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

[Grog]

It isn't semantics; those two sentences do not mean the same thing.

Well, if you understand the fundamental difference here, then why on earth did you post this:

All deaths in D&D come down to a single die roll.

in response to me asking this:

What is the chance of that death being the result of a single die roll?

when it is clear from the context of the discussion that I am, indeed, talking about the saving throw against the save-or-die attack being the only roll that matters? Do you just enjoy wasting people's time with pointless non-sequiturs?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

One of the common defenses of save-or-die is that they make good threats to use against characters so that the players have to find a way around encountering the threat. This is the defense you mount in your "planned encounter" response. This is one particular instance in which I think save-or-die can be easily replaced with other kinds of threats. As Doug McCrae aptly points out, in such a scenario you might as well get rid of the save. Its not adding anything to the fight.

From my point of view, you'd take one option away from me as DM, namely to create a monster that HAS the ability to kill at a glance. Those "other" threats are out there as well, all you'd do is take out one option from the pool.

Looking at the two examples you gave, you put the same monster as appropriate for either level 8, or level 22, depending on context. That's pretty extreme, and creates its own problems, primarily related to the monster's hit points. I'm going to look at those examples, and suggest an alternative.

In both cases, the monster you described was essentially a glass cannon. That's fine and all. I just think that a different cannon might make the encounters better.

Don't get me wrong now, but that's one of the reasons why I was asking for more details for that encounter beforehand. See, you didn't give me any informations about HD, or anything else really, about the monster either. What you said was...

I design a monster that has an ability which inflicts on an opponent a DC 20 fortitude save. Failure kills the target. Its a magical effect that has no other roll to hit, and occurs at range.

1) At what level is this monster an appropriate encounter for a character? If you don't want to answer with a particular level, just answer with the fort save you think a character should have at the point where this monster is an appropriate encounter. Please specify whether the fortitude save you've given is the expected low fortitude save for the group, or the expected high fortitude save.

Hence, neither of the situations I described indicate that the monster was a "glass cannon" or a "melee monster". It simply has a death attack with a save DC of 20, that's about it.

In the first, thanks to knowing the monster was coming, the party basically casts a spell that reads "the monster's glass cannon doesn't work now." Then they chop it into little pieces. Deprived of its cannon, its essentially a medium sized mook. While its fun to prep and use your preparation to obtain an easier win, I think this is overdoing it. The small amount of preparation necessary (notice monster, cast death ward) to create such a high degree of nerfing seems out of proportion.

The "small" amount of preparation includes collecting informations about the place the group plans to adventure in, correctly identify the creature's ability from all the rumors they heard, the cleric preparing the correct countermeasures (and/or the group procuring items that can help there), and guessing the right timing to cast it, since the 3.5 version of Death Ward only lasts 1 minute/level..incidentally, it should be "cast death ward, notice monster", since the other way around might already cost one character. And to me, that doesn't look like a "small amount" anymore either. It gives a bard the opportunity to shine with his bardic ability, it channels some resources into research and purchase of countermeasures, it creates opportunities to meet sources for more knowledge, or for potential sponsors for future adventures, it might even add another reason for the group to undertake the whole thing (e.g. a church official noticing them asking around for that special monster ability asking to hire them to liberate an old relic from that tomb and offering them something in exchange)
And again, the medium sized mook is your elaboration, not mine.

In the second, the monster gets to keep his glass cannon, making him appropriate versus only epic characters. In this case, if the players make their saves, the monster is a really pathetic mook since it was killable by level 8 character in 2 to 3 rounds, and the power curve of the game means that a level 22 party is going to eat this creature alive. It might literally require one melee hit to kill. If the players don't make their saves, its a random encounter that attritions basically no resources whatsoever off the party, except that the cleric loses a casting of a Raise Dead spell.

Well, that's the result I got while trying to shoehorn a save-or-die effect into a random encounter *shrugs* Something like that should be "easily survivable" without preparations by epic characters only after all. Context is important to monsters too, not just characters. An epic bard is still not the most impressive melee combatant compared to his fighter friend, but he shines like the sun in social encounters. Context makes a difference all the time.

Also note the disasters that occur if this monster is used outside of the bounds you've specified. I'm sure you can work them out.

Yep...usually it's one dead character and a lot of survivers running the hell away from that unholy terror. Or it's a squashed monster beneath the heel of a demi-god PC.

Now lets create an alternative glass cannon, and see how it fares. We'll give it the same physical stats (killable in 2 to 3 roundsby level 8 characters), and we'll give it a glass cannon of its own, but not one which is all or nothing. Lets give it... the ability to arc electricity at an attacker for a large amount of damage, an amount that's genuinely frightening to a level 8 character, but which won't kill him in one hit. We'll give reflex for half, no attack roll.


