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

[ptolemy18]

DM-Rocco... you sound like a good DM. Here's to keeping save-or-die, at least in some fashion.

(Actually, I wouldn't mind it if they kept save-or-die but also added some sort of action points... since probably the biggest use of action points would be to resist save-or-die effects. In other RPGs I've played which have "fate points" or such things, it seems a lot fairer to throw deadly effects at the characters. Although I'm equally happy with save-or-dies staying more or less as they are, without incorporating action points... the point is, I like that dramatic feeling.)

 

[shilsen]

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.

As Jhulae noted above, there's a whole lot of arbitrariness and luck in there already due to the use of dice even without SoD. Especially due to crits. Last session in my game the 14th lvl mage with exactly 100 hp went down with 1 hit from a CR 11 enemy. And even without crits we've had PCs with 100+ hp or close to it go down in a round from cumulative damage.

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.

Agreed. That's where the whole issue of taste and preferences comes in.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the point is that there's two things going on. First is that in any game, if you die, your character gets replaced by another character of approximately equal power level.

Not in mine.....

If you like, you could just erase the name and pencil in another, but keep the character more or less identical. After level 9, you don't even have to change the name. So save-or-die is irrelevant.

If this is your playstyle, the SoD can still require the use of resources (in 3e anyway), which means that it is at least somewhat relevant. However, it is interesting that one could claim that, on one hand, a thing is irrelevant, while on the other hand it is a problem.

Second, lots of people put a lot of investment into their characters, develop them, and become attached to playing them. So having that all be wiped out by a save-or-die on round 1 is ridiculously arbitrary considering what their play goals are. For that style of play, save-or-die is unwanted.

For that style of play, death is unwanted.

The point is, Mallus and Jhulae both get to the same conclusion--save-or-die is teh suck--from very different starting points. That probably indicates that save-or-die effects are not suitable for a wide variety of playing styles.

Hardly.

That indicates that Mallus and Jhulae both dislike save-or-die effects.

Examining their reasons is the only means of determining whether SoD has an effect on their playstyle, or is instead simply pointing at what seems to be the problem (when the problem itself is potentially caused by other rules that this thing is interacting with). In the case of "SoD is teh suck 'cause I like my character", for example, the problem is clearly not how the character dies, but that the character dies.

In any event, the few SoD effects in the game are easy enough to ignore if you don't want them in the game. How many times, when someone has argued about something they didn't like in the game that you did have you offered that same advice? Just don't use it. It's there for others.

RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

That's an interesting idea. Save, or become a vegetable. It would operate, I take it, pretty much identically to petrification. You're not dead, exactly, but you're out of play until someone comes up with the appropriate spell. Of course, being taken out of play is one of the problems attributed to save-or-die, and to a lesser extent effects like petrification, for which a remedy is often available immediately following combat (Break Enchantment).

Still, it looks like a good compromise. If you're prepared to remedy the conditions that the save-or-"die" spell creates, it seriously hinders you for a short time, but doesn't totally wreck the character. I don't think that's a trivial penalty, but it's not overpowered either. Preparation and foreknowledge are rewarded, and the penalty for failing to prepare is simply an extended duration of the effect--until you can get the spell you need. Characters don't become disposable, but also aren't in danger of dropping dead at any moment.

 

[Mallus]

Not in mine.....

You'll admit that the current edition doesn't really support groups where there's a big difference in PC level, won't you? I've found 3.x all but requires a party to be close in level, unless you deviate significantly from the RAW and the standard adventure design assumptions. And the XP rules are specifically written so that PC's with less XP catch up.

It's seems pretty clear to me that the system itself indicates that PC's should be near to/equal in level.

That indicates that Mallus and Jhulae both dislike save-or-die effects.

Actually, my point was that framing this discussion in terms of D&D 'going soft', and implying there's some sort of 'hardcore' --what I termed USMC-style-- of play is silly.

While its meaningful to talk about the relative difficulty of in-game challenges and the differences in preferred playstyles, the fact is campaign-based D&D is almost always --to borrow a phrase from videogaming-- played with 'unlimited continues'. There are no lasting negative consequences for dying/losing. You just 'respawn', as a different character if your parties under 9th level, and continue playing. And since the game is heavily weighted toward play with relatively equal-leveled PC's, there can't be big material penalties associated w/character death.

BTW, I don't think 'save-or-die' is 'teh suck', but it is bad design... I much prefer 'save-or-deleterious-effect', because those tend to lead to more interesting combats, where players are posed with an evolving sequence of challenges/setbacks they need to overcome, rather than simply 'okay', I need to roll high now or I sit out of the next few hours of the session.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not in mine.....

