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

[Grog]

Or that it was the default method. And that's the problem. the argument against save or die effects, so far, has rested solely on one issue: the DM is a big fat jerk that wants to kill your beloved character.

You either haven't been paying attention, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing the argument against save-or-dies. It's not "the DM is a big fat jerk that wants to kill your beloved character." It's that the question of whether your character lives or dies should not be resolved by a single roll of the d20. It's not fun to be killed in the first round of combat (or the surprise round) before you even have a chance to act.

And also, save-or-dies are a problem when used by the players, too, since they can turn a carefully planned battle that the players might have been looking forward to for a long time into a colossal anticlimax.

 

[Cbas_10]

No, its really not.

I mean, honestly, how is it? You walk around a corner, there's a lich. He says, "WAIL OF THE BANSHEE!!!!" You roll a fort save at DC 30. The wizard in the party has a 6 base fortitude save, +4 constitution, and a +5 cloak of resistance. So he's at +15. He needs a 15 or better. Same problem for the rogue. The cleric and the fighter are a bit better off, they just need a 9 or better.

Statistically, over half the party dies.

WOOT! That was heroic! Or rather it wasn't.

So the two remaining party members do their thing, and the next round the lich proclaims loudly, "WAIL OF THE BANSHEE I MEMORIZED IT TWICE SUCKAS!"

Yeah...

Now, lets think of a way to make this heroic for real. What if the lich had, I don't know, some method of attacking the party which posed a credible risk of killing the characters, but didn't do them all in with one spell and one die roll? In such a case, drama could build, risk could mount, the party could become fearful for their characters survival, better in-game tactics could lead to characters lasting longer while poor tactics dooms the foolish, and when the final blow comes that drops a character, everyone knows that it was after a good, dramatic fight.

I don't mean to pick on Cadfan, and not assuming he/she is anything but another gamer like me. However, I'm going to use this statement to help make a point that 3.5 is/wasn't broken - how people can run it has become broken. (read the whole post; i'll tie it together at the end)

First...I really hope that, even if the party walked around the corner to see a lich, they had some sort of knowledge that it would be there. Rumors about the dungeon, clues in the dungeon, evidence of its work in the storyline, etc. A wandering monster lich is ... kinda like random mooks in an action movie that are master martial artists on their own. Bleh.

DC 30 save? 10+9th level+7 (random example of 24 Int.)+4 from some other various modifiers. Well, I suppose you could intentionally pump a save DC that high if every NPC is always tweaked to efficiency like a Neverwinter Nights character (I play that game...not picking on the people - just how the gameplay is different from a tabletop setting).

Characters of 19th level (rough estimate; a lich capable of that spell would be at least CR 19) will have various ther defenses or immunities. Wail has the Death and Sonic types to it. There is a number of ways to protect yourself when a spell has more than one type to it. The spell is a standard action, can't affect characters more than 40 feet away. At that level, there should be a number of ways for characters to beat the lich to the punch (quickened spells, smart wizards keeping a counterspell ready, being within charge range, bards' countersong, and more). Unless, of course, the lich was aware of the PCs approach and is casting the spell as a surprise....Now THAT is a dirty DM trick.

So...looking at all of these factors, that last saving throw that determines "Live or Die" is really only one small piece of a larger puzzle required for the Lich to be able to snuff them out at once. However, there is a breed of players out there (much like a breed of DMs that would relish the idea of the Surprise Wail!), that wade into dungeons...no investigations, no rumor-mongering, no careful preparation beyond the *yawn* buff-buff-buff spells.

Which breeds make up the strongest marketing demographics?

 

[Nifft]

In my secret theoretical variant, the warning is ability damage. So a bodak might have a gaze attack that inflicts 2 points of Con damage each round (Fort negates).

Ability damage from a gaze attack is the sort of thing that would make my players go "OH SHI--", but would give even the weakest at least a round or two of warning.

Better yet, they play nice with other monsters. A mixed group of bodaks & ghasts is now a terrible threat, because you will want to get through the ghasts to kill the bodaks fast -- and yet the bodaks are reducing your Fort saves and reducing your HP, while the ghasts are sickening you and threatening paralysis in addition to reducing your HP through good old melee attacks.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Grog]

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

Actually, no. It's perfectly on-point. I assure you that there are DMs out there who would want such a monster. Under the "options, not restrictions" philosophy, there would be no reason not to provide it, since as you are so fond of pointing out, no one has to use it.

 

[DandD]

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.

... or perhaps because there really are only absolutely few people that like them, and the overwhelming majority simply doesn't, and these "save-or-die"-effects are put out and the space liberated from them can be used far more effectively for other things.
And for the absolute few, these rules can be found somewhere else in a book or a section dealing with optional rules. Of course, only perhaps...
The game designers do claim that they are told that most don't like them at all. Perhaps they're right, perhaps they're wrong. We shall see in 4th edition.

I for once am glad that they aren't in and that the game designers are on line with what I like. Perhaps they will implement something into the game which I will dislike for sure. Quite possible...

 

[Reynard]

You either haven't been paying attention, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing the argument against save-or-dies. It's not "the DM is a big fat jerk that wants to kill your beloved character." It's that the question of whether your character lives or dies should not be resolved by a single roll of the d20. It's not fun to be killed in the first round of combat (or the surprise round) before you even have a chance to act.

But my point is that if you provide for mechanics that allow this to occur in another way -- say, lots of damage -- the problem persists and it is purely a perception issue.

