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

[DM-Rocco]

Wall of Force doesn't work like that. Maximized and Empowered doesn't work like that. There's not much precedent for denying saves simply because a character can't leave the area. Without line of effect courtesy of his own walls of force, a counterspell isn't going to work. The initiative mechanic makes it somewhat unlikely that the lich beats everyone. And Disjunction is BS - it's not unlikely that there's a Contingency floating around in the group designed to counteract it.

Let's see,, walls of force can be shaped, so they do work like that, they are invisiable, so you have line of sight and that is exactly how maximized and empowered work, takes the varible die and maxes it and empower multiplies it by 1.5 1d4+1 maximized equals 5 then empowered equals 7.

Even though there is not much precendent for such a thing, it is a common house rule that if you have no where to run or hide or duck behind being trapped in such a way dnies you a saving throw. The whole point of the saving throw to avoid half the damage is that you jump out of the way or hide behind something with cover or other effects. Yes, that is a house rule we apply because it makes sense, but even with a saving throw they still take a lot of damage. Sure, by the strict rules, a person with evasion really could avoid all of it, but in this case, it would be absurd to think he could avoid all damage.

Even if the party goes first they have to kill him in one round, thus increasing the arguement for save vesus death effects or one round kills and yes you can rearrange your order in initiative so the lich does go first.

Also, even though Mords might be BS and a total buzz killer for the party, it is part of the liches spells, so now you want to take that away along with death effects too?

If the party has the Christmas tree effects cooking (or as we call it the Royal with Cheese), then yes, they will not only have contingencies working but also many buffs including heros feast and other goodies, which according to the rules is fine. That just goes to my point that so what if a high level party has to make a save or die saving throw, they are protected by a spell (non-epic, but I forget the name) that automatically resurrects them when they die, the only side effect is the loss of a point of CON that they regain when the spell triggers.

Yeah, thanks for casting the save or die spell, we lived right through that, anything else?

 

[DM-Rocco]

Except it doesnt follow their combat model (more opponents per combat). Unless you just want every DM to have to apply meta-game kid skin gloves and have their NPC's use sub-par tactics and spell selection.

WTF?!? :\

I have no idea what you mean, I thought he actually had a good point but I don't see yours.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Well sure, a Wall of Force is invisible and grants you line of sight. But

Breath weapons and spells cannot pass through the wall in either direction

, so he'll have to wait on the capping wall and be above the Tube O' Death when he starts casting.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Fun for you maybe, but not for me.

I don't have a problem with my PC dying in a fight. I just want that death to be from being whittled down and over powered - not because my die decided it didn't like me and thus rolled a 1. I'm there to play a hero. It's not very heroic to die before I get to take an action. It's not that I'm a spotlight hog (well, my DM might disagree but...); I don't mind sitting by while the DM plays out a scene with other players. I don't mind letting other players get the spotlight for the fights either; it's just that the role-playing scenes usually don't last for hours on end without me getting to actively do something.

My group just got done with a campaign that went to level 27. If we get that high again I'm sure we're going to have some house rule with the Massive Damage save. Most (if not all) of our PCs had a Fort save of at least +14 by the time 50 damage become somewhat of a regular occurance. Whenever we got hit with a large amount of damage we usually rolled the die and declared "not a 1" before the damage was even tallied.

Yes, that is an issue with the Massive Damage Save and not a spell. When it came to SoD spells the only difference is that we might actually have to roll higher on the d20. It was almost as common (even "mooks" are casting 9th level spells by that point), just as boring (for me) and (in my opinion) sucks just as much if you fail.

If your big problem with save or die effects is that you are worried that you have a 5% chance of dieing from a save or die effect, then come us with a solution to the puzzle rather than throught he puzzle out.

