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

[Reynard]

As a grognard, you no doubt already have a group. Consider looking after your group, as opposed to chaperoning the hordes of new players who are no doubt beating down your door desperately looking for a grognard game.

I, for one, am glad we finally got there: that place where, with a wave of your hand, you dismiss my entire point of view with a snide comment and feel victorious and vindicated all at the same time. By forming a perfect little picture in your mind of not only me and my game group(s) but also of all the smiling newbies that will benefit from the exclusion of such a soul crushingly unfun gameplay element, you haven't merely won, you have overcome.

My god, it must be nice to be hong.

 

[Nifft]

My god, it must be nice to be hong.

Girls like men who are hong.

"Cosmo wouldn't lie", -- N

 

[Bishmon]

Let me try again, since I obviosuly put words in your mouth, which I don't intend to do: the suggestion that there may be powerful spellcasters capable of eliminating a PC in round 1 because of some mechanism, which is what you were saying, is no different to me if that mechanism is save-or-die or some form of blasting type damage spell, all things being equal regarding probability. the difference is one of playstyle and tone and therefore, there's no reason to eliminate save-or-die from the game because it is, theoretically, mechanically the same (at any given level, whether we are talking about Bob or BBEG) and will only reduce the number of options available in the game by removing it. Therefore, there's no benefit, and likely some harm, to its exclusion.

I'd imagine that people against save-or-dies, though, don't want any mechanism that can instantly kill a PC with the probability that save-or-dies do in 3E. They don't care if the mechanism is the aforementioned save-or-dies, or if it's powerful blasting spells, or crazy create-a-bottomless-pit-beneath-your-feet spells.

It's not that I don't want save-or-dies because I just don't like the tone or flavor of those particular spells, I don't want them because by themselves they have such high lethality, a level of lethality I don't want to be commonplace in spells in my game. Whether that level is lethality is a result of save-or-dies or blasting spells doesn't matter.

You seem to be saying that removing save-or-dies is pointless because there will still be other spells with mechanics that effectively do the same thing, kill a PC outright based on a not-very-forgiving percentage. I've yet to see, though, from you or WotC or anyone, that spells with mechanics resulting in that level of lethality will be in 4E. In fact, considering they're taking save-or-dies out, I'm led to believe that there won't be.

 

[hong]

I, for one, am glad we finally got there: that place where, with a wave of your hand, you dismiss my entire point of view with a snide comment and feel victorious and vindicated all at the same time. By forming a perfect little picture in your mind of not only me and my game group(s) but also of all the smiling newbies that will benefit from the exclusion of such a soul crushingly unfun gameplay element, you haven't merely won, you have overcome.

No, no. You were the one with the picture of all the smiling newbies. And while "smiling newbies" would not be a bad name for a rock band, I still fail to see why you seem so obsessed with them.

My god, it must be nice to be hong.

I do it quite well, you might say.

 

[Grog]

But it's not any such thing. I want the options to have a creature like a medusa in my game, or have a villain use a finger of death. If you don't care to have that sort of risk, then you are free not to use them. Those who want to use them, can.

And you could say exactly the same thing about a monster that instakills the whole party with no save. That was my point.

 

[Reynard]

And you could say exactly the same thing about a monster that instakills the whole party with no save. That was my point.

The difference is that that's an extreme, and, truth be told, an insipid, example.

 

[MerricB]

My very first encounter with a Bodak was in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. We walked into a dark room. My brother was told to make a save, which he failed. His character died. He had no idea what had killed him. We started to retreat, I failed a save, and my character died.

There's a reason I'm not very fond of bodaks - or save or die.

The thing is, I don't mind it in certain situations: in areas where the PCs know they should expect it. See a giant spider? Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that the players will expect it's poison to be deadly.

The trouble is, there are so many monsters that they'll meet for the first time. And, I've got to tell you, most of the the DMs aren't good at telling you *exactly* how deadly something is. (I love the way you can find out monster lore in 3.5e with Knowledge checks).

I prefer situations where the players get a chance to go, "Uh oh, we're in trouble" that is short of "Oh, and you're dead". Killing someone, however good it may feel to the DM, is likely to cause that player to have to twiddle their thumbs for a good portion of the session to come.

With a medusa, I will happily put statues about of adventurers in horrified poses, just so the PCs know what they're coming up against. Without the warning, it's random.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

And you could say exactly the same thing about a monster that instakills the whole party with no save. That was my point.

And be taken seriously? No, I could not. Nobody here is clamoring for such a creature, and nobody I know defended them in the few places I have seen them crop up.

It's an invalid example because indeed, nobody, or vanishingly few, want or need such a thing.

 

[Reynard]

I'd imagine that people against save-or-dies, though, don't want any mechanism that can instantly kill a PC with the probability that save-or-dies do in 3E. They don't care if the mechanism is the aforementioned save-or-dies, or if it's powerful blasting spells, or crazy create-a-bottomless-pit-beneath-your-feet spells.

Yet this fact doesn't necessitate their exclusion. It isn't like they are a preponderance of effects as it is. My argument isn't that save-or-dies rock and everyone should use them; my argument is that, for some groups, save-or-dies serve a function in play and therefore deserve a place in the core rules. The only reason to take them out, in that case, to to mandate a playstyle, or narrow range of them, and forcibly define "fun" for everyone. If nothing else, D&D excels at allowing people to create their own fun and the only reason the rules are there at all is to provide players and DMs with the options to do so.

 

[Reynard]

The trouble is, there are so many monsters that they'll meet for the first time. And, I've got to tell you, most of the the DMs aren't good at telling you *exactly* how deadly something is. (I love the way you can find out monster lore in 3.5e with Knowledge checks).

Then we are just back to protecting players from bad and/or mean DMs, aren't we? otherwise, what would the reason for their exclusion be?