Now, at level 8, if the players scout the monster out, they can cast spells that protect from energy, and have an encounter similar to what you described in your example number 1.

At levels above 8, the monster gets closer and closer to, and eventually becomes, a decent, balanced encounter without preparation. Lets say that at level 12, its a decent fight without preparation. Everyone has better reflex saves, more hit points, they can kill it faster, and the party's healing is more powerful.

By level 22, the monster is undoubtedly a trivial threat. Enter monster number 2, which is the same thing advanced in hit dice, or whatever the relevant language is in 4e.

So what if I simply take that juvenile blue dragon (CR 7) with his 8d8 (DC 20) lightning breath and replace that with a death effect (DC 20) instead? Doesn't so much look like a "glass cannon" monster anymore.

By changing the save-or-die cannon of the original glass cannon to a powerful attack that isn't all or nothing, the monster retains the threat it originally created, and yet becomes appropriate for all kinds of other uses. Its usable in all the same ways as the original, plus some, and with a seriously reduced potential for catastrophe if used in a way outside of its original, very tight bounds.

And why should I sacrifice the ability as a DM to create monsters that actually ARE able to kill with a glance for something that is already in the game if I want it there? I'm not sure if it gets through, but I'm also arguing flavour here, not just "mechanical similarity".

 

[ptolemy18]

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.

Well, that seems like a "who cares" issue. Except that unfortunately it has terrible implications, because it suggests that they are going to nerf life-or-death effects, because otherwise it'd be too annoying to hear the DM go "The beholder gets a 30 on his death gaze effect. You die. No, you don't get to roll. Sorry."

And removing life-or-death effects is just a way of making the game easier and more nerf-y in general. The primary effect on play of removing life-or-death effects is to make the game easier and more monty-haul pat-on-the-back make it harder for PCs to die. Which means, less drama. Which sucks.

Have you played a spellcaster and been a little envious of the excitement of other players when they roll critical hits? Have you wished that you could do that for your spells?

You can in 4th.

No, I've never been envious of fighters rolling critical hits. I'd rather have a robust list of spells and a tremendous variety of spellcaster options, like in the 3E PHB, thanks. (Anyway, what about the fun of rolling a fireball and coming up with a bunch of sixes?)

I play a spellcaster because I DON'T WANT TO play a fighter class. Fighters and spellcasters should be different. "Narrowing" and "simplifying" spellcasters is the single lamest, most unappealing thing about 4E. To me. As someone who never plays fighters.

Have you ever had some confusion or miscalculation about your normal AC versus your touch and flat-footed AC?

You won’t have to worry about it.

I don't understand what the deal is here, as this is one of the easiest things to calculate imaginable.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, if you understand the fundamental difference here, then why on earth did you post this:


in response to me asking this:


when it is clear from the context of the discussion that I am, indeed, talking about the saving throw against the save-or-die attack being the only roll that matters? Do you just enjoy wasting people's time with pointless non-sequiturs?

Read http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3836361#post3836361 and decide for yourself.

 

[Grog]

If you say nobody forces to gambler to place that bet (something a lot of gamblers and gambling addiction councelors will argue, by the way ), I can only answer that nobody forces the player to bet with his character's live. And sorry, if the game includes one-roll save-or-die situations, and you know it, and you still play, then you ARE betting your character's life on those too. You play the game, you accept the rules, you place the bet.

Sorry, your analogy is flawed. The gambler in your example has the choice to never sit down at the craps table, just as D&D players have the choice to never sit down at the D&D table. The difference is, once they've started playing, the gambler has the choice as to whether or not to bet everything he has on a single roll of the dice. D&D players do not have the choice as to whether or not to bet everything (i.e., their character's life) on a single roll of the d20. That is something that is forced upon them over the course of the game.

The gambler in your example can choose exactly how much he risks every step of the way. D&D players do not have that same choice. So your analogy fails. A proper analogy would be a gambler playing some kind of house-ruled craps game where every tenth bet (or whatever), he's required to make a roll, and if he succeeds, he gets nothing except the right to stay in the game, and if he fails, he loses all the money he has. That would be the equivalent of save-or-die in a craps game.

And also, saying "save-or-die is in the rules" totally misses the point of this discussion. We aren't talking about what the rules are, we're talking about what the rules should be.

What...enemies who are able to take a wizard with his (at 8th level, let's be a bit generous) 25 hit poits to -10 in one strike are very rare at CR and above? Let's look at the stone giant: CR 8, Greatclub +17/+12 (2d8+12), Power Attack. Standard line-up, nothing fancy. Since you were generous enough to grant that poor wizard a +5 bonus on his Fort save, I'll do the same for his AC and say he's got an AC of 15. Basically, that giant already hits with a 95% probability and causes an average of 21 points of damage. 5% for a threat x 95% for a confirmed crit make it a 4.8% chance of total overkill. Simply power-attacking for 5 points instead still mean a 90% probability to hit (Attack reduced to +12, a 3 or better is needed to hit) and raises the average damage to 25 points, which simply means the wizard keels over with -1 HP, dying. The chance for a crit is reduced to 4.5% but it'll just kill him even deader. And since that character is either alone, or the group is surprised by the attack, I don't really view the above as a lot different from a bodak's "surprise gaze" result. And if you can have bodaks as random surprise encounters, a stone giant is not too far fetched either.

