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

[Remathilis]

Yeah, as much as two people coming to the conclusion that save-or-die works fine for them from very different points of view indicates that the mechanic is perfectly suitable for a wide variety of playing styles, and that only corner cases of "I want my character to be unkillable" will find it unsuitable.

Sigh...

I want my character to die because he had 2 hit points left, failed a grapple check, and a giant snake's constriction damage is 2d6+10.
I want my character to die because a foe survived an attack of opportunity, made an opposed strength check, and and bull rushed me off a cliff.
I want to die fighting a frost giant toe-to-toe for three rounds before he confirmed the crit against me.
I want to die from poison after first surviving 2d6 points of con damage, and hoping to survive another low roll of 2d6.
I want to die saving my friends from an onslaught of devils as they frantically try to open a portal out hell.

I don't want to die because a 9th level cleric touched my 20th level paladin and I rolled a 1.
I don't want to die from a gaze attack in the first round of combat before my initiative number even came up (so, before I even had the chance to buff, fight or flee).
I don't want to die because the cleric only had 3 fourth level spell slots available for death ward.

Can we please dispense with the "No SoD = Death Proof" fallacy?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Deleted, since the post I quoted was deleted.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sigh...

I want my character to die because he had 2 hit points left, failed a grapple check, and a giant snake's constriction damage is 2d6+10.
I want my character to die because a foe survived an attack of opportunity, made an opposed strength check, and and bull rushed me off a cliff.
I want to die fighting a frost giant toe-to-toe for three rounds before he confirmed the crit against me.
I want to die from poison after first surviving 2d6 points of con damage, and hoping to survive another low roll of 2d6.
I want to die saving my friends from an onslaught of devils as they frantically try to open a portal out hell.

I don't want to die because a 9th level cleric touched my 20th level paladin and I rolled a 1.
I don't want to die from a gaze attack in the first round of combat before my initiative number even came up (so, before I even had the chance to buff, fight or flee).
I don't want to die because the cleric only had 3 fourth level spell slots available for death ward.

Can we please dispense with the "No SoD = Death Proof" fallacy?

You might want to read one post up from what you quoted, find the post I responded to, and hopefully recognize what I was saying there in that post you quoted, and why I said it. Further, you might want to read the rest of my posts in this thread to find out that I'm not one of the folks who think everybody who wants to get rid of save-or-die effects also wants his character to be death proof. Thanks, and happy gaming.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm really afraid 4E is even MORE of a move away from a simulation of sword and sorcery fantasy stories into a self-referencing modern D&D fantasy power trip.

I think some people have, because of that one little foreword in the OD&D book about Conan and John Carter of Mars, built up this little fantasy in their heads that D&D was always about the old-fashioned sword-and-sorcery stories when all the evidence points against this. I suppose that it simply proves the old saying that if you say something loud enough and long enough, some other people will come to beleive it.

Let's look at this, shall we?

If D&D was ever actually about re-creating the old-fashioned sword-and-sorcery stories, then magic-users would have been monsters, since the were no heroic mages in those stories. There would not have been any Crusader-modeled clerics either, since all priests in the old S&S stories served dark gods. Even the priests of the 'good' gods were viewed with fear of their unknown power. Magic certainly would not have been as prominant in the game, and most people would be playing some variant on the fighter or rogue, since those are the most common non-spell-casting archtypes we get.

D&D has always been 'it's own thing'. It's a mish-mash of many different and incompatable mythologies, King Arthur, fantasy-as-filtered-through-movies, science-fiction, folklore, new invention and more.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yeah, as much as two people coming to the conclusion that save-or-die works fine for them from very different points of view indicates that the mechanic is perfectly suitable for a wide variety of playing styles, and that only corner cases of "I want my character to be unkillable" will find it unsuitable.

As far as "I want my character to be unkillable," what Remathilis said. The gist of support for save-or-die is that there is an advantage to the game including situations in which a character can simply drop dead due to a failed save, irrespective of the circumstances prior to death. Save-or-die is exactly the chance of dying without reference to any prior history of injury or harm.

So, no. You haven't made a convincing reconstruction of the post.