Core assumptions...deviations from core assumptions...suitability for generalized arguments about the game...etc.

If this is your playstyle, the SoD can still require the use of resources (in 3e anyway), which means that it is at least somewhat relevant. However, it is interesting that one could claim that, on one hand, a thing is irrelevant, while on the other hand it is a problem.

For a resource-drain compromise, see Firelance's post above, and my response to it. The "on one hand...on the other hand..." is illustrating how it is a problem, for different reasons, for different playstyles. So yes, I can claim that it's irrelevent in one situation, which is a problem, and has too large an impact in another situation, which is also a problem, and not contradict myself.

For that style of play, death is unwanted.

That's a strawman. Look at Jhulae's last post. The tension of possible death is appreciated because tension builds as death approaches. If the character in question had instead walked into the room with the monster and dropped dead as a result of one die roll, it would not have provided that kind of tension. As the save-or-die supporters have been saying that fear of death is a tension-provider, and that this is a good thing, I think Jhulae's example there shows the problem with that position. Save-or-die does not provide tension, because there's no lead-in. All save-or-die accomplishes in terms of tension is that it makes the players aware that they might just suddenly drop dead for pretty much no reason, and so they must adjust their standard operating procedure in order to eliminate that eventuality by having a particular spell loadout after reaching a certain level.

Players who are attached to their characters don't necessarily want their characters to survive forever. Quite often, they want them to go down fighting. Save-or-die is pretty much just a rules-enshrined version of "rocks fall, you die."

 

[Raven Crowking]

You'll admit that the current edition doesn't really support groups where there's a big difference in PC level, won't you?

The DMing advice certainly doesn't, but it can be done (depending upon how big a difference, of course). This, BTW, seems to me to be a problem of 3e, related to the inflated power curve, of which some purported "problems" are actually symptoms. IMHO, of course.

Actually, my point was that framing this discussion in terms of D&D 'going soft', and implying there's some sort of 'hardcore' --what I termed USMC-style-- of play is silly.

I would tend to agree, excepting that I think once you get to the "Oh noeses! A rust monster! It ate my sword! How unfair!" level of play, there is a definite difference. When you get "I want to be a hero 24/7" where being a hero means you don't die, and are protected from Very Bad Things happening to you, there is a definite difference. The way the OP worded it might be misleading, but he is correct that there is a paradigm shift among gamers (though I'd put the dividing line clearly in 2e, myself).

We disagree as to whether SoD is bad design, but I do agree with you that "save or effect" is often preferable.

RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

BTW, I don't think 'save-or-die' is 'teh suck'

Admittedly, that was me making embellishments for my own amusement.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a strawman. Look at Jhulae's last post. The tension of possible death is appreciated because tension builds as death approaches. If the character in question had instead walked into the room with the monster and dropped dead as a result of one die roll, it would not have provided that kind of tension.

Not at all. It is either okay for a character to die, or it is not. If it is okay for a character to die, then "I'm attached to the character" isn't the real reason that "SoD is teh suck".

As you suggest above.

What you describe above seems to me more like bad DMing, which no set of rules can erradicate.

IMHO, at least.

RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In any event, the few SoD effects in the game are easy enough to ignore if you don't want them in the game. How many times, when someone has argued about something they didn't like in the game that you did have you offered that same advice? Just don't use it. It's there for others.

RC

On that note, I just finished posting something relevant over in the "What's gold gonna be for" thread, in which I argued that training rules should be an option. In general, I think that there are certain things that are valuable only to specific styles of play that should be included as options, but not built into the core. Training is one, save-or-die spells are another. A sidebar containing instructions for converting certain save-or-damage or save-or-penalty spells into save-or-die spells is all it would take to include them in the game for the people who want them. It is more difficult to remove them than it is to flag certain spells as potential save-or-die spells, due to the way that core spells are included in published materials. For example, if a wizard is printed with Finger of Death, here are two ways to handle it:

First, Finger of Death could be save-or-die, and the DM could come up with some alternate effect or replace the spell.
Second, Finger of Death could have an effect that is replaceable by "or die". This could be true for all [Death] spells, to simplify the system.

The burden on the first DM is greater than the burden on the second. If the majority of players wanted save-or-die effects, there might be a better argument for the first situation, but that does not appear to be the case, evidenced in part by the way that they're removing them from the game. I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that this might be part of the response to player feedback that they're always talking about with respect to 4E design decisions. It appears to me to be evidence that they've seen a consistent negative response to that kind of effect, and so are changing it to suit the majority of players. In that case, it makes sense to stick it in as an optional rule for those who enjoy that style of play from earlier editions.