Well, I think your numbers are off, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that the wizard is alone, but rather than argue about that, I'll just point out that even in your (very slanted) example, the stone giant only has a 4.75% chance of killing the wizard with one attack. Now compare that to the 35% (or more) chance he has to die from a save-or-die attack.

Yep...13th level is so darn common, right? Having a save-or-die spell doesn't say a thing about the power and reputation of the person able to wield it. 6th or 8th level characters are already run-off-the-mill standard, after all. I stand corrected, obviously.

Yes, when the party is 13th level, 13th level enemies are quite common.

Unless you think a 13th level party should still be fighting 5th level wizards?

 

[Henry]

Save-or-die spells should stay, if the fighter gets save-or-die combat maneuvers like "Decapitate."

No problem here. Means that the NPCs get it, too.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, that seems like a "who cares" issue. Except that unfortunately it has terrible implications, because it suggests that they are going to nerf life-or-death effects, because otherwise it'd be too annoying to hear the DM go "The beholder gets a 30 on his death gaze effect. You die. No, you don't get to roll. Sorry."

And removing life-or-death effects is just a way of making the game easier and more nerf-y in general. The primary effect on play of removing life-or-death effects is to make the game easier and more monty-haul pat-on-the-back make it harder for PCs to die. Which means, less drama. Which sucks.



No, I've never been envious of fighters rolling critical hits. I'd rather have a robust list of spells and a tremendous variety of spellcaster options, like in the 3E PHB, thanks. (Anyway, what about the fun of rolling a fireball and coming up with a bunch of sixes?)

I play a spellcaster because I DON'T WANT TO play a fighter class. Fighters and spellcasters should be different. "Narrowing" and "simplifying" spellcasters is the single lamest, most unappealing thing about 4E. To me. As someone who never plays fighters.



I don't understand what the deal is here, as this is one of the easiest things to calculate imaginable.

Oh, it's not hard to add some numbers. Even I somehow got the basics after 7 years of D&D 3rd edition.

What's hard is accounting for all the special modifiers that apply to your AC.

""Hm, do you have Magic Circle vs Evil? Am I still in range? Oh, I have a Ring of Protection +1, so that grants me only +1. Okay, your Magic Vestment gives me +3 enhancement bonus, but my Armor is already a +2. I Combat expertise for 3. Than there is the Bards Insprire Heroics, did it give me a bonus to AC or did I dream this up? Okay, Barskins up, with my Amulet of Natural Armor +2 this is only a net +1 improvement, and then there is the Ioun Stone whcih gives me +1 insight to AC. Oh, and I have Uncanny Dodge (Dex Bonus to AC). Ah, the last monster drained 3 points of my Dex. Okay, no, a 17 barely misses my flat-footed AC.)
Well, it was part of the fun (and there were a few good strategies to minimize the overhead, too), at least for a while. But I don't really think I miss it - if it's really gone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, if you understand the fundamental difference here, then why on earth did you post this:


in response to me asking this:


when it is clear from the context of the discussion that I am, indeed, talking about the saving throw against the save-or-die attack being the only roll that matters? Do you just enjoy wasting people's time with pointless non-sequiturs?

Because that one die roll in the SoD example is not the only roll that matters, assuming any kind of context at all. If you wake up from a bender, and the bodak is in your bed already, then the save is all that matters. If not, then that roll is no more the only important event than the final move of a chess game.

RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sorry, your analogy is flawed. The gambler in your example has the choice to never sit down at the craps table, just as D&D players have the choice to never sit down at the D&D table. The difference is, once they've started playing, the gambler has the choice as to whether or not to bet everything he has on a single roll of the dice. D&D players do not have the choice as to whether or not to bet everything (i.e., their character's life) on a single roll of the d20. That is something that is forced upon them over the course of the game.

Now you make it sound like the players have no choices at all, and cannot influence the course of the game up to the moment of that single die roll over the course of the game.

The gambler in your example can choose exactly how much he risks every step of the way. D&D players do not have that same choice. So your analogy fails. A proper analogy would be a gambler playing some kind of house-ruled craps game where every tenth bet (or whatever), he's required to make a roll, and if he succeeds, he gets nothing except the right to stay in the game, and if he fails, he loses all the money he has. That would be the equivalent of save-or-die in a craps game.