To summarize: there's one reason to keep save-or-die in the game. That reason is so that characters can randomly die. That's what save-or-die is. Random death. It interfaces poorly with many playstyles, and tends to result in either trivial consequences (Shilsen's example) or too-heavy consequences (Anthtriel's example). There's really no middle ground. Plus, it takes a player out of the game randomly. That there are for-sure counters (death ward) makes it a trivial challenge when they are available. If you warn players about save-or-die-using monsters (as some pro-save-or-die posters have suggested regarding the bodak), it trivializes the ability because they'll take precautions (i.e. death ward) to render it ineffective. However, all this is a lot of effort wasted when you can just chuck them and be done with it. Either it's ridiculously arbitrary and overpowered or it's a pointless resource sink.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

To summarize: there's one reason to keep save-or-die in the game. That reason is so that characters can randomly die. That's what save-or-die is. Random death. It interfaces poorly with many playstyles, and tends to result in either trivial consequences (Shilsen's example) or too-heavy consequences (Anthtriel's example). There's really no middle ground. Plus, it takes a player out of the game randomly. That there are for-sure counters (death ward) makes it a trivial challenge when they are available. If you warn players about save-or-die-using monsters (as some pro-save-or-die posters have suggested regarding the bodak), it trivializes the ability because they'll take precautions (i.e. death ward) to render it ineffective. However, all this is a lot of effort wasted when you can just chuck them and be done with it. Either it's ridiculously arbitrary and overpowered or it's a pointless resource sink.

Thanks for that summary of your opinion (and that of a few others). I'll refrain from summarizing mine (and that of a few others) because if I did, somebody would probably pipe up again about an endless back and forth of arguments. And we wouldn't want that after all. Can't have a bored audience, can we?

 

[DandD]

Thanks for that summary of your opinion (and that of a few others). I'll refrain from summarizing mine (and that of a few others) because if I did, somebody would probably pipe up again about an endless back and forth of arguments. And we wouldn't want that after all. Can't have a bored audience, can we?

Yeah, we really don't want to hear all that stuff again, when nothing new can be added by those who are pro-save-or-die.

 

[FireLance]

To summarize: there's one reason to keep save-or-die in the game. That reason is so that characters can randomly die. That's what save-or-die is. Random death. It interfaces poorly with many playstyles, and tends to result in either trivial consequences (Shilsen's example) or too-heavy consequences (Anthtriel's example). There's really no middle ground.

Actually, I think there could be a middle ground, but it trivializes save-or-die. Let's say death effects literally rip the soul out of the body, so that the character dies, but the body is otherwise functional. Then, have spells like raise dead limit their effect to restoring life to an otherwise functional body. Raise dead then becomes a specific counter to save-or-die effects, and will not work for other types of death, e.g. from damage, disease, poison, etc. because deaths from these effects leave the body incapable of supporting life. This has the added side effect of making it harder (or even impossible) to come back from an "ordinary" death, which some people have mentioned they would prefer.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Yes they are arbitrary, but that can be a good thing. Sometimes in rpgs you want something to happen that neither the DM nor the players planned. Or even want, initially. But we submit to the chaotic, insensible will of the dice. If the PC is rezzed then yes, it doesn't really matter. But if he isn't that's a major change to the story there.

Ofc not everything should be arbitrary. Most of what happens should be predictable, at least within certain ranges. Judging how much randomness should be in a game is the tricky part.

 

[Jhulae]

Yes they are arbitrary, but that can be a good thing. Sometimes in rpgs you want something to happen that neither the DM nor the players planned. Or even want, initially. But we submit to the chaotic, insensible will of the dice. If the PC is rezzed then yes, it doesn't really matter. But if he isn't that's a major change to the story there.

Ofc not everything should be arbitrary. Most of what happens should be predictable, at least within certain ranges. Judging how much randomness should be in a game is the tricky part.

That may be something *you* want. That's not something *I* want.

Combat is already chaotic enough. PCs with lots of HP can still die without needing SoD. In our game two sessions ago, a PC with over 90 HP was brought down from full health to 3 HP in one round, the first round. By one monster, not multiples. It rolled crits. It was *very* tense. No SoD involved, yet a PC almost died.

Adding SoD isn't really necessary to keep a game tense. It adds a very random factor that adds unnecessary waiting for the dead player while the PCs either find a raise or find a way to bring a new character in.