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

[Puggins]

I'm not speaking frequency of occurrance, I'm talking frequency of actually working. I still have never seen a wizard or cleric prepare all save-or-die spells at a table, usually one or two, because of the failure rate. Now, back in 3.0, before the 3.5 revision, I saw save or die used VERY frequently, and it was actually getting ridiculous

It's a bit better now, but SoD spells are still too reliable. Here's a quick example.

Say a 19th level party is going up against a very old dragon, CR21, and its minions. The final confrontation begins and initiative is rolled.

On the first round, the 18th level wizard casts an empowered ray of enervation and quickens it through his metamagic rod of quickening (a real bargain item at 70k gp). The dragon loses an average of 3.5 levels- let's say the wizard rolls below average and gets 3 negative levels. The wizard then follows up with a sudden maximized energy drain, which puts the dragon at a whopping 11 negative levels. The dragon has essentially lost all of its truly heinous spells and is at -11 to all of its saves. It does... whatever.

The next round, the wizard opens up with a quickened targeted dispel magic to get rid of the dragon's major resistance spell it had up. The caster level check is trivial with that -11. Then comes the killer: Dominate Monster. The Dragon still has a Bless and maybe a couple of other bonuses up, so its will save is at a +16.

the wizard has 22 int naturally, +6 enhancement, +5 inherent (that's why he's 18th and not 19th like the rest of his party), putting him at 33 int. He's casting a 9th level spell and he has Spell Focus: enchantment. That gives his Dominate spell a DC of 10 + 9 + 1 + 11 = 31. The dragon will fail its save 70% of the time. And that's assuming that the Dragon had many buffs that survived the targeted dispel. If another character (the cleric?) used another dispel magic, he'd probably need a 17 or maybe even higher in order to not immediately lose.

I know there's tons of caveats there, but there are also tons of options the wizard didn't use. Essentially, most BBEG fights are over by the second round when the party's spellcaster has the right load-out.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

The perfect game that people don't like and don't play, however, is a failed game... Even if it causes headaches, something that a majority of fans want to stay, should stay. I'm not equating the "save or die" business with this, but it applies to ANY change that gets a large number of fans in an uproar. New Coke is a good example of this lesson, no matter how much better it was and how many blind taste-tests it won.

Well first, I'd like to point out that I never said that they should never listen to feedback. It's a valuable tool, and should be used. Feeback makes my editorial heart skip with glee, because it is another step towards what every editor should stive for: perfection. But like everything else, feedback should be evaluated as well.

Now, on to the bolded emphasis (mine): that is just not a valid reason to keep something. As others have stated, the majority can and do change their minds, and it is possible that the majority wants this headache of a rule because most of them simply haven't experienced anything else.

 

[shilsen]

My DM has a favorite saying about DMing and PCs:
Death means the PC stops suffering.



My DM wants to continue to bring on the pain...

Yup. That's something I've mentioned more than once myself.

 

[Reynard]

I know there's tons of caveats there, but there are also tons of options the wizard didn't use. Essentially, most BBEG fights are over by the second round when the party's spellcaster has the right load-out.

It isn't the caveats on the side of the PCs that make me cringe at your example, it is the caveats on the dragon's side. Assuming the dragon is in fact a BBEG -- which implies far more than simply being the toughest monster in the dungeon -- then one of two things should have happened:

1) He knew the PCs were coming for him and was set not just with spells and such, but with minions and traps and other advantages.

2) The above was the case but luck and pluck have let them get the jump on the dragon.

If it is case #2, the quick resolution battle isn't anti-climactic, it is the reward for good play. If it is case #2, there's a much lower liklihood of the BBEG going down in round 2 because the PCs shouldn't even see the BBEG until they are half out of resources (hp, spells, whatever) anyway.

 

[Henry]

Now, on to the bolded emphasis (mine): that is just not a valid reason to keep something. As others have stated, the majority can and do change their minds, and it is possible that the majority wants this headache of a rule because most of them simply haven't experienced anything else.

It's a point I'll just have to disagree on. When as a producer of something you start "knowing better than everyone else," you start getting into trouble. Something that's a headache may not be one -- magic missile for example -- and something else that fans want may not be good, but it served its purpose long enough to be phased out later -- such as the Paladin and Monk multilclassing rules. I don't think it's bad that it was in there, but its inclusion needed to be there to show people that it DIDN'T need to be there, if that makes sense.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And heaven knows that a chance of death or real loss is ONLY possible in a game system with single-die-roll deaths.