So an encounter with a (for example) bodak doesn't net the characters anything but the right to continue adventuring? And they occur every 10 (or whatever) encounters? And the players have no opportunities to choose how much their characters risk every step of the way?
Sounds like a rigged game to me. Nothing I experienced in d&D, though. I wonder what makes you think it serves as a better analogy for a D&D game with included save-or-die effects.

And also, saying "save-or-die is in the rules" totally misses the point of this discussion. We aren't talking about what the rules are, we're talking about what the rules should be.

Maybe you are talking about what the rules should be. I'm talking about what I think the rules that are offer the game, and why I think they do it, and why I assign some value to them. This specific point of the discussion is the question if D&D is getting soft by the exclusion of save-or-die mechanics, and the question was raised what they add to the game. One of my responses was that they can create a thrill equal to that a gambler gets from betting all on one die roll. One reply to that was that while a gambler chooses to take that risk, a player does not choose to take the risk of betting his character's life on a single die roll. I say that, if that option is in the game, and the player joins anyway, he is prepared to gamble the life of his character on a single die roll now and then. Thus, free choice. Not sure where I'm missing the point here, I'm simply elaborating on a point I tried to make and others try to refute.

Well, I think your numbers are off, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that the wizard is alone, but rather than argue about that, I'll just point out that even in your (very slanted) example, the stone giant only has a 4.75% chance of killing the wizard with one attack. Now compare that to the 35% (or more) chance he has to die from a save-or-die attack.

Okay, where are they off?
Also note that those 4.8/4.5% are for critting, which in this case are a complete overkill. It's enough to have a 90% chance to send that wizard to a dying state. Sure, is not the same as dead, mechanically, and a dying character certainly creates his own tension among the group as well. But it shows that there's enough stuff that can take out a character of a fight at best, of a game at worst. Taking out one flavour is not really that necessary in my opinion.
As for the wizard, he either is alone or the group is surprised/out-initiatived...why? Because he was singled out by that bodak in your example, which means it either met him alone, or got initiative/surprise and decided to stare at the wimpy wizard. Likewise, I set my stone giant up to single out the wimpy wizard for his first attack instead of the beefy fighter.

Yes, when the party is 13th level, 13th level enemies are quite common.

Unless you think a 13th level party should still be fighting 5th level wizards?

Common? Nah. Prominent? Yeah. Except if the DM adapts the CR of his world to the group's advancing levels. And it still is a signifier of great power when a high-level character can simply snuff out another life by waggling his fingers or by screeching. That 5th level wizard hearing of those characters being able to do so will certainly agree.

 

[Anthtriel]

And why should I sacrifice the ability as a DM to create monsters that actually ARE able to kill with a glance for something that is already in the game if I want it there? I'm not sure if it gets through, but I'm also arguing flavour here, not just "mechanical similarity".

I'm curious, what precisely is the flavor difference between "Save against Fortitude, DC 20, death on failure" and "100 negative damage, Fortitude Save DC 20 for half damage (or no damage, if you want)"?

In both cases, you have an ability that will kill the ordinary guy if it hits (the second one is even more deadly in practice!), but somehow allows heroic characters to survive, as long as they are tough and/or lucky enough. As it should be.
If HP would directly represent wounds, then you would have a case. But since they represent the heroes' ability to escape serious harm, I don't see any difference whatsoever in flavor.

And we should already have established that Save or Die effects are horrible for balancing, and as a direct result, play pretty badly, so there are no other merits either.
Sure, in theory it's always better to have more options available, but with the same logic, you can defend any number of completely broken, stupid or downright useless monsters or abilities, as you never have to actually use them, or can make them work, if you are a skillfull DM. Before we get the Flumph back, and a subsystem for playing baseball in D&D, we don't need Save or Death either.
Why have an ability with bad mechanics, when you can have the same flavor with sound mechanics?


Death Effects are really just another antiquated absolute, much like Fire Immunity. Just as a Fire immune creature plays better, and makes more sence when it has a very high amount of Fire resistance instead, a Death Effect plays much better when it does large amounts of negative damage, (or whatever other flavor you want), instead.
And much like this allows Red Dragons to be hurt by extreme fire damage (like Hellfire or the like) without any silly additional rules, it also allows an easy way to make a creature become more resistant to Death Effects without becoming immune to all of them. Like an Undead Hunter, or maybe just a Paladin in general.
And it makes sure that the great, incredibly dangerous Death Spell of the God of Death doesn't get completely negated by a silly Death Ward casted by a random Level 7 Cleric. And at the same time, the greatest, toughest hero on earth, who wrestles with Balors for fun, the demigod of toughness, who shrugs of thousands of arrows, sword blows and meteor swarms with ease, doesn't get killed by a mere Slay Living casted by a random Level 9 Cleric.