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

[Remathilis]

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 believable 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.

Well, thank Pelor we are three whole editions beyond that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because Heaven FORBID the PLAYERS have fun. Its just not D&D unless the DM can gloat over the piles of cheaply killed player characters and show HE, not the players, and all important.

Appeal by ridicule.

Ad hominem attack.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Anyone who thinks that, do yourself a favor: buy a candy-apple red sports car like normal people do.

Appeal by ridicule.

Ad hominem attack.

Well, thank Pelor we are three whole editions beyond that.

Appeal to novelty.

 

[Remathilis]

I really can't see why the Pro SoD crowd is up in arms. SoD isn't balanced, so why is it hard to reinsert it into the game.

Evil Cursed Glare of Fatal Death
Clr 15, Wiz 15
Necromancy
Range: Short
Target: One Living Creature
Comp: V, S
Save: Fort Negates

Description: The Caster looks at a creature. If he overcomes the creatures fort defense, he dies. If he doesn't the spell does 4d6 damage.

I created that as I was going, since I didn't care how balanced it was. The creature dies. No balancing damage, no worrying about metamagic, etc. One roll, one death.

Leave the PHB pagecount for spells that are difficult to design or hard to adjuncate.

 

[Remathilis]

Appeal by ridicule.

Ad hominem attack.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Appeal by ridicule.

Ad hominem attack.

Appeal to novelty.

Well, when appeals to logic and personal testimonial fail...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, when appeals to logic and personal testimonial fail...

What appeals to logic are you referring to? Ultimately, the only thing involved here is a subjective opinion as to what is "fun" or "unfun" within the context of the game. You can logically examine what outcomes a game mechanic might encourage/support, but whether those outcomes are desireable or not isn't a matter of logic.

In any event, appealing to fallacy never furthers your argument (even though it is an easy trap to fall into....I am no exception).

Cheers!

RC

 

[Reynard]

Because Heaven FORBID the PLAYERS have fun.

Except, of course, this thread has proven that some people do think SoD effects are, in fact, fun. It is a little known fact that people prefer different things in their games, and enjoy different degrees of those things.

 

[DM-Rocco]

DM-Rocco:



Save or die doesn't add enough to justify its inclusion in the game. Other ideas can accomplish the same things without the obnoxiousness.

Okay, just because I am in favor of keeping SoD effects doesn't mean that I think every encounter should have SoD effects. I use them sparingly in my game and to dramatic effect. Just because a player has Death Ward on doesn't mean that an evil cleric can't dispell it and then use a SoD.

However, since everyone keeps wanting to go back to the Bodak that randomly walks around dungeon corners or hides in chests of gold then perhaps the DM is a jackass for doing such a thing without giving the players warning, but maybe the Bodak doesn't use his SoD effect on round 1, giving the PCs a round to kill or turn it. Maybe the cleric wins initiative, cast death ward on the fight and then retreats to 35 feet away. Then maybe the rogue, who most likely beat the cleric in initiative, also retreats. Now you have a fighter, mage and bodak. The mage might die, but the rest of the party won't. If the Bodak doesn't use its SoD on turn one, then the party lives as the party pelts it at range.

You can play the what if game all day long. What if a Dragon burst through the walls of the dungeon and ate the Bodak as an immediate action after the PCs turn but before the Bodaks turn?

And for the record, SoD has already been included into the game, this is about its exclusion from the exsisting game

 

[Grog]

However, since everyone keeps wanting to go back to the Bodak that randomly walks around dungeon corners or hides in chests of gold then perhaps the DM is a jackass for doing such a thing without giving the players warning,

So the DM is a jackass for using an appropriately CR-ed creature straight out of the Monster Manual? Doesn't that raise a big warning flag that there's a problem with the system?

but maybe the Bodak doesn't use his SoD effect on round 1, giving the PCs a round to kill or turn it.

So the solution is for the DM to metagame and make enemies with save-or-die attacks less effective? Because there's no in-game reason that the Bodak wouldn't use its save-or-die attack as soon as it possibly could. Not only does it represent the creature's best chance to kill a PC, it also represents the creature's best chance of surviving the encounter - if it holds back, the PCs will kill it in a hurry.

Again, if you have to suggest DM metagaming as a solution, doesn't that raise a big warning flag that there's a problem with the system?

You can play the what if game all day long. What if a Dragon burst through the walls of the dungeon and ate the Bodak as an immediate action after the PCs turn but before the Bodaks turn?

??? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

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.

Well, if 4E will feature less character death, that's a good thing IMO, because in 3.X, PCs start dropping like flies after level 12 or so thanks to the rapid proliferation of save-or-die spells and effects. If death (and resurrection) is less common in 4E, great.

 

[Cadfan]

Well, if 4E will feature less character death, that's a good thing IMO, because in 3.X, PCs start dropping like flies after level 12 or so thanks to the rapid proliferation of save-or-die spells and effects. If death (and resurrection) is less common in 4E, great.

My personal belief is that this is a design feature. Save-or-die effects multiply rapidly in higher levels because resurrection magic is cheaper (in proportion to character wealth) and more easily obtained.

That's a valid way to balance a system in which save-or-die is implemented. I just think its pointless, and turns Dead into a status effect removable with a payment to a cleric. Much like, say, Blindness.

 

[shilsen]

A matter of opinion. I greatly dislike the idea that metal, once rusted or "softened", somehow regenerates itself.

You know that metal can be "softened" by heating and then 'regenerate' itself when it cools, right?