L&L 3/05 - Save or Die!

[BobTheNob]

One thing I dont like about his idea is that, love or hate em, SOD tended to be a great equalizer. That there was a means by which you could be taken out outside of the HP mechanism. I kinda like when the system has multiple avenues like that.

His way you can avoid the SOD by stacking HP, which is one of the means by which you avoid unconscious...meaning its just a more frustrating way of being taken out of the battle as you wont recover after the fight (without specific resuscitation).

I see where he is coming from and accept his analysis, I dont accept his solution.

 

[Dausuul]

Another thing to keep in mind: The medusa gaze belongs to a small subset of save-or-die effects, the ones where it's important for narrative reasons that a PC subjected to the effect is slain instantly. It feels wrong to have a medusa's gaze slowly petrify. It should happen in a flash, the moment you look at the thing. Likewise, there isn't a way to do "half damage" that fits with the concept. You're either stone, or fine.

But there aren't many effects like this. The only others I can think of offhand are a couple of high-level "insta-kill" spells like disintegrate. Poison should take time; not even the fastest-acting modern nerve agent is lethal in six seconds. Mind control might take effect instantly, but heroes have a long tradition of throwing off mental domination through raw willpower, which opens the possibility for multiple saves over time. Polymorph effects could quite reasonably take several rounds to complete the transformation. (I'm thinking of the "You're all pigs!" scene from "Willow" here.)

As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die. I don't think it's a good idea to try and jam the medusa into the same box as ghouls and poison needle traps.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die.

I think that is true, but it also runs in mulitple directions. When has a D&D version ever had a hammer that it wasn't quite willing, nay eager, to abuse the heck out of? Oh, look when we can use "powers" do X. Let's use them for a whole lot of things that don't work very well, with them, too. Hey, those "feat" things are nifty. Every time we hit some little widget that doesn't fit into the rest of the system, just make it a "feat". "Alignment" divides up some key conflict points well--so let's put more on it than it can carry.

To get people to feel good about SoD (or powers or feats or prestige classes or splat books or niche classes or alignment or huge spell lists or sub races ...), first convince us that there are sharp limits on it, and when something needs to break out of those limits, we'll use something that is a better fit for that thing.

The early guys had an excuse. They were making this stuff up as they went along, and were, if anything, too prone to make up a whole new mechanic for a slightly different thing. So a bit of consolidation on their part, even if occasionally misplaced, can be overlooked. But this later stuff is like some academic relational database designer worried more about the symmetry of his specification diagrams than whether it really works or not.

 

[Sunseeker]

Another thing to keep in mind: The medusa gaze belongs to a small subset of save-or-die effects, the ones where it's important for narrative reasons that a PC subjected to the effect is slain instantly. It feels wrong to have a medusa's gaze slowly petrify. It should happen in a flash, the moment you look at the thing. Likewise, there isn't a way to do "half damage" that fits with the concept. You're either stone, or fine.

I think this could depend on the age and maturity of the Medusa in question. It could be like spiders, where younger ones are more potent because they can't control their powers, and older ones have more control and could perhaps turn part of you to stone, turn you to stone slowly, ect... Or we could put it in reverse, where the powers of younger ones are simply not as potent as their elders and thus may leave you slowly turning to stone or may have only part of you turn to stone, or turn you half-way to stone.

As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die.

I agree, which as I put above, there are plenty of ways to represent the Medusa's "stone gaze" without outrightly making it a save or die. Perhaps an older medusa may delight in the torment of her victims slowly turning to stone, but also retain a 1-2x daily-type ability of making her gaze SOD.

I think variety and mild limitations would go a long way to making SOD more acceptable, potent, and fun.

 

[Dausuul]

The early guys had an excuse. They were making this stuff up as they went along, and were, if anything, too prone to make up a whole new mechanic for a slightly different thing. So a bit of consolidation on their part, even if occasionally misplaced, can be overlooked. But this later stuff is like some academic relational database designer worried more about the symmetry of his specification diagrams than whether it really works or not.

As a software developer who spends a lot of time working with relational databases... you speak the truth, sir.

(Sadly, I need to spread some XP around.)

 

[Kannik]

The problem with save or die is it brings a lot of baggage with it. It assumes that you want a level of lethality and threat that may not jive with your particular playstyle and necessitates easy resurrection.
...
That said, if they did implement something like Mearls is suggesting, I am tentatively receptive, but I almost think that instead of HP threshold, you should use an alternative tracking system.

For example, how about you create an affliction track that works sort of like HP. Whenever a save or die effect comes into play, it does affliction damage instead. Whenever that affliction damage reaches a certain threshold, bad things happen to you. Like turning to stone.

Must spread XP around before... and all that.

I concur with what you're saying. Save or Die may be able to add excitement and tension to the game, but I think it has an equal or greater potential to be anti-climactic or add frustration to the game.

