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

[Reynard]

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

The point is that they are also possible with SoD effects -- so why take them out when all it will do is limit options for the groups that enjoy such things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

No, because it isn't true that characters may not actually have to roll saves, nor is true that the purpose is to allow the DM to "threaten players".

The goal of the DM is not "to kill the PCs". The goal of the DM is not to "prevent the PCs from dying". The goal of the DM is to provide a play experience.

If the goal of the DM was to kill the PCs, he needn't bother with a saving throw. He could just include "die" effects.

Likewise, if the goal was to preserve the PCs at all casts, he needn't provide a saving throw. He could just include "live" effects.

The good DM seeks, IMHO and IME, to provide both context for PC choices and consequences (both good and ill) for those choices. What some view as a "gotcha" monster, others can easily use to build tension and suspense, and to allow players to make choices based upon differing contexts.

This is, IMHO, the difference between an encounter where the PCs have no chance and an encounter where the PCs simply need to consider how the encounter should be handled. If you throw a troll against lvl 1 PCs as a combat encounter, the PCs will be slaughtered. This doesn't mean that there are not contexts in which level 1 PCs can encounter a troll without being slaughtered. If the DM sets up 1st level PCs with a troll encounter, and ensures that the players know that the troll can be dealt with outside of combat, but the players choose to fight the troll anyway, the DM should not, IMHO, invalidate that decision by saving them.

SoD monsters, IMHO, are no different.

RC

 

[Grog]

The point is that they are also possible with SoD effects -- so why take them out when all it will do is limit options for the groups that enjoy such things.

Haven't we had this conversation before? The short answer is because not every option that someone likes can be included in the game, and the designers have to pick somewhere to draw the line.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Haven't we had this conversation before? The short answer is because not every option that someone likes can be included in the game, and the designers have to pick somewhere to draw the line.

Especially when an option may cause problems for one group of people, which is what a lot of people miss in these discussions.

If SoD creatures need to be carefully controlled and used only in certain circumstances or with advance warning or only against certain types of group, etc...then they shouldn't be included in the standard list of creatures or they should have warnings on them specifically.

It is certainly possible for a DM who is still new or pressed for time to design an adventure by looking at the list of monsters and saying "Ok, a need a CR 8 creature...umm....Bodak, that looks good, I'll put on in this room." and accidentally kill off half or all his PCs.

One groups options is a problem for another group. On the other hand, both groups can still have fun fighting creatures who don't have SoD abilities and still have an interesting game without them.

 

[allenw]

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.

Oddly enough, if you look at it right, the Bodak *might be* balanced for CR8.

It'll probably kill 1 member of a 4-person 8th-level party, but it's unlikely to injure the rest, and they probably kill it without expending much in the way of other resources.

25% fatalities + no other expenditure = 25% resource expenditure.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Oddly enough, if you look at it right, the Bodak *might be* balanced for CR8.

It'll probably kill 1 member of a 4-person 8th-level party, but it's unlikely to injure the rest, and they probably kill it without expending much in the way of other resources.

25% fatalities + no other expenditure = 25% resource expenditure.

Glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks that math works.

Personally, I don't mind save or die, but anything that appears before level 20 (my homebrew goes to 36, like D&D should) will do ability damage ending in death/permanent state at 0, because I think that's cooler and allows me to scale better. If the medusa's gaze inflicts 1d4 Dexterity each round of failed saves, the PCs know they're in trouble when the medusa matriarch inflicts 2d4 per failed save - in a way "Roll a 12 or stop playing!" can't do.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

But after level 7, every wizard potentially has a save-or-die spell. After level 9, every cleric does. Do only jackass DMs throw wizards and clerics at their players?

 

[Nifft]

But after level 7, every wizard potentially has a save-or-die spell. After level 9, every cleric does. Do only jackass DMs throw wizards and clerics at their players?

*raises hand*

I'm a jackass, and I do.

Cheers, -- N

 

[allenw]

Glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks that math works.

Actually, I forgot that the 3 survivors will take and use their companion's stuff, so it's actually less than 25% resource expenditure.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In my view, the defence of SoD is very simple:

It's a thrill.

It's a big thrill to be one die roll away from death. DM-Rocco's defence, which Cadfan (rather brilliantly) points out amounts to never using them, is fundamentally mistaken. In fact DM-Rocco is arguing the wrong position. He's actually opposed to SoDs and doesn't realise it.