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

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

While I don't quite agree with you on which is easier, removal or addition, I actually agree with you on the advantage to handle one of the alternatives as an optional side-ruleset. Which would be easier in the end, having a sidebar that suggests changing a few spells to a death effect, or a sidebar that lists them and simply tells a DM to scratch them from official spell lists of NPCs, that's probably up to execution. Judging from the trend 3.0 -> 3.5, I'd guess they'll take the effects out completely, so putting them back in via sidebars would be the choice of method, I suppose.

 

[Remathilis]

1e (for example, and IME) was designed to easily allow 1st level replacement characters to be used with even mid-to-high level parties (6th to 14th). And, again IME, while such characters didn't throw the system out of whack, the differences in level were certainly noticeable by the players.

We (during 2e) had a name for the 1st level PC amongst 15th level PCs: Useless XP sponge. You contribute nothing in combat yet you take a whole share of our XP and treasure. So unless the GM was generous and allowed you to advance more than one level at a time, you generally where more a liability than an asset until you got to around 2-3 levels of the rest of the group.

Then again, YMMV

 

[pemerton]

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".

It might be that, due to a player's attachment to his/her character, s/he may not want that character to die in a particular way - a way which is perceived as meaningless, random and not a result of the player's choices.

The suggestion is actually, "I'm attached to the character, and therefore I don't want it to be killed arbitrarily and without any ability on my part to respond to the lethal threat."

Exactly.

 

[Jhulae]

The suggestion is actually, "I'm attached to the character, and therefore I don't want it to be killed arbitrarily and without any ability on my part to respond to the lethal threat."

I'll even expand on this a little by adding "or my party's part" after "on my part".

In the same combat I mentioned a few posts back, another party member was paralyzed with fear within the monster's area and couldn't move at all. Since we'd seen what the monster could do to someone with tons of HP already (the cleric who went down to 3 HP) and saw what it was doing to someone with *lots* more HP currently (a Barbarian with 180 HP when raging, who was down to below 20 HP after only a few rounds), it was, again, *very* tense for the whole party because we knew we had to do *something* to rescue the paralyzed character.

If his character failed a save versus a SoD effect, and was therefore dead, there would have been no tension to rescue him at all.

 

[Betote]

I like SoD effects (and yes, I'm usually the DM ), although we use a "last second salvation" rule: when a PC is affected by something that would kill him, if its effects are negated (via magical healing, dispel magic, etc) before that PC's next turn, he is not dead.

 

[DandD]

So this means that you don't actually like the Save-or-die-effect rules as they are written? Perfect.

 

[Betote]

So this means that you don't actually like the Save-or-die-effect rules as they are written? Perfect.

That's pretty much it. I like the concept of things that could instant-kill a character (SoDs, 20-20-Crits, masssive damage...). I also want the PCs to be able to control their own destiny.

So, my option would be to leave SoD as it is, and add a "safeguard" system as my own Last Second Rule, Action Points or HackMaster's Honor Burning.

 

[Lanefan]

On the subject of the paradigm shift in player expectations, I'm not entirely sold on it, mainly because it doesn't line up with my anecdotal evidence... but if it is a widespread phenomenon, perhaps it's related to the 'graying' on the D&D community. Gamers having less time for fewer campaigns would neatly explain the desire for '24/7' death-immune heroes that level rapidly, to boot.

We-ell, as someone who is now *considerably* grayer than when he started playing this game, I can quite happily say I am not a part of any such shift. I want my campaigns to go on for years. I expect characters to die - and-or lose levels, and-or lose their stuff - now and then, as an accepted part of the game. I don't want or need to level up every other session...I prefer to get used to what a character can do at a given level...as long as there's slow steady overall advancement of the party average that's fine with me.

From my own experience, it's the younger players who prefer shorter campaigns and more frequent levelling.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

From my own experience, it's the younger players who prefer shorter campaigns and more frequent levelling.

I think there's also a small number of older (30+) gamers like me and the other members of my gaming group who find that work, family and other commitments are starting to eat into gaming time. As a result of this, we are unable to meet more than once or twice a month and thus also prefer shorter campaigns and quicker levelling.

 

[Lanefan]

1e (for example, and IME) was designed to easily allow 1st level replacement characters to be used with even mid-to-high level parties (6th to 14th). And, again IME, while such characters didn't throw the system out of whack, the differences in level were certainly noticeable by the players.

I'm not sure even 1e can handle *that* big of a level difference in any useful way, particularly if it's just one low-level character in a higher-level group. Example, if a 6-character party has levels 9-8-6-5-3-2 (one of my old campaigns got frighteningly close to this) the '2' has a much better survival chance than if the levels are 8-8-8-8-8-2, even though the second group technically has a smaller range (2-8 vs. 2-9). I usually bring new PCs in at about 1 level below the party average.

That said, I far prefer the 1e loss of a Con. point on revival than the 3e loss of a level.

Lanefan