And also, save-or-dies are a problem when used by the players, too, since they can turn a carefully planned battle that the players might have been looking forward to for a long time into a colossal anticlimax.

The DM should plan better, then. Seriously, as someone who prefers DMing by a long shot, if the PCs walk all over my BBEG like that, I give them a grudging nod of approval and work harder next time. If the players are the ones responsible -- after all, it was a PC that prepared finger of death, for example -- they really have no one to blame but themselves for an "anti-clamactic" battle. They should likely, in fact, be rather proud of themselves for getting the job done quick and done right.

 

[hong]

But my point is that if you provide for mechanics that allow this to occur in another way -- say, lots of damage -- the problem persists and it is purely a perception issue.

You'll note that reducing raw damage output is also something the designers have talked about.

 

[FireLance]

So, let's see then. Your entire argument is based around something I specifically call bad: save or die as part of a trivial random encounter. No, if you just walk around a corner and walk into a death spell casting lich, it's functionally the equivalent to a save or die trap, which I don't believe in either.

Now take on the other hand, that this lich is the lich-king. His powers are well known. At the culmination of a great campaign, the players know the day of reckoning has come. They know the peril is great. But they proceed anyways. That, my friend, is heroic.

I tend to agree with this. Save-or-die can make for more heroic gaming, provided the players choose to run the risk and are prepared to face the consequences. If the players lack this choice, then there is no element of heroism in facing a save-or-die challenge (beyond choosing not to run away, if that is an option).

However, save-or-die challenges as random encounters or traps are not to everyone's taste. Not everyone enjoys a play style in which the PCs can find themselves with little or no warning in a situation where they are a single bad die roll away from death.

In my view, save-or-die effects need careful handling, whether it's a sidebar advising DMs on the pros and cons of using save-or-die effects, and/or presenting them with a less deadly alternative. If there isn't space for such a discussion, then they should be restricted to a small number of very high-level monsters that would normally only be used for campaign-ending fights.

 

[Cadfan]

I knew my post would garner negative responses, but I didn't expect them to be so... ridiculous.

Lets review. Its an encounter with a lich. I didn't assume many details, but you can tell a couple. I put the party at level 20. I gave them ok ability scores, stat enhancers, and maximum strength cloaks of resistance. The ONLY thing that happened in the combat was that the lich won initiative, and cast the same spell twice. This created approximately a 75% casualty rate.

1) This is not a meatgrinder. I don't know how anyone could call it that, its a two round excerpt from what should have been a climactic fight.

2) DC 30 is not out of line for a lich casting a level 9 spell. Its relatively close to other CR 20 monsters. If he's a CR 20 lich, he's supposed to be an easy fight- one the players can take about four times in a given day. That makes him a level 18 wizard, with lich ability score bonuses. If you really don't like him at DC 30, change him to DC 27, the same as a Balor. I think that's cheating the lich a little bit, since he's only a spellcaster and the Balor's a melee machine. But fine, we'll play it your way. The party still dies.

3) "But the party should have known he was there!!!" But he's a lich so he knew they were coming. Sure. Look, it doesn't really matter. Point is, no matter who knows who is where, the guy can toss out save or die effects repeatedly, which the party statistically fails about half the time as a collective whole. This is NOT climactic or dramatic, its just a lame way to end your character's career.

4) Yes, Wail of the Banshee has both the Sonic and Death descriptors. The lich is a lich. Its got other spells. And if you want to rely on "But!' reasoning, fine. "But! The party scryed the lich and noticed that he likes that spell, so they used Death Ward!" Ok. "But! The lich scryed the party and noticed they cast death ward, so he cast Hold Monster, Mass, and had goblins slit the players throats." We can do this all night. The problem is the one shot kill effect and its abuses.

5) Is it really unfair for a DM to do something as simple as have a bebg cast a good spell, twice? I mean, from a certain perspective, I agree. Casting the same spell twice and thereby killing 75% of the party makes the game suck, so a good DM won't do it. But the problem isn't just the DM. Its also the game design, which makes a very simple, very logical opening attack move (cast a good spell that's on the monster's spell list, maybe cast it again or something?) horribly abusive to the players. Rather than lambast the DM for using save-or-die in its logical manner, rework save-or-die.

 

[Lackhand]

How many rules do you need for save-or-die? I mean, I'm pretty sure that the rule is three words long: Save. Or die. At least as flatly presented.

The range where an orcish crit can just snap you in half is quite low. So this sounds like "something which is too challenging should be able to eat you up".

I don't think that the OH SHI- response should be reserved for wizards. I think some wizards, the party (which includes a wizard in it, natch!) should say "Hah. We win!" to; others should scare the living daylights out of the party.

I think some swordsmen, the party should mop up. Some swordsmen should be Kenshin. Sometimes, you just lose.

I think the posters upthread who mentioned that what this really seems to model is "higher level" were right. I'm *fine* with save-or-die if that die is a direct relation to the caster being 5+ levels higher.

I'm not so fine with it being from someone the same level or lower.

I am also fond of powers that take effect slowly; gives characters *time* to realize that they need to run, and gives players a mounting sense of adrenaline. If they don't feel their hearts start to pump when they're taking 1d4 con/round ("ho hum, another 3 rounds and we'll have killed the monster by then..."), exactly how much better is "ho hum, I'm immune due every trick that this monster has, due to my Death Ward"?