I think the excitement/tension aspects can be handled in much more elegant ways and eliminating the need and downsides of instant death. Effects that occur over time (perhaps with multiple saving throws -- turning to stone gradually with detrimental effects) that allow the party or the player to intervene is much more exciting to me and builds much more drama and tension than "oh, hey, now you're dead." Temporary effects that last until the end of the fight or until the party has a reasonably easy way to return the PC would still be a major blow but are not necessarily instant killers. Things that can do serious (HP) harm in one blow are nasty enough on their own. Thresholds such as Mearls describes might not work that bad either (when a PC is at 1/4 or less of their HP, this can take effect, and so you have to keep your strength up). Any of these would be dangerous and things to avoid, and still leave some avenues open to rectify them if a PC is affected by them (and if the party cannot do what's necessary, then the PC dies).

Then include a module for those who really want to re-create the style of play where you can die, not pass go, and not collect $200.

In some ways it is similar to me as saying "I don't want a DM who railroads me," because you want to choose what your fate is, and to be crafty and think. Let the players choose, be crafty and think as they run across dangerous creatures and traps, even when they've already been hit by it (good hollywood scene of the choice -- do you save the mage from turning to stone or do you fire off a spell that may finish the big bad right now... maybe the mage is screaming to ignore him, or the opposite... ) and I think it would prove to be much more amazing than I-rolled-a-3-and-now-i'm-dead.

peace,

Kannik

 

[KidSnide]

Another thing to keep in mind: The medusa gaze belongs to a small subset of save-or-die effects, the ones where it's important for narrative reasons that a PC subjected to the effect is slain instantly. It feels wrong to have a medusa's gaze slowly petrify. It should happen in a flash, the moment you look at the thing. Likewise, there isn't a way to do "half damage" that fits with the concept. You're either stone, or fine.
...
As I said above, I think there's an issue of Hammer-Dependent Nail Observation Syndrome here. Just because an effect has historically been represented as save-or-die, doesn't mean it should use the same mechanic as every other effect that has historically been save-or-die. I don't think it's a good idea to try and jam the medusa into the same box as ghouls and poison needle traps.

The early guys had an excuse. They were making this stuff up as they went along, and were, if anything, too prone to make up a whole new mechanic for a slightly different thing. So a bit of consolidation on their part, even if occasionally misplaced, can be overlooked. But this later stuff is like some academic relational database designer worried more about the symmetry of his specification diagrams than whether it really works or not.

Agreed, as to both sentiments.

Each monster is somewhat like its own sub-system, and it's alright if different monsters use different systems to replace save-or-die. Some monsters can use a hit point threshold. Other monsters can use a multiple-saves mechanic. Other monsters might use a save-or-die, where the circumstances under which the monster can apply its save-or-die effect is something that the PCs can control. (Arguably, gaze monsters are good candidates for this last treatment: save-or-die if you look; alternate suckage if you don't) And, maybe some just use save-or-die.

Demanding that save-or-die be consistency replaced with the same mechanic is just the sort of foolish consistency that D&D should avoid.

-KS

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Effects that occur over time (perhaps with multiple saving throws -- turning to stone gradually with detrimental effects) that allow the party or the player to intervene is much more exciting to me and builds much more drama and tension than "oh, hey, now you're dead."

That just seems boring. "Oh look, a medusa, who cares I have to fail 3 saves to turn to stone. There is no tension until 2 saves are failed. Only minor annoyances such as -2 to hit or whatever, which is not much different than the medusa having leather armor on, or having precast a prayer spell or what have you.

Looking at a medusa with sod present presents an "oh crap" moment as the die bounces across the table, hoping for a good roll. Even high level characters crap their pants, because all 20 sided dies have ones on them.

 

[Mark CMG]

Retreat is sometimes possible in certain combats. But I think that almost anything with a save-or-die effect is going to be very much a "win-or-die" fight.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to TPKs, my young Padawan. You could just as easily describe a situation where you manage the task, since you are making it up anyway, but a defeatist mindset isn't going to allow it, I suppose. In any event, sometimes "defeat" is part of the game and I'm not one to believe that padding all the sharp corners makes the game any more inherently fun. I'm fine with the idea of including some advice for those who think their group needs a less dangerous game but it need not be built into the core for my tastes.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I find it unfortunate that all discussions of save or die effects end up revolving around the Medusa. I'll address that quickly and move on. There are two creatures being discussed, the Medusa and a medusa (much like the Pegasus and a pegasus).

The Medusa is a singular creature of legend. In that legend, her gaze kills every time without question. For those who want this creature in a campaign setting, there is no need for any save or die rules. Characters that gaze into Medusa's eyes die. Whether this is fair or not is dependent on how the DM provides information and runs the encounter.

A medusa is a creature that is conceptually based on the Medusa, but is already different simply by not being the only one. I have no problem whatsoever with having a separate monster using more restrictive save or die rules. To be fair, though, we should probably give it a somewhat different name, like Medusa-kin or the like.

Include a nice sidebar describing the historical myth of Medusa and how to use it in a game.

For other creatures, such as the Basilisk or Cockatrice, I think the proposed system might work well. It can work well for spells as well.

Though how those spells and abilities are presented matter. The effects of all save-or-die abilities should always start with a lesser ability, and then have the save-or-die effect be dependent on hit points. For example, Disintegrate starts by describing the damage it deals, then goes on to say that creatures below a certain number of hit points must save or die.

The order of presentation matters. These are not powerful death effects with token abilities on a miss. These are powerful attacks with the potential for a save-or-die effect. Closely sticking with this design philosophy will make for a more satisfying experience.