In the end, all D&D deaths come down to a single die roll.

That said, I am not a fan of the save-or-die effect overall. I don't think that they are monumentally unfair, but I prefer something that lingers a bit longer (ex: Dex damage for petrification effects).

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In the end, all D&D deaths come down to a single die roll.

That said, I am not a fan of the save-or-die effect overall. I don't think that they are monumentally unfair, but I prefer something that lingers a bit longer (ex: Dex damage for petrification effects).

RC

Yes, that is true. But the question is - how many activities could the PCs or BBEG perform to affect the outcome of this die roll? How many of them are reasonable within the context of the situation?
Death Ward is a good protection against death spells, except for the fact that its duration is pretty short. If you know only the BBEG will have a Death effect, you can suspect that before you get near to the throne room or his arcane study room, you probably don't need it. But if there could be a Bodak behind every corner (but most likely there won't be one), your only protection becomes extremely unreliable, and there is little you can to do avoid this.

Now, Bodak is probably a bad example, it's probably just a badly designed monster.

But in a higher level game, not only the BBEG might be able to cast a death effect - some of his allied mages and apprentice might also be able to do it (maybe just because he gave them a scroll of the spell). At some point, gathering intelligence and taking precautions reach level of work that you lose the enjoyment of the game. It's just becoming tedious.

And what is happening if the BBEG is smart and decides to no longer wait for the PCs, and instead takes the Initiative and attacks them when they are unprepared? That should certainly be a hard encounter, but it should still stay fair. A magical effect that has the potential to kill every party member in one swoop doesn't sound fair. Not even one that has a fair chance to kill half of the party...

 

[Korgoth]

And what is happening if the BBEG is smart and decides to no longer wait for the PCs, and instead takes the Initiative and attacks them when they are unprepared? That should certainly be a hard encounter, but it should still stay fair. A magical effect that has the potential to kill every party member in one swoop doesn't sound fair. Not even one that has a fair chance to kill half of the party...

I would submit that the DM can always set up a scenario that is basically a turkey shoot on the PCs. We used to call this "hit squadding". Like in Gurps the DM (or "GM") might decide that the bad guy has Stealth (or whatever) and Sniper Rifle skills of 25 and he's up in a building just waiting for the PCs to come out of the diner where they were having lunch. That's at least one insta-splat, maybe a TPK.

In other words, an NPC of a certain skill who is able to catch the party unprepared will never be a "fair fight". It's a fight that's designed, by the ambushing party, specifically to be unfair. The DM should make only sparing use of such things... but you'll never tailor it out of the rules unless you simply make everything a complete cake walk.

 

[Remathilis]

In the end, all D&D deaths come down to a single die roll.

That said, I am not a fan of the save-or-die effect overall. I don't think that they are monumentally unfair, but I prefer something that lingers a bit longer (ex: Dex damage for petrification effects).

RC

I would be happy as a clam if death effects took a bit longer to work. Really, which is more tense, knowing the next save you roll is *BOOM* game over (grab a Gameboy) or knowing you have rounds=con to live? The latter can produce remarkable gaming (be it the clerics frantic scramble to heal you, the PCs kamikaze drive at the BBEG to save the party, or the villain's final monologue scene where he reveals he is the PCs father. All of them.)

 

[gizmo33]

And heaven knows that a chance of death or real loss is ONLY possible in a game system with single-die-roll deaths.

Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.

That’s gone in the new edition.

So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round?

Why does this sort of reasoning keep occuring? Rule X is bad because it fulfills some set of criteria. Rules Y-Z seem to fit the same criteria and yet escape notice. Somewhere, I think, in all of this are a big pile of assumptions. Not only are these assumptions not stated by the individuals making the case, but they also seemed to be based on play styles or house rules that are not expressed in the RAW either.

For example, taking 4 rounds to kill a PC instead of 1 is better maybe because the DM can fudge and cheat to prevent it from happening. If this is the standard practice of those advocating this change, I think it would be fair to state that up front, instead of arguing as if this makes sense from the perspective of the RAW when the practice of fudging to save the lives of PCs is not an aspect of the RAW. I don't want a DM who fudges all of the time to design the game system that I use.

(Edit: in other words, to address your point/sarcasm Cadfan, I think it's fair to question the philosophy backing a rule change when that philosophy seems to cover much more ground than the rule in question.)