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

[Raven Crowking]

We're grasping at everything but SoD's eh?

No....Pointing out that the sources of some problems are not so obvious. When a problem occurs (whether in game or out), you can point at the first thing that you see and declare it the cause of the problem, or you can seek to understand how interrelated systems give rise to a problem. I prefer the latter, and I believe that examining the latter is more likely to result in a positive change.

I also tend to think that many of the problems in 3.X were caused by pointing at the first thing and declaring it the cause of the problem. From what I've read about 4e, I think that this tendency is continuing.

The CR system actually is a good thing in theory. It didnt pan out (particularly in regards to classed enemies), but its not much different than "level" monsters in the 1st edition MM, and its certainly better thought out.

Actually, IMHO, the Monster Level system from the 1e DMG works much better than the CR system, and is much better thought out.

The Monster Level system works like this:

(1) Determine the qualities that the creature has.

(2) Give an XP value on the basis of base HD and special and exceptional abilities. The additional XP based off of special and exceptional abilities scales with base HD.

(3) From the resultant XP value, the Monster Level is determines.

(4) Individual DMs must examine monsters to determine if there is any particular quality that makes a monster more dangerous/easier for their particular group.​

The CR System, conversely, works like this:

(1) Guess how powerful a monster is in comparison to 4 characters of the basic classes.

(2) Give XP accordingly, cross-indexed by the level of the character(s) involved in an encounter.

(3) Individual DMs must examine monsters to determine if there is any particular quality that makes a monster more dangerous/easier for their particular group.​

Monster Level has an advantage in two respects:

(1) There is more granularity. Although there are only 10 monster levels, the XP range in any given ML tells you how tough monsters are in comparison to each other.

(2) It is easy to determine why a monster belongs to a given Monster Level. Many, many examples are given in the DMG.​

CR has an advantage in one respect:

(1) CR is directly related to character level, whereas Monster Level is not.​

However, the fact that CR is related to character level only if one assumes a party of four characters using four specific classes, this is less valuable than it might appear. And since there is no set system by which CRs are determined, how well it relates to those levels is questionable. For example, look at the monsters whose CR changed between 3.0 and 3.5.

As a result, IMHO, XP is a much better guage than CR.

Apparently the good folks at WotC agree, because 4e uses an XP-based system. Of course, this might be just pointing at the first thing as the cause of the problem. One never knows.

RC

 

[DM-Rocco]

Then we agree that the problem is caused by a steep power curve, the CR system, a lengthly character generation process, and inadequate DMing guidelines?

Because, personally, I don't think SoD effects are, in and of themselves, problematic. I do agree that in many cases they are not the best potential mechanic, but that is a different thing entirely.

RC

I agree with this. I think the main problem, which seems to be addressed by the WOTC 4th edition team, is the power curve, the CR system and other items you talk about and not so much the SoD effects. I seriously fail to see why people are so worked up about the SoD effect in the game. The only thing I can see is that the anti SoD crowd has had some bad DMs or really bad situations and therefore want a ban on something they have first hand knowledge of being abused.

I say keep it in the game with one of their world famous, "Behind the curtain," segements that explains SoD effects and how to handle them within the confines of the game. How SoD effects should be handled in a low magic world or a world that doesn't allow Ressurections or raise dead. How you might consider dealing with SoD effects in a high magic world or a normal D&D world. When to use them and why you shouldn't put a Bodak in a chest waiting for the PCs to open it and a warning to not place 50 Bodaks in one room knowing the the PCs will not survive. Rather than re-write all the monsters and spells with SoD effects it would be easier to keep them and just dedicate a small amount of space to the proper use of SoD effects.

 

[hong]

How about this since you make baseless claims against me, how about we keep my beloved game the same and you go and play a nice safe game where you won't die

People die in Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[Cadfan]

I agree with this. I think the main problem, which seems to be addressed by the WOTC 4th edition team, is the power curve, the CR system and other items you talk about and not so much the SoD effects. I seriously fail to see why people are so worked up about the SoD effect in the game. The only thing I can see is that the anti SoD crowd has had some bad DMs or really bad situations and therefore want a ban on something they have first hand knowledge of being abused.

I design a monster that has an ability which inflicts on an opponent a DC 20 fortitude save. Failure kills the target. Its a magical effect that has no other roll to hit, and occurs at range.