There is a feat in PHBII I think, Steadfast Determination, that allows you to use your CON bonus to will saves rather than your WIS bonus and in addition you never fail a fort save on a roll of 1. There are also many other luck feats and class features that allow you to simply reroll the die. So if your whole arguement is that you don't like the chance of dieing by rolloing a 1, then take a feat or class feature that prevents it and come up with a better excuse for why you should get rid of save or die effects.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I can't speak for everyone who wants to keep save or die in the game. But as for me, I've only used save or die effects twice in 15 years of DMing. I don't enjoy using save or die effects against my players. But I enjoy watching my players reactions when the possibility of fighting a wizard that's powerful enough to use those spells against the players.
Save or Die is just another tool in the DMs bag of tricks. Overusing it is a pretty lousy trick to pull on your players, I must admit. But I like having the threat of it hanging there.

That sums up most of my feels on the subject.

 

[DM-Rocco]

BTW, does anyone know if there are any big character optimization gurus in the playtests? Are such players represented well in the RPGA? There definitely are some people with a positive genius for finding exploits and abuses in the rules. It would be nice to think that such people at least get some time with the 4e rules.

In order to play test you need to sign a contract to not talk about it, so if anyone speaks up on this point and claims they are, then they are either lieing or have breached their contract.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

WTF?!? :\

I have no idea what you mean, I thought he actually had a good point but I don't see yours.

Meaning when you choose to have NPC's NOT prepare/use SoD's, you're applying metagame PC friendly tactics so they dont get greased by mooks (and at certain points, mooks DO have save or die abilities).

He's talking about how a good DM needs to limit save or die effects... which in and of itself acknowledges their problematic nature.

I'm not sure what you're confused by. Combats will be larger in 4th edition, with an expected 1 monster per pc. The monsters will be equal level. So instead of an 8th level party fighting one bodak, they'd be fighting 4. Instead of fighting one 9th level NPC cleric with slay living, you fight 4. If they kept the current SoD model, PC's would get forced into making many more saves. Hence, if they are moving to larger combats, it makes sense to tone down certain things.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

So if your whole arguement is that you don't like the chance of dieing by rolloing a 1, then take a feat or class feature that prevents it and come up with a better excuse for why you should get rid of save or die effects.

Actually that problem is more of the 'Massive Damage at level 27' thing and was intended as an example of how boring I think the SoD effects are.

To me SoD are boring - that's the issue. Not only in effect but in what they may force the player to do (or not do as the case may be). I'm at the table to game Not sit there watch others game and do nothing else for the rest of the fight.

My issue with SoD is that it can take you from full to dead in round one without getting to react. Yes, large enough damage totals can do that as well - I understand that. But there are so many different SoD effects out there that fights get to the point where it is just 'who rolls a 1 first'.

Maybe outright immunities are a problem that cause this as well.

Fire Damage? Nope, it's immune.
Ice Damage? Immune.
Acid? No effect either.
Sword damage? Not enough to get past it's DR.
Holy? Try again.

There are so many combinations that just have no effect that it's easier to force the DM (and the players) to just fail a saving throw. What's the point of giving the critter 900 hit points if the only thing that can hurt it is a 1 on a SoD?

As a player, SoD is boring to me in both directions. There is no thrill in that single die roll. Saving with a single die roll has about as much thrill as opening that candy wrapper to see if I won 1 million dollars.

Don't get me wrong - having it all come down to a single die roll can be fun. If i'm down to sing digit hp with no hope of healing and I need to land the sword blow to take out the wizard that is keeping some effect going that is keeping our cleric out of the fight so he can...

That is cool. Everyone will be holding their breath to see if I hit the bad guy. That is drama.

But that drama isn't coming from a single die roll. It may come down to a single die roll but more has caused that drama than just the one roll result. That drama has built up over the entire fight (maybe the entire session) by having spells cast and hp whittled away. It's come from the cleric getting seporated from the party; from the wizard taking the full force of the damage spell and the fighter having to mow his way through the mob of underlings.

On the other hand SoD is a single die roll. That's it. No difference in how it affects the PC if it comes at the start of the fight or near the end. The difference comes in how it affects the player. If I fail a SoD on round one I may be sitting out the entire fight (yes, the cleric might raise me or something) but if I fail near the end the fight at least I got to do something other than watch TV (by myself) at a friend's house.

