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

[Reynard]

But this isn't a solution, for a couple of reasons. First, as has been pointed out, at high levels, mooks start throwing save-or-die effects. Like I said, when encountered by a 17th level party, a 13th level cleric is supposed to be a mook who they can take down with ease. But that mook can throw a save-or-die that has a 1 in 3 chance (or thereabouts) of instantly killing a PC. So, unless the PCs are going to start casting divination spells before they open every single door in the dungeon (which would slow the game down to a crawl), divination spells aren't a reliable way to anticipate when they'll be faced with save-or-die effects.

And second, at high levels, many enemies the PCs will face will have access to exactly the same divination spells that they have. So if the PCs use divination magic to find out that the evil wizard they're going up against likes to use save-or-die spells, there's no reason that the wizard can't use divination magic to find out that the PCs will be arriving at his lair with Death Wards up, and either use Disjunction or whatever to get rid of them, or simply go somewhere else and wait for them to wear off, then return and start killing PCs once they're no longer protected. Again, it's not a reliable defense.

In think this post illustrates why the game changes, and should change, at higher levels. The encounter-fighter-encounter paradigm of low and mid levels is much harder to maintain, both mechanically and thematically. Older editions realized this and as soon as they starting capping HD at the same time wizards got high level spells and everyone started becoming leaders and landowners.

That shift in focus might actually promote some of the core assumptions of 4E. A transferrence from per-day to per-encounter resources makes sense when a party might have one encounter per month, between negotiating with rival barnonies, researching powerful items and running their own country.

Something to think on...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, it could indicate those things, but I think we can reason through which one it does indicate.

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

 

[Grog]

In think this post illustrates why the game changes, and should change, at higher levels. The encounter-fighter-encounter paradigm of low and mid levels is much harder to maintain, both mechanically and thematically. Older editions realized this and as soon as they starting capping HD at the same time wizards got high level spells and everyone started becoming leaders and landowners.

I think BECMI did a good job with changing playstyles as the PCs gained levels. The basic dungeon adventure was something you pretty much only did for the first few levels, then the focus moved to wilderness exploration, then to ruling your own kingdom, then to extraplanar stuff and the quest for immortality. Of course, it was limited in some ways, and you could expect to find a dungeon crawl here and there no matter what level you were, but the change in focus was something I really liked.

But then, 3E's motto was "Back to the dungeon," so they mostly went in the other direction. Maybe 4E will be different.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But this isn't a solution, for a couple of reasons. First, as has been pointed out, at high levels, mooks start throwing save-or-die effects. Like I said, when encountered by a 17th level party, a 13th level cleric is supposed to be a mook who they can take down with ease.

That is directly a problem with the power curve, and one which the 4e designers seem to agree with, as they have stated their intent to flatten the power curve and make opponents viable threats for a much longer range of levels.

And second, at high levels, many enemies the PCs will face will have access to exactly the same divination spells that they have. So if the PCs use divination magic to find out that the evil wizard they're going up against likes to use save-or-die spells, there's no reason that the wizard can't use divination magic to find out that the PCs will be arriving at his lair with Death Wards up, and either use Disjunction or whatever to get rid of them, or simply go somewhere else and wait for them to wear off, then return and start killing PCs once they're no longer protected. Again, it's not a reliable defense.

That's one reason not to rest too long......

In most adventures AFAICT, the PCs learn about the BBEG far sooner than the BBEG learns about them. In other ones....not so much.

But, as Shilsen said: Just pointing out that what you described can happen in reality, let alone within the crazy parameters of the D&D game world. It may not be a bodak, but encounters with a lot of real-world problems might well be considered "Save-or-Die" effects.

Like I said, I think "Save or Effect" is generally better than SoD, but I don't think SoD is as big a problem as some would have it be. It's never caused me a problem in over 27 years of gaming. YMMV.

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would really hate to see every effect be "elastic" the way my petrification example is. For example, I truly dislike the idea that a rust monster's rust effect "goes away" after a period of time.

RC

I am not that happy with that, either. I think there were better rules (read: Sunder) then that for item damage. But even this rule is better than the standard attack that just says "your metal item crumbles to rust".

