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

[Fishbone]

Compare that to what a 13th level fighter could realistically do to a 17th level party, and you begin to see why save-or-dies are so problematic.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
Save or Die gives casters way too much power, I think. Its an effect that meleers simply don't get.
"Oh, this monster has poor Will save? No problem, I'll whack it with my special quarterstaff once."
At range, no less.

 

[Grog]

How can play be exciting if you're never going to die?

Oh, for god's sake.

Removing save-or-dies from the game does not mean that PCs can't ever die.

Can we dispense with this ridiculous argument already?

 

[shilsen]

It seems strange to me that the threat of instant death is abhorrent to so many people. In earlier days, character death was commonplace and just something to be dealt with. (Hence the Constitution rules on maximum number of resurrections.)

But there were resurrection spells, wishes, and allies willing to cart bodies out of harm's way for future raising. At worst, there was always the distant patriarch who would raise an adventurer but demand a geas/quest for the god in return.

As such, death was just a dramatic interlude, a major setback, a cautionary tale; and sometimes it was an adventure hook leading to even better stories.

To me, it sounds more like an enforced, and significantly boring, rest break for the PC. YMMV, and apparently does.

Why are so many players now horrified by the idea of a single character death? Without the threat of swift death, with only slow attrition to provide tension, where does the sense of danger come in? How can play be exciting if you're never going to die?

You haven't read all of the thread, have you? Lots of people - myself included - have posted how play can be exciting without death. Plus, as Grog noted above, removal of Save or Die doesn't mean an absence of death. I should also note that a death which you can easily come back from doesn't sound particularly exciting to me either, however much the threat of swift death may be present.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why are so many players now horrified by the idea of a single character death?

There are two problems with char death in 3e that didn't exist in earlier editions:

1) It takes a lot longer to make a new character.
2) One PC per player is now standard, not three PCs per player plus accompanying henchmen and men-at-arms.

Under 3e rules there's a strong argument that Shilsen's system of never killing the PCs is the most workable.

 

[FourthBear]

As such, death was just a dramatic interlude, a major setback, a cautionary tale; and sometimes it was an adventure hook leading to even better stories.

Random, quick death combined with resurrection that's only an annoyance is definitely the worst of both worlds in my book. All you've done is instead of nerfing death magic, you've actually nerfed DEATH ITSELF! This kind of stuff is most "video-gamey" piece of the whole game: "Don't worry about Bob and Ray dying, we've got a coupon to the Church on a two for one resurrection special!"

Also, as others have noted, removing save or die does not in any way, shape or form remove death from the game.

 

[Lanefan]

So save-or-die is gone. Kind of a shame, but there it is.

The larger question, and one that remains unanswered, is this: is 4e being designed such that PC death in general happens less frequently than in 0-1-2-3e, or as frequently, or never at all, or what?

In other words, is the loss of save-or-die indicative of a general less-death or no-death design philosophy?

And, to broaden the scope to more than just death, is 4e going to be softened via such things as no level drain, no limb loss, etc.? I'm half-expecting that it will, and hoping that it won't....

Lane-"kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out"-fan

 

[MerricB]

I've just been running a Dungeon magazine adventure for my Sunday group (The Tomb of Aknar Ratalla; Dungeon #119), and they reached a room in which there were 4 Bodaks.

At this point, it was brought to my attention as how ridiculous the Bodaks were. This is an extremely competent and optimised party. The psionic dwarf of the group can expend his psionic focus to gain Death Ward for a minute. (Fantastic!) and so charged into the battle, with most of the other characters staying back, or with high enough saves so they'd only fail on a 1. (No-one failed).

Without their gaze attack, what could the bodaks do? Nothing. I have a problem with optimised AC in my group anyway (both the Knight and the Dwarf are sitting around AC 38, with touch ACs of about 22)... but the Bodak, with it's puny +6 attack bonus and 1d8+1 damage wasn't even going to have an impact even against a less optimised party.

What a ridiculous monster.

Cheers!

 

[Reynard]

Also, as others have noted, removing save or die does not in any way, shape or form remove death from the game.

True. But keeping it in doesn't mean it has to happen in the random instant way most of the anti-SoD folks are presenting it. Just because SoD exists, doesn't mean that every time there's a random encounter there's going to be a bodak or a lich, any more than it means there's a dragon in every other random encounter. SoD only has the intended effect -- which, in my mind, is making the PCs get scared and play in a way that is fun and interesting -- if it is a rare event, and they've got some idea it is coming (usually meaning they know undead or similar monsters are to be found where the adventure is). If they prepare a bunch o death wards, all the better -- they are choosing once resource over another, which is the whole point of having variable resources in the first place.

Most undead that have SoD effects also have the added benefit of converting the killed PC to the type of undead that killed them -- suddenly, the party has a deadline for getting to a friendly temple or whatever.

I agree that if SoD's exist, so should access to ressurections -- but not necessarily easy access. You can't put a soul on plastic.

 

[Cadfan]

And, to broaden the scope to more than just death, is 4e going to be softened via such things as no level drain, no limb loss, etc.? I'm half-expecting that it will, and hoping that it won't....

1) We already have no limb loss.
2) As for level drain, it has two problems. First, its completely metagame. Second, its a bookkeeping nightmare. I'm all for eliminating it and replacing it with something that makes more sense in game, and requires less work. 3e level drain was a major step forwards in this department, lets go the rest of the way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3e level drain was a major step forwards in this department, lets go the rest of the way.

3e Negative Levels were a goot step, the level drain/loss at the end was a nightmare. And i assume it was definitely worse in 3rd edition with all the character complexity then it was in previous editions.