My problem with SoD is that it is everywhere at higher levels. Do we really need both Wail of the Banshee and Power Word: Kill? Everyone casts them because at higher levels everything is immune to everything. Have death effects drain CON, have Flesh to Stone drain DEX. These will kill a PC/NPC/Critter over a few rounds. To me that will build up the drama and that is what I want to see.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The only death effect that I can think of that was save or die was when Hon Solo was frozen in carbonite and made his save versus death and lived, although frozen. If Empire Strike Back was the first in the series he would have been a red shirt or a sub-character. Actually, his role as a main character was played down considerably in Return of the Jedi so he really was a red shirt. In fact, Harrison Ford wanted Lucus to just make the death final after Empire.

Yes, there are a few rare movies where the hero dies at the end and I can name a couple too, but for the most part they live because of hollywood politics and the bottom line of the dallor. Movies where the hero lives and saves the day gross more money thus equals higher hero survivial versus hero deaths.

Anyway, the problem isn't save or die effects, as another posted mentioned, it is easier for a DM to house rule them out then it is to phase them in.

The Sword and the Sorcerer.

Xusia the Sorcerer of the title has a particularly frak'd up save or die spell that he uses near the beginning of the movie that forcibly removes the heart and the intestines of the target. and that's after damn near hemmoraging the target to death. The witch who revives him at the beginning of the movie is the target of this spell and effectively fails her saving throw.

Later on in the movie Xusia uses this effect against both the hero (Talon) and the villain (Cromwell) both must have made their saves because they got the hemorrhaging effect but not the loss of their intestines and heart.

Also one of the only movies that come immediately to mind where a the main character dies suddenly and violently is in William Friedkin's To Live and Die in LA. Those who have seen this movie know exactly the part that I'm talking about. I'm also remembering having recently re-watched LA Confidential one of the leads in that movie dies pretty unexpectedly mid way through the movie.

Some of the comments about not having PC's die in the save or die manner refer back to emulation of things in another medium. Films are scripted. Books are scripted. Those characters are controlled by an lone author most times, in the case of a screenplay multiple writers, but the result is the same. MOST of the time by the time that movie is in the can (barring re-writes and pick ups) the characters fates are predestined.

RPG's are a different medium. And it's something considering the fact it's one of the reasons that alot of us play the game, that alot of people aren't talking into consideration.
Things happen to these characters, sometimes bad things, sometimes really sudden and unavoidable bad things. I've lost many a character is the old AD&D days to save or die traps or spells. The character wasn't an accountant sitting in a office somewhere when all of a sudden a mind flayer jumps out of the broom closet, stuns him with a mind blast and then eats his brain. He's an adventurer, he was out there doing dangerous stuff that can sometimes kill you without warning.

I also agree that these effects shouldnt be used often but removing them from the game just really kind of continues on the track of the (expletive deleted) of the game. Apparently that's just me though.

 

[DM-Rocco]

There's an important part to that argument, though, that I noted above: If a sizeable portion of existing gamers want it in there (say, one third to one-half) then personally I think it should be in there as an option, or at least available (some kind of web enhancement, part of Dragon, etc.) rather than just kill it off totally. Otherwise, you alienate some of your customer base by giving them something they don't want.

Personally, I am concerned that the game is swinging too far away from the element of chance, to the point where it's not as fun. For me, if all there is is whittling down the opposition's hit points as a means to stop them, it's kind of boring, tactically. Next thing, hold person's doing DEX damage to a minimum of 1, strong poisons are doing 1d4 CON per hit, and the rules for helplessness are removed because it's no fun for PCs to get caught sleeping and whacked in the middle of the night...

Is it honestly as fun when the only way to stop an enemy is to do stacks of d6's of damage to him? That's the part that remains to be convinced on.

I agree.

As an alternative though I could see save or die spells maybe knocking opponents down to minus 1 hit point. This would give the players a window of time to keep the remaining players alive so get to killing. For something that should kill you though, even after being healed I would make the new death effect prohibit actions on the part of the player even if healed, for 10 rounds. This would prevent absurd things like wail of the banshee versus mass heals.