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I am not that happy with that, either. I think there were better rules (read: Sunder) then that for item damage. But even this rule is better than the standard attack that just says "your metal item crumbles to rust".

I'd say that's a matter of taste...otherwise, I'd start asking why now, and that discussion has been done to death after the Mearlification of this venerable D&D icon.

 

[Remathilis]

Just as an aside, this isn't necessarily true, and it is certainly no more true that saying "a chance of death necessitates resurrection magic".

While in theory this is true, in play it creates a giant hole in the status/Removal paragrim.

1st level: Cause Fear/Remove Fear
2nd level: Hold Person/Remove Paralysis, Blindness & Deafness/Remove Blindness & Deafness
3rd level: Contagion/Remove Disease, Bestow Curse/Remove Curse
4th level: Poison/Neutralize Poison, Enervation/Restoration
5th level: Slay Living/Raise Dead
6th level: Flesh to Stone/Stone to Flesh
7th level: Destruction/Resurrection

Without Raise Dead or Resurrection, Slay Living and Destruction have no counters, and thus would become MORE powerful than similar leveled spells. Unfortunately, it also means mundane death (from sword blows or fireballs) can be restored as well.

I would love to see SoD AND Resurrection magic both enter the game NO EARLIER than 15th level. Perferrably, I'd like to see them both EPIC (21+). It would make death effects and their coutner something more than "a more severe state of paralysis/diseased/poisoned" and keep death at earlier levels rare, but meaningful.

 

[Cadfan]

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

No. I believe I was quite clear. A system for creating balanced encounters does not play well with a system in which one roll takes a character from "goin' strong" to "dead as a doorknob."

Think of how we balance something like an attack. It has an attack bonus and a damage roll. We can look at our benchmarks for player characters, and immediately work out a number of mathematical details. We can solve for expected damage, and we can solve for standard deviation of expected damage. Based off our character benchmarks, we can work out the likely number of rounds it will take for this monster to kill a typical PC of each level of each character class, compare that to what pcs its likely to face, and in general work out how tough the monster is.

You can't do that for "save or die." The only thing to compare in save or die is the DC of the save with the bonus of the character's roll. How can you balance that? Is a 10% chance of dying instantly balanced at level 2, but too weak for level 10? What chance of dying instantly is balanced for level 14? For level 9?

An attack that does 2d6+12 damage might be balanced for level 8, but too strong for level 1. At level 1, it auto kills if it hits. At level 8, it does damage the players can absorb, maybe easily, maybe with difficulty, but that they can at least absorb. Auto kill spells are like attacks which do exactly your hit points in damage plus ten. There's no way to balance them because they intrinsically scale just faster than you can keep up with.

 

[Raven Crowking]

While in theory this is true, in play it creates a giant hole in the status/Removal paragrim.

I have no problem with that. Not every effect needs to be counterable. Moreover, I submit that ultimately there should be some permanent (and/or near permanent) effects in the game.

I would love to see SoD AND Resurrection magic both enter the game NO EARLIER than 15th level. Perferrably, I'd like to see them both EPIC (21+). It would make death effects and their coutner something more than "a more severe state of paralysis/diseased/poisoned" and keep death at earlier levels rare, but meaningful.

I understand this desire. But that also means breaking the status/removal paradigm. Which I am more than happy with.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. I believe I was quite clear.

You were quite clear. You stated your opinion quite clearly. However, we obviously disagree. I personally don't think balance is the Holy Grail of gaming. In fact, I think that many of the problems that exist in 3.X are the result of paying too much attention to balance.

In 1e, individual foes were often unbalanced against PCs. It was the cumulative effect of foes that did PCs in, if the players didn't pull back in time. In effect, what "balanced" the game was player involvement. I think that is a much better paradigm that what we have now.

YMMV, and obviously does. I understand that you believe these effects are problematical. I understand that you think that they cannot be balanced. But please understand that I mean exactly what I say when I say that I personally don't think SoD effects are, in and of themselves, problematic.


RC