Raven Crowking
First Post
Doug McCrae said:
Hit the nail right on the head.
You can play that way, but I don't agree that there's a "strong argument" that "never killing the PCs is the most workable" way of doing so.
RC
Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)
- Thread starter DM-Rocco
- Start date
Hit the nail right on the head.
You can play that way, but I don't agree that there's a "strong argument" that "never killing the PCs is the most workable" way of doing so.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
MerricB said:
Actually, this highlights some of the design problems with 3.x that didn't occur in older editions. With a definite AC range (10 to -10), a designer could create a monster that could always have a chance of affecting combat to some degree.
If the creators of 3.x had capped AC at, say, 30, and made that number hard to reach (so that the average AC of a 10th level fighter was in the 19-22 range), you could easily make monsters that were challenging at 1st level and -- while not a challenge -- are nonetheless able to affect 10th level characters.
IOW, this is a symptom of the game's power curve, which is where the poor design really lies.
RC
DM-Rocco
Explorer
What a flash back that is. I loved that show as a kid, although, it has been so long I have a fading memory of exact events. It was no Conan the Barbarian (which I memorized every line).ShinHakkaider said:
If I recall correctly in the begining there was a pool of blood or an alter of blood. Anyway, a lot of frickin blood.
Okay, thanks a lot, now I will have to put this in my queue for net flix
DM-Rocco
Explorer
ehren37 said:
Yes, if you have a boss as a bodak and you have scrolls of death ward, you should use them. Hmm, I don't see your arguement.
Not really. The game has flaws in that is assumes that you will cast such protections and gain the use of scrolls and such. If the players don't have a balanced party or don't understand that buffing there characters is a good thing then taking away SoD effects isn't going to make them any better players.ehren37 said:
You should have a really good idea, unless you are a new player, that the big bad boss is going to be towards the end of the adventure. You never see, in a "module" the big bad boss in room one and the rest of the module dedicated to his hirelings. Even in a homebrew adventure you should be able to get a sense of where the big bad boss is and you should have some clues that there are powerful undead. Like the rumors in the bar that say, "I heard them tell of a creature of shadow that can kill with a look."
If the DM doesn't give you enough clues to prepare then the is a failing of the DM not the SoD. If the DM gave the PCs clues and they didn't listen, that is a failing of the PCs not the SoD.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Lanefan said:
Did it get a save?
RC
DM-Rocco
Explorer
Okay, then can we dispense with the ridiculous arument that we need to do away with SoD effects?Grog said:
This is most likely the tip of the ice berg of a newer and more "player friendly" D&D so while removing SoD effects doesn't mean that players can't die, I think it is heading in a direction where it will be easier to live through an encounter, thus less death.
DM-Rocco:
If you have save or die spells and you also have "I don't have to save or die" spells, you've placed yourself in a situation where, instead of a risk of death in combat, you have a single obnoxious chore (casting the applicable ward) that must be cast before major fights. You don't get the risk of death from save or die at all in climactic battles because you knew they were coming and cast wards. And you do suffer the risk of instant death whenever a save or die effect is used by a monster in a less climactic battle, because you didn't know to cast the wards for that fight.
I also have a bit of a problem with your apparent belief that save or die spells only come up in major encounters which the players can predict and plan for in advance. This has the effect of making certain types of encounter design impossible (unless of course you want the revolving door of the afterlife effect, which I do not). Specifically, it makes it difficult if not impossible to have enemy spellcasters attack the party outside of scripted encounters against which the players are forewarned. Alternately, all enemy spellcasters other than those in final battles must intentionally choose lousy spells so that the characters do not get killed instantaneously in minor conflicts.
I could solve this in a couple of ways in 3.5. I can quietly have my evil NPC spellcasters pick lousy spells, and hope the players never notice. I can just very rarey use evil NPC spellcasters and monsters which have save or die effects. I can make resurrection really easy to obtain and accept constant character death. And finally I can just declare that my campaign involves a lot of character death, and that if or when your character dies, you just roll up a new one.
Each of these has problems. The first two involve breaking the gameworld a bit. Enemy spellcasters and a diversity of monsters are fun. Refusing to use them or nerfing them because they'll kill characters is kind of lame.
Making resurrection really easy is the so called "nerfing death" option. I don't like this option because I do like the possibility of character death as a significant threat and a dramatic element in the game, and making resurrection freely available reduces the fear of character death to about the same fear as failing a fort save versus Blindness. Just find a cleric and move on with your life. Oooh, scary.
And the final choice might be right for some campaigns, and was certainly right for older editions where meat grinder campaigns were more popular and where a significant amount of the challenge was seeing how far you got through the module before you switched characters. But that's not how I play, and I wager its not how most people play. If a player knows he is likely to lose his character every two or three levels, he won't invest in it as heavily. And I think that's a loss.
Now, compare all of these headaches with what save or die brings to the table. It brings... according to you it brings the chance to cast Death Ward four times. Hooray? At high levels it brings the chance to buy a magical item that negates Death attacks? Hooray again? Contrast this with possible fixes to instant death. Save-or-take-ability-damage is one possibility. Save-or-suffer-a-severe-impediment-that-is-not-death is another.
Save or die doesn't add enough to justify its inclusion in the game. Other ideas can accomplish the same things without the obnoxiousness.
If you have save or die spells and you also have "I don't have to save or die" spells, you've placed yourself in a situation where, instead of a risk of death in combat, you have a single obnoxious chore (casting the applicable ward) that must be cast before major fights. You don't get the risk of death from save or die at all in climactic battles because you knew they were coming and cast wards. And you do suffer the risk of instant death whenever a save or die effect is used by a monster in a less climactic battle, because you didn't know to cast the wards for that fight.
I also have a bit of a problem with your apparent belief that save or die spells only come up in major encounters which the players can predict and plan for in advance. This has the effect of making certain types of encounter design impossible (unless of course you want the revolving door of the afterlife effect, which I do not). Specifically, it makes it difficult if not impossible to have enemy spellcasters attack the party outside of scripted encounters against which the players are forewarned. Alternately, all enemy spellcasters other than those in final battles must intentionally choose lousy spells so that the characters do not get killed instantaneously in minor conflicts.
I could solve this in a couple of ways in 3.5. I can quietly have my evil NPC spellcasters pick lousy spells, and hope the players never notice. I can just very rarey use evil NPC spellcasters and monsters which have save or die effects. I can make resurrection really easy to obtain and accept constant character death. And finally I can just declare that my campaign involves a lot of character death, and that if or when your character dies, you just roll up a new one.
Each of these has problems. The first two involve breaking the gameworld a bit. Enemy spellcasters and a diversity of monsters are fun. Refusing to use them or nerfing them because they'll kill characters is kind of lame.
Making resurrection really easy is the so called "nerfing death" option. I don't like this option because I do like the possibility of character death as a significant threat and a dramatic element in the game, and making resurrection freely available reduces the fear of character death to about the same fear as failing a fort save versus Blindness. Just find a cleric and move on with your life. Oooh, scary.
And the final choice might be right for some campaigns, and was certainly right for older editions where meat grinder campaigns were more popular and where a significant amount of the challenge was seeing how far you got through the module before you switched characters. But that's not how I play, and I wager its not how most people play. If a player knows he is likely to lose his character every two or three levels, he won't invest in it as heavily. And I think that's a loss.
Now, compare all of these headaches with what save or die brings to the table. It brings... according to you it brings the chance to cast Death Ward four times. Hooray? At high levels it brings the chance to buy a magical item that negates Death attacks? Hooray again? Contrast this with possible fixes to instant death. Save-or-take-ability-damage is one possibility. Save-or-suffer-a-severe-impediment-that-is-not-death is another.
Save or die doesn't add enough to justify its inclusion in the game. Other ideas can accomplish the same things without the obnoxiousness.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Cadfan, thanks for the insightful & well-thought-out post!
In 1e, players were not automatically allowed to choose optimal spells as they progressed in power. It therefore made sense that NPCs would not have optimal spells, either. This set-up made it quite a bit more believeable that SoD spells could be rare. Likewise, in 1e, you didn't have the "obnoxious chore" of casting the applicable ward because it didn't exist.
But that doesn't address your main point.
I agree that SoD effects should be rare. Most things that are SoD in the game right now would be better dealt with as a "Save or Increasing Effect"....such as increasing DEX damage indicating that the character is slowly being turned into stone. Perhaps the character should gain 1 Hardness and take 1d6 DEX damage per round until petrified. There could then be methods to halt or reverse the damage done.
Anything that increases meaningful decision making in a campaign is golden, IMHO.
As far as level drain goes, if the game decouples skill points and feats from level as an absolute, you can have level drain affect only BAB, HP, Saves, and Spells. Have it affect only the spells you can cast, and not the spells you know or have memorized. For example, if you have two 6th level spells memorized, and level drain causes you to be able to cast only one, you select the one you can cast at the time you cast it. This greatly reduces bookkeeping.
OTOH, I absolutely believe that SoD is appropriate under certain circumstances. The save in Coup de Grace, for example, is a good idea. Likewise, a campaign can benefit from having monsters that the PCs know to exist (and likely know where) that have SoD effects. Many of these could be written using the "Save or Effect" mechanic, though....If the Mother of All Medusas does 20d6 Dex damage per round with her petrification (save for half) that is the same as a SoD effect (or worse!) for all practical purposes.
Finally, I think that (barring magic) some things ought to simply kill you (ex. immersion in lava). In these cases, a save represents the event not happening (i.e., you catch the lip of the pit, etc.) rather than you ability to "tough it out".
IMHO, of course.
RC
In 1e, players were not automatically allowed to choose optimal spells as they progressed in power. It therefore made sense that NPCs would not have optimal spells, either. This set-up made it quite a bit more believeable that SoD spells could be rare. Likewise, in 1e, you didn't have the "obnoxious chore" of casting the applicable ward because it didn't exist.
But that doesn't address your main point.
I agree that SoD effects should be rare. Most things that are SoD in the game right now would be better dealt with as a "Save or Increasing Effect"....such as increasing DEX damage indicating that the character is slowly being turned into stone. Perhaps the character should gain 1 Hardness and take 1d6 DEX damage per round until petrified. There could then be methods to halt or reverse the damage done.
Anything that increases meaningful decision making in a campaign is golden, IMHO.
As far as level drain goes, if the game decouples skill points and feats from level as an absolute, you can have level drain affect only BAB, HP, Saves, and Spells. Have it affect only the spells you can cast, and not the spells you know or have memorized. For example, if you have two 6th level spells memorized, and level drain causes you to be able to cast only one, you select the one you can cast at the time you cast it. This greatly reduces bookkeeping.
OTOH, I absolutely believe that SoD is appropriate under certain circumstances. The save in Coup de Grace, for example, is a good idea. Likewise, a campaign can benefit from having monsters that the PCs know to exist (and likely know where) that have SoD effects. Many of these could be written using the "Save or Effect" mechanic, though....If the Mother of All Medusas does 20d6 Dex damage per round with her petrification (save for half) that is the same as a SoD effect (or worse!) for all practical purposes.
Finally, I think that (barring magic) some things ought to simply kill you (ex. immersion in lava). In these cases, a save represents the event not happening (i.e., you catch the lip of the pit, etc.) rather than you ability to "tough it out".
IMHO, of course.
RC
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
darkseraphim said:
Because swift death goes hand in hand with swift resurrections? I'd rather the revolving door of the afterlife be toned down a good deal.
Similar Threads
