise of the outcome that combine to produce what I call "fun". Take those elements away (i.e. make the rules favor the PCs too heavily, make the scenario too simple, take away the player's ability to act with strategy or make the outcome inevitable) and the "fun" goes away, at least as I see it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Someone picking up the game for the first time isn't going to say "Huhn. Where are all the things that can kill you based on the result of a single die roll? This game is incomplete without them."

Moreover, someone coming in fresh is likely going to have experience with CRPGs and the like, where the instant-death type of magic (whether it's death effects, petrification, etc.) are the least effective options.

 

[Grog]

Now you're just being silly.

Like I said, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of chanting "options, not restrictions" over and over without giving any thought to what it actually means. There are lots of options people might want - trying to include them all would just be silly. The designers have to pick somewhere to draw the line.

 

[DM-Rocco]

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.



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.

Well, you don't really know how much damage spells do in 4th edition either. Maybe all spells will be kinder and gentler spells doing 1d2 damage per level save for half of it being subduel.

I think it is safe to say that in 3.0 and 3.5 wizards can generate massive amounts of damage at higher levels. Whole threads have been dedicated to how to get in the most amount of damage in one round and not just from spell casters. There are many threads that give rules for people to make a 16th level character and do at the least 100 points of damage with one sword swing or get your strength score up to 100 or try and do over 1,000 points of damage.

So, for those of you complaining becuase the big bad lich has a wail of the banshee, think on this:

Round one: Lich cast sudden quickened Mord's followed by a suddened maximized and empowered time stop for 7 rounds of time stopping goodness.

Round two: Lich cast quickened wall of force to create a tigh cylinder around the party and then casts a delayed wall of force to top off the cylinder at the end of the time stop or in 6 round, 6 round remianing.

Round three: Lich twiddles his thumbs, maybe sings a song, maybe delays his actions so he is at the top of intitative, does a few buffs but probably just talks to himself in a lengthy monologue, 5 round remian

Round four: Lich cast delayed blast fireball twice, once cast normally and once using his handy rod of quickend spells and delays each for 5 rounds 4 round remaining

Round five: Lich follows up with two more delayed blast fireballs, delayed for 4 rounds, changing the properties to acid instead of fire using his Arch Mage class features, 3 rounds remaining

Round six: Lich follows up with two more delayed blast fireballs, delayed for 3 rounds, and changing the damage to cold, 2 rounds remaining

Round seven: Lich casts an other delayed blast fireball, two if he has another rod of quickened spells, delays them for 2 rounds and changes the damage to electricity, 1 round remaining

Round eight: Lich cast another delayed blast fireball delaying one round and chagning the damage to sonic, no remaining rounds in time stop

Round nine: Lich, at the top of the order, readies an action, just in case, to counter a spell, while he watches the:
2 delayed blast fireballs (fire) 40d6
2 delayed blast fireballs (cold) 40d6
2 delayed blast fireballs (acid) 40d6
2 delayed blast fireballs (electric) 40d6
2 delayed blast fireballs (sonic) 40d6
go off and the wall of force seal the top the cylinder.

With no where to run or hide (you are surrounded on all sides by a wall of force) and with no protection (thanks to the mords) and no hope of casting an escape spell (thanks to the lich having the initative and a readied counter spells) all party members will take 200d6 (or 200-1,200) points of damage. It should be a no save because of the walls of force, so even the rogue should die from this. Even if the lich didn't have rods of quicken spells the Lich still does 100d6 (or 100-600) damage. If he doesn't have enough 7th level slots to cast all of these (which he would if he were a sorcerer rather than a wizard) then he casts them as 8th level spells using heighten spell.

Now I ask you, in addition to being very pretty with all the fun colors, do you think this is less deadly than a save or die spell?

Sure, wail of the banshee is one spell, but the point is that the system is flawed, not the save or die effect.

Yes, I use the save or die sparingly, and without it there are still plenty of ways of dieing or doing tons of damage, but that should not exclude such spells just because people can die from them.

If that is the case then all characters should start with 100 hit points to avoid power word kills, no wait, 150 so they can't have harm cast on them. Then take disease out of the game, specially the ones that do CON damage because you can die from them.

I know that last bit is a little high strung, specially because no one really knows what is coming out of 4th edition, but the real question is, if they remove save or die effects, where do you stop?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't view my team hosing the BBEG in round 1 a "letdown" to begin with. Why not call it "an amazing victory"?

Because, all else being equal, it's ridiculously boring.

You could've had a fight where everyone had to pull out all the stops, bouncing back and forth between wounded and fine, dealing with multiple minions getting in the way, leaping from swaying rope bridge to swaying rope bridge, dramatic monologuing, sealing away half the BBEG's reinforcements with various walls and terrain altering spells ...

Or a single action a single roll ends it all.

I speak from personal experience.

I was playing a Warhammer Quest game with my normal D&D group, and I played a dwarven wizard-type as we were all attempting to flee Khazad Dum ahead of the balrog.

He caught us in one of the final chambers and I turned around and cast a spell that created a pit under him. He failed his save, and fell to his death.

Lamest ending to an adventure ever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ Lurks, re: the "Letdown Factor":

I don't view my team hosing the BBEG in round 1 a "letdown" to begin with. Why not call it "an amazing victory"? Let's assume we're playing 1E, 2E or 3E, and the BBEG is about the right level, give or take, to challenge our party. We win initiative on round 1 and our spellcaster unloads a save-or-die. The BBEG rolls a 1 and snuffs it. Well, that's a matter for rejoicing. Since the BBEG was of appropriate stature to challenge us, we know that the DM isn't just spoon-feeding us victory: we earned it. We also know that we didn't walk into a trap or an ambush, we didn't use up any valuable resources and most of all nobody got killed! "Now it's mead time."

Now, are big, drawn-out, nail-biting battles fun? Yes. But completely hosing the enemy is also fun. To draw an analogy: not losing my character is fun. But it's fun precisely because I was in real danger of losing him. Likewise, because both a nail-biter and a turkey shoot (of either side A or side B) is possible, the possibility of any of those outcomes fuels the enjoyment of the particular outcome. Whereas, if the particular outcome was an inevitability, well then there's no surprise, is there?

It's the fairness of the rules, the complexity of the scenario, the employment of free will as players and the resulting surprise of the outcome that combine to produce what I call "fun". Take those elements away (i.e. make the rules favor the PCs too heavily, make the scenario too simple, take away the player's ability to act with strategy or make the outcome inevitable) and the "fun" goes away, at least as I see it.

Quoted for excessive use of truth.

RC

 

[hazel monday]

Like I said, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of chanting "options, not restrictions" over and over without giving any thought to what it actually means. There are lots of options people might want - trying to include them all would just be silly. The designers have to pick somewhere to draw the line.

I actually agree that D&D already has too many options. There's too many feats, too many spells, too many PrCs, too many books, too much stuff in general.
I just find it funny that the Hasbro designers are the ones who keep "chanting" empty slogans like "options, not restrictions" over and over, while at the same time, it seems like they're removing actual tactical and plot related options from the DM's repertoire.