1) At what level is this monster an appropriate encounter for a character? If you don't want to answer with a particular level, just answer with the fort save you think a character should have at the point where this monster is an appropriate encounter. Please specify whether the fortitude save you've given is the expected low fortitude save for the group, or the expected high fortitude save.

2) Would I be right in assuming that your view of proper use of a save-or-die effect is to place it in a situation where the players do not actually have to save-or-die, but where they feel frightened that they might in the future? Because your examples of proper use of save-or-die spells and effects invariably involve situations where the party has some means of never having to actually roll the save. Sometimes its death ward, sometimes its magical rings, sometimes its fighting with their eyes closed. How frequently do you feel that players, who are in general playing well and not doing anything stupid, should have to actually make the roll and either save, or die?

 

[DM-Rocco]

DM-Rocco:

I find it interesting that your defenses of save-or-die effects invariably describe encounters and DM design decisions which protect the players from actually having to save-or-die.

Well, thanks for being civil

I do tend to warn my players about such things well in advance and if they can't take a hint, for lack of a better word, thier loss. I don't place Bodaks in chests and I do researve SoD effects for special cases. Even when the party has protection I have the cleric try to dispell it and the following round the players know, if they can't kill the person with the SoD effect or they can't reprotect themselves, they will have to roll a save. I don't want to say I am a master of the SoD effect or anything, but I do use it to build tension and get the players, specailly the high levels ones that are immune to a lot of stuff you throw at them, a sense of fear and a knowing feeling that they could die if they don't keep a sharp mind.

So it is not that I protect or shield them from harmful effects, it is that I give them clues that something potenially deadly is coming up and if the PCs do a little probing they will usually be rewarded with a bit of knowledge and a good warning. Afterall, that is what the knowledge checks are for. Every SoD effect attached to a monster can be found out by a knowledge check and a little asking about the ancient tomb at the top of the hill will reveal rumors of who has lived and died there and what one might expect.

It would only be a true jackass of a DM who just off handedly throws SoD effects left and right.

Did that explain it better? I'm at work and short on time. If not I will try again later.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I find it interesting that your defenses of save-or-die effects invariably describe encounters and DM design decisions which protect the players from actually having to save-or-die.

Of course they are!

If the DM wanted to kill the PCs, he needn't bother with a save.

The inclusion of SoD effects is (IMHO) to allow for a certain set of experiences for the players. To whit, the experience of escaping almost certain doom (what Tolkein called eucatastrophe), and the experience of knowing that (no matter how powerful they become) the PCs live in a world where ultimate failure is possible.

Ultimately, everything included in the game is to allow a certain set of experiences to the players. The wider that set, in general, the better.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

RC

 

[Cadfan]

Of course they are!

If the DM wanted to kill the PCs, he needn't bother with a save.

The inclusion of SoD effects is (IMHO) to allow for a certain set of experiences for the players. To whit, the experience of escaping almost certain doom (what Tolkein called eucatastrophe), and the experience of knowing that (no matter how powerful they become) the PCs live in a world where ultimate failure is possible.

Ultimately, everything included in the game is to allow a certain set of experiences to the players. The wider that set, in general, the better.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

RC

Let me restate.

"Save or die exists not so that characters will actually have to roll saves to avoid death. It exists to give DMs a tool to threaten players with the potential that their characters will have to roll saves to avoid death."

Does that accurately sum up what you are saying?

 

[Grog]

It is part of the waht if game. You guys keep throwing absurd senerios at me, there is one for you.

What on Earth is absurd about an 8th level party encountering a CR 8 monster?

 

[Grog]

The inclusion of SoD effects is (IMHO) to allow for a certain set of experiences for the players. To whit, the experience of escaping almost certain doom (what Tolkein called eucatastrophe), and the experience of knowing that (no matter how powerful they become) the PCs live in a world where ultimate failure is possible.

Both of those things are entirely possible in a game without save-or-die.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

What on Earth is absurd about an 8th level party encountering a CR 8 monster?

Well, obviously that particular CR 8 monster isn't meant to be used like other monsters. You can tell, because it has a save-or-die ability, which is balanced for its CR.

I don't get it either.

And...let me see if I can get this right, I've seen it done before...surely a good DM could have PCs escape certain doom and ultimate failure using real challenges, rather than those contrived to do so by giving them the means, in advance, to negate the threat?

It seems like this way means all save-or-die monsters are mooks (non-threatening adversaries thrown into the game to let the PCs look badass), which would defeat the purpose and make them irrelevant except as a book